Next Article in Journal
Determination of Adequate Substrate Water Content for Mass Production of a High Value-Added Medicinal Plant, Crepidiastrum denticulatum (Houtt.) Pak & Kawano
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Pterocladia capillacea Seaweed Extracts on Growth Parameters and Biochemical Constituents of Jew’s Mallow
Previous Article in Journal
Fidelity of Sugarcane Crosses Assessed with SSR Markers
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Use of a Plant-Based Biostimulant Improves Plant Performances and Fruit Quality in Tomato Plants Grown at Elevated Temperatures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy10030387
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants

by
Wanda Wadas
1,* and
Tomasz Dziugieł
2
1
Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, Faculty of Agrobioengineering and Animal Husbandry, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, B. Prusa 14, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
2
Main Inspectorate of Plant Health and Seed Inspection, Voivodeship Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service, Żółkiewskiego 17, 05-075 Warszawa-Wesoła, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(3), 387; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030387
Submission received: 7 February 2020 / Revised: 1 March 2020 / Accepted: 10 March 2020 / Published: 12 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Toward a Sustainable Agriculture Through Plant Biostimulants: From Experimental Data to Practical Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper analyses the effects of foliar application of the seaweed extracts Bio-algeen S90 (Ascophyllum nodosum) and Kelpak SL (Ecklonia maxima), as well as the humic and fulvic acids ini HumiPlant (leonardite extract), on the assimilation area and chlorophyll content of very early potato cultivars (‘Denar’, ‘Lord’, Miłek’). The field experiment was carried out in central-eastern Poland over three growing seasons, using Luvisol. The biostimulants were applied according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. The use of biostimulants resulted in enlargement of the assimilation area, but had no effect on the specific leaf area (SLA) or chlorophyll content (Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) value). The assimilation area was larger, on average, by 0.0505 m2 and leaf area index (LAI) was higher by 0.30 compared with the plants from the control group without a biostimulant. The SLA and SPAD depend on the cultivar and weather conditions, or nitrogen and magnesium content in soil, to a greater extent. The biostimulants enhanced abiotic stress tolerance and increased marketable tuber yield (diameter above 30 mm) 75 days after planting (the end of June), on average by 2.15 t·ha−1. Bio-algeen S90 and Keplak SL produced better results in a warm and very wet growing season, whereas HumiPlant produced better results in a year with lower air temperature and with drought periods during potato growth. No correlations were found between the tuber yield and assimilation area or between the tuber yield and SPAD value, although a significant negative correlation was found between the tuber yield and SLA.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the growth and productivity of crop plants have been greatly influenced by abiotic stresses. Periods of high temperature and drought are becoming more frequent in regions with extensively crop production, such as Central Europe, South-Central Asia, south-eastern South America and the south-eastern United States [1]. Under climate change conditions, biostimulants play an important role in sustainable crop production. These natural products (seaweed extracts, humic substances, hydrolysed proteins, and amino acids containing products or microorganism) contain a bioactive substance which enhances nutrition efficiency, abiotic stress tolerance, and/or crop quality traits, regardless of its nutrients content [2,3,4,5]. In recent years, the use of seaweed extracts and humic substances as plant growth stimulants has been increasing. Seaweed extracts and humic acids can promote plant growth, enhance abiotic stress tolerance as well as increase nutrient use efficiency [6,7,8,9,10].
Many plant growth-stimulating compounds (auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, betaines, polysaccharides, polyamines, abscisic acids, brassinosteroids, and minerals) have been identified from seaweed. The chemical composition of seaweed extracts depends on the algae species and on the method of extraction. Brown algae (Phaeophyta) are most commonly used for the manufacture of extracts used as biostimulants of plant growth, including Ascophyllum nodosum and Ecklonia maxima [7,8,11]. An increase in leaf area and chlorophyll content are common plant responses to seaweed extract treatment. Cytokinins present in the seaweed extracts stimulate cell division, resulting in enlarged leaf area, and also stimulate chlorophyll biosynthesis, whereas betaines slow chlorophyll degradation and delay leaf senescence [7,8]. Ascophyllum nodosum extracts applied on foliage or to soil caused an increase in the leaf chlorophyll content of French bean, tomato, barley, maize, wheat, pepper, and strawberry [8,11,12]. A one-year study carried out in Iraq showed an increase in chlorophyll content in potato following the application of brown seaweed Sargassum extracts [13]. Foliar application of seaweed extracts Ascophyllum nodosum and Ecklonia maxima increased potato yield [14,15,16]. Biostimulants based on seaweed extracts improved plant growth and yield of wheat, barley, maize, potato, tomato, pepper, onion, and carrot [7,8,10,11].
The biological activity of humic substances depends on their source, chemical structure, and concentration. Humic substances may influence both respiration and photosynthesis. One of the effects of humic substances applied to growing plants was an increase in chlorophyll content, which can affect photosynthesis [17]. Leonardite is the most common commercial source of humic substances. Leonardite humic acids stimulate melon and soybean growth and chlorophyll synthesis [6]. A one-year study carried out in Iraq showed an increase in chlorophyll content in potato following the application of humic and fulvic acids in HumiMax [13]. A one-year study carried out in Egypt showed that the application of humic acid under water stress conditions enhanced the leaf chlorophyll content of very early potato cultivars [18]. Application of humic substances originating from leonardite increased potato yield and nutrient uptake [19]. In most experiments, foliar or soil application of humic and fulvic acids increased potato yield [13,20,21], but one study showed no clear effect of humic and fulvic acids on the potato yield [22]. Humic and fulvic acids improved plant growth and yield quality of wheat, maize, tomato, pepper and cucumber [2,22,23,24]. The effect of humic acids on plant growth depends of their source and concentration, and on the date and method (foliar or soil) of application, as well as the plant species and environmental conditions [9,17].
There is a relationship between leaf chlorophyll content and Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) index [25]. Leaf SPAD values is related to nutrient plant status, especially nitrogen [26,27]. There was a relationship found between SPAD value and potato yield. A higher SPAD does not always guarantee a higher potato yield [28,29,30,31]. Plant-based biostimulants increased SPAD index and marketable yield of tomato and rocket [32,33,34].
To date, few studies have been focused on the effect of seaweed extract and humic acid application in early crop potato culture. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of foliar application of brown seaweed extracts and humic acids on the asssimilation area and chlorophyll content of very early potato cultivars. In the current study, it was hypothesised that seaweed extracts and humic acids could contribute to increasing assimilation area and chlorophyll content and, as a result, increase the early crop potato yield. The assumption was also made that the response to the application of these biostimulants depends on the cultivar and environmental conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Season

The study was carried out in central-eastern Poland (52°03′N, 22°33′E), over three growing season 2012–2014, on Luvisol with a low total nitrogen content, a high content of available phosphorus, a medium-to-high content of potassium and a low-to-medium content of magnesium, with an acidic-to-slightly-acid reaction. Spring triticale was grown as a potato forecrop. Farmyard manure was applied in autumn, at rate of 25 t·ha−1, and mineral fertilizers were applied at rates of 80 kg N (ammonium nitrate), 35 kg P (superphosphate) and 100 kg K (potassium sulphate) per hectare in spring. Potato cultivation was carried out according to common agronomical practice.
The thermal and moisture conditions during the potato growth period were different (Table 1). The mean air temperatures were above or similar to the long-term average. In 2012, total precipitation was similar and, in 2013 and 2014, above the long-term average, although it was unevenly distributed during the potato growth period. The most favourable hydrothermal conditions for early crop potato culture were in the warm and moderately wet growing season of 2012. The next year, 2013 was warm and with heavy rainfall, whereas 2014 was cool with heavy rainfall after plant emergence and a drought in the period of tuber growth.

2.2. Plant Material and Experimental Design

The field experiment was established in a split-plot design with three replications. The experimental factors were: (1) plant biostimulant; and (2) cultivar. The potato plants were treated with three biostimulants: Bio-algeen S90 and Keplak SL containing seaweed extracts, and HumiPlant based on humic and fulvic acids. Bio-algeen S90 is an extract from Ascophyllum nodosum which contains amino acids, vitamins, alginic acids and other active components of seaweeds, as well as macronutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg) and micronutrients (B, Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, Se, Co). Kelpak SL is an extract from Ecklonia maxima containing auxin (11 mg·dm–3) and cytokinin (0.031 mg·dm–3). HumiPlant is an extract from leonardite which contains humic acid (12%) and fulvic acid (6%) as well as macronutrients (K, Ca, Mg, S) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn, B, Mo, Zn, Cu). The biostimulants were applied according to the manufacturers’ recommendations: Bio-algeen S90–2 dm3·ha−1 at the beginning of leaf development stage (BBCH 10–11) and 2 dm3·ha−1 two weeks after the first treatment, Kelpak SL–2 dm3·ha−1 at the leaf development stage (BBCH 14–16) and 2 dm3·ha−1 two weeks after the first treatment, HumiPlant–2 dm3·ha−1 at the leaf development stage (BBCH 14–16) and 2 dm3·ha−1 one week after the first treatment. Potato plants sprayed with water were used as a control without a biostimulant.
The most popular very early potato cultivars (Denar, Lord and Miłek) in the research area were grown. In successive years, 6-weeks pre-sprouted seed potatoes were planted on April 12, April 18 and April 7 with a row spacing of 0.25 m and 0.675 m between rows. The plots were six rows wide and 4 m long (96 plants per plot). Potatoes were harvested 75 days after planting (the end of June).

2.3. Determination of Assimilation Area, Chlorophyll Content and Tuber Yield

At the tuber formation stage (BBCH 41–43), the assimilation area, leaf area index (LAI), specific leaf area (SLA), and chlorophyll content (SPAD value) were determined. The measurements were made on four successive randomized plants per plot. The assimilation area was measured by the weight method [36]. SLA was calculated as the ratio of assimilation area/weight of leaves [37].
The chlorophyll content was estimated with non-destructive methods using a portable SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Minolta, Osaka, Japan). The measurements were made on the youngest fully expanded leaf, i.e., the fourth or fifth leaf from the top.
The total and marketable tuber yield were determined. The marketable tuber yield constituted tubers with a transverse diameter above 30 mm, excluding cracked and deformed tubers. The marketable tuber yield was determined on the basis of the total tuber yield of ten successive plants per plot using a hand calibrator with a square hole.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The results of the study were analysed statistically with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the split-pot design. The significance of differences between the compared averages was verified using Tukey’s test at the significance level p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Assimilation Area

The effect of biostimulants on the assimilation area depended on the weather conditions during potato growth (Table 2). In the year with the highest air temperature and heavy rainfall after plant emergence (2013), the greatest enlargement of the assimilation area was caused by Kelpak SL, whereas in the year with the lowest air temperature and heavy rainfall after plant emergence (2014), the greatest enlargement of assimilation area was caused by Bio-algeen S90. The assimilation areas were larger, on average, by 0.0624 m2 (11.5%) and 0.0941 m2 (10%) respectively, and the leaf area index (LAI) was higher by 0.37 and 0.56 compared with the plants from the control group without a biostimulant. Regardless of the biostimulant applied, the assimilation area was largest in the year with the highest air temperature and moderate rainfall at the end of May (Table 3).
The potato cultivars tested showed different responses to the biostimulants applied (Table 2). The type of biostimulant had a greatest effect on the assimilation area of the ‘Lord’ cultivar. The greatest enlargement of the assimilation area of ‘Lord’ was caused by Bio-algen S90. Following the application of this biostimulant, the assimilation area of ‘Lord’ was larger, on average, by 0.1583 m2 (24.5%) and the LAI value was higher by 0.94 compared with the plants from the control without biostimulant. The differences were highest in the year with a low air temperature and heavy rainfall after the plant emergence (2014). Despite the biostimulant applied, the assimilation area was higher for ‘Miłek’ than for ‘Denar’ and ‘Lord’ (Table 3).
Only in a warm and moderately wet growing season (2012), following application of Bio-algeen S90 and HumiPlant, was the specific leaf area (SLA) higher, on average, by 0.29 m2·kg−1 compared with the plants from the control group without biostimulant (Table 2). With the use of Kelpak SL, the difference was smaller and not statistically confirmed. The SLA depended to a greater extent on the weather conditions during potato growth. Irrespective of the treatment (with or without biostimulant), the SLA was highest in the year with the highest air temperature and heavy rainfall after plant emergence (Table 3). The type of biostimulant and cultivar interaction effect on SLA was not statistically confirmed (Table 2). Regardless of the treatment, the SLA values of the potato tested cultivars were similar (Table 3).

3.2. Chlorophyll Content (SPAD Value)

The biostimulants used in the experiment had no significant effect on the chlorophyll content in leaves (Figure 1). The SPAD value depended to a greater extent on the cultivar and weather or soil conditions during potato growth. Irrespective of the treatment (with or without biostimulant), the SPAD values were higher for ‘Denar’ and ‘Lord’ than ‘Miłek’. The SPAD was highest in the warm and wet growing season (2013) and, at the same time, the highest content of total nitrogen and available magnesium in soil (Figure 2).

3.3. Relationship between Tuber Yield, Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content (SPAD Value)

The biostimulants used in the experiment had no effect on the weight of leaves [38], but caused enlargement of the assimilation area (Table 4). Over the three years of the study, the assimilation area was larger, on average, by 0.0505 m2 (7%) and the LAI was higher by 0.30 compared with the plants from the control group without a biostimulant. The biostimulants had no significant effect on the SLA and SPAD (Figure 1).
The biostimulants used in the experiment had a significant effect on the tuber yield [38]. The yield-increasing effects of biostimulants were comparable (Table 5). In the three years of the study, the total tuber yield was higher, on average, by 2.64 t·ha−1 (7.7%) and marketable tuber yield (diameter above 30 mm) by 2.15 t·ha−1 (6.5%). The yield-increasing effect of biostimulants depended on weather conditions during the potato growing season. Bio-algeen S90 and Kelpak SL caused the highest increase in tuber yield in the warm and very wet growing season (2013), and HumiPlant in the year with a low air temperature and a drought in the period of tuber growth (2014).
The tuber yield was not significantly correlated with the weight and assimilation leaf area or LAI (Table 6). A significant negative correlation was found between the marketable tuber yield and SLA. No significant correlation was found between the marketable tuber yield and SPAD value.

3.4. Effect of Experimental Factors on Assimilation Area, Chlorophyll Content and Tuber Yield

The effect of the experimental factors and their interactions on potato assimilation area and chlorophyll content (SPAD value) are presented in Table 7.

4. Discussion

In sustainable crop production, biostimulants play an important role in improving plant growth and crop quality. Assimilation area and chlorophyll content are important parameters of assessment plant growth. The biostimulants used in the experiment caused enlargement of assimilation area, but had no effect on the chlorophyll content (SPAD value) in leaves of very early potato cultivars. SPAD value depended on the cultivar and weather or soil conditions to a greater extent. The effect of foliar application of seaweed extracts on potato assimilation area was comparable to humic and fulvic acids. In the three years of the study, following biostimulant application, the average leaf area index (LAI) was 4.64, being higher by 0.30 compared to the average for the untreated control group. Potato cultivars showed different responses to the applied biostimulants. Studies have shown the highest light absorption efficiency values at the LAI value of 3, which corresponded to maximum ground cover. If potato LAI exceeds 3, the intercepted photosynthetically active radiation value changes very little [39,40]. According to Howlader and Hoque [41], irrespective of potato cultivars, LAI increased progressively over time, reaching a peak at 60 days after planting and thereafter declining. The rate of assimilation area expansion showed the interaction between genotype and environment and varied by year [42], which was confirmed in the present study. The effect of seaweed extracts on potato assimilation area depended on the weather conditions after plant emergence. In the year with the highest air temperature and heavy rainfall after plant emergence, the assimilation area was larger after the application of Kelpak SL (Ecklonia maxima), whereas in the year with the lowest air temperature and with heavy rainfall after plant emergence, the assimilation area was larger after the application of Bio-algeen S90 (Ascophyllum nodosum). Potato plants are very sensitive to heat stress. In general, heat stress increases plant height, reduces leaf size, increases leaf chlorophyll content, and severely reduces tuber mass [43]. Kelpak SL contains auxins and cytokinins in a ratio of 350/1. Exogenous auxin plays an important role in plant stress resistance. The action of auxin depends on its concentration, the light conditions and carbohydrate content in the plant [44]. Exogenous cytokinins also play an important role in plant adaptation to environmental stresses [45]. Cytokinins present in the seaweed extracts stimulate cell division, resulting in enlarged leaf area [7,8], which was confirmed in the present study.
The leaf area index describes the growth of lowland fields, whereas the growth of individual plants is characterized by the specific leaf area (SLA). Biostimulants caused enlargement of the assimilation area, but had no effect on the SLA. The SLA for potato depends on the cultivar and growth stage, and temperature [42], which was confirmed in the present study. Early foliar expansion of potato is associated with a strong increase in SLA [41].
Foliar or soil application of Ascophyllum nodosum extracts caused an increase in the chlorophyll content of some agriculture (barley, wheat, maize) and horticulture (French bean, tomato, pepper, strawberry) plants [8,11,12], which was not confirmed in the present study. A study carried out in Egypt showed that the application of humic acid under water stress conditions enhanced the chlorophyll content of very early potato ‘Spunta’ grown on sandy soil [18], which was not confirmed in the present study with very early potato cultivars grown on loamy soil (Luvisol). A one-year study carried out in Iraq showed that foliar application of humic and fulvic acids caused an increase in the chlorophyll content of medium-early potato cultivar [13]. The effect of humic acids depends on their source and concentration, and on the date and method of application, as well as the plant species and cultivar [9]. The increase in chlorophyll alone does not necessarily result in higher yields [17,26].
The biostimulants used in the experiment enhanced tolerance to abiotic stress and improved crop quality. In the three years of the study, the marketable tuber yield (diameter above 30 mm) was higher, on average, by 2.15 t·ha−1. Bio-algeen S90 and Keplak SL containing seaweed extracts produced better results in a warm and very wet growing season, whereas HumiPlant based on humic and fulvic acids produced better results in a year with lower air temperature and with drought periods during potato growth.
A correlation between the tuber yield and assimilation area was not found. Li et al. [46] found a significant positive correlation between LAI and tuber yield, which suggests that the enlargement of leaf area could enhance the export of photosynthetic products and cause an increase in tuber yield. According to Ascione et al. [47], the tuber growth rate is only slightly correlated with LAI, and still less so with SLA, which was not confirmed in the present study. A significant negative correlation was found between the total and marketable (diameter above 30 mm) tuber yield and SLA.
No correlation was found between the tuber yield of three very early potato cultivars and SPAD value measured on the fourth or fifth leaf from the top at the tuber formation stage (BBCH 41-43), which suggest that the biostimulants used in the experiment had no effect on the plant nitrogen status. Bărăscu et al. [30] found a significant negative correlation between SPAD measured on the fourth and fifth leaves from the top and the tuber weight of two mid-early potato cultivars, which could have been associated with oxidative stress [29]. SPAD index as an indicator of crop nitrogen status may be used for the prediction of the potato yield, however a higher SPAD does not always guarantee a higher tuber yield [26,28,31]. SPAD value is a useful indicator for selecting the high yield cultivars in the early period, however, no single threshold leaf SPAD value can be used for all potato cultivars. The SPAD value can predict the level of tuber yield if the value is calibrated for a particular potato cultivar [28,31]. Establishing threshold SPAD value is quite difficult due to the influence of climate and technical factors. SPAD values can be affected by leaf age and position, as well as, time of the day [26,27]. As a rule SPAD measurements are carried out on the third-fifth leaf from the top. Recently it was demonstrated that there is a significance difference in SPAD values between the upper and lower leaves among potato cultivars. It was shown that cultivar affects the SPAD values of the fourth and eighth leaf, but does not affect SPAD value of the fourth-eighth leaves and the difference between SPAD of the fourth and eighth leaf. Therefore the SPAD values of the fourth-eighth leaves could be applied as a general index of nitrogen status across different potato cultivars [27].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the foliar application of seaweed extracts Ascophyllum nodosum (Bio-algeen S90) and Ecklonia maxima (Kelpak SL), as well as humic and fulvic acids from leonardite (HumiPlant), resulted in enlargement of the assimilation area of very early potato cultivars, but had no effect on the SLA or chlorophyll content (SPAD value). The assimilation area was larger, on average, by 0.0505 m2 (7%), and LAI was higher by 0.30 compared with the plants from the control group without a biostimulant. The SLA and SPAD depend on the cultivar and weather conditions, or nitrogen and magnesium content, in soil to a greater extent. These biostimulants enhanced abiotic stress tolerance and increased marketable tuber yield (diameter above 30 mm) 75 days after planting (the end of June), on average, by 2.15 t·ha−1. Bio-algeen S90 and Keplak SL containing seaweed extracts produced better results in a warm and very wet growing season, whereas HumiPlant based on humic and fulvic acids produced better results in a year with lower air temperature and with drought periods during potato growth. No correlation was found between the tuber yield and assimilation area or between the tuber yield and SPAD value, although a significant negative correlation was found between the tuber yield and SLA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.W. and T.D.; methodology and formal analysis, W.W.; investigation, W.W. and T.D.; writing—original draft preparation, W.W. and T.D.; writing—review and editing, W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed from the science grant granted by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, research theme number 218/05/S.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carrão, H.; Naumann, G.; Barbosa, P. Mapping global patterns of drought risk: An empirical framework based on sub-national estimates of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Calvo, P.; Nelson, L.; Kloepper, J.W. Agricultural uses of plant biostimulans. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. du Jardin, P. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept. main categories and regulation. Sci. Hort. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Van Oosten, M.J.; Pepe, O.; De Pascale, S.; Silletti, S.; Maggio, A. The role of biostimulants and bioeffectors as alleviators of abiotic stress in crop plants. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bulgari, R.; Franzoni, G.; Ferrante, A. Biostimulants application in horticultural crops under abiotic stress conditions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Chen, Y.; Clapp, C.E.; Magen, H. Mechanism of plant growth stimulation by humic substances: The role of organo-iron complex. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2004, 50, 1089–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khan, W.; Rayirath, U.P.; Subramanian, S.; Jithesh, M.N.; Rayorath, P.; Hodges, D.M.; Critchley, A.T.; Craige, J.S.; Norrie, J.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants of plant growth and development. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2009, 28, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sharma, H.S.S.; Fleming, C.; Selby, C.; Rao, J.R.; Martin, T. Plant biostimulants: A review on the processing of macroalgae and use of extracts for crop management to reduce abiotic and biotic stresses. J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 465–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; Jones, D.L.; Nebbioso, N.; Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A. Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hort. 2015, 196, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Begum, M.; Bordoloi, B.C.; Singha, D.D.; Ojha, N.J. Role of seaweed extract on growth, yield and quality of some agricultural crops: A review. Agric. Rev. 2018, 39, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Battacharyya, D.; Babgohari, M.Z.; Rathor, P.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hort. 2015, 196, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shukla, P.S.; Manti, E.G.; Adil, M.; Bajpai, S.; Critchley, A.T.; Prithiviraj, B. Ascophyllum nodosum—Based biostimulants: Sustainable applications in agriculture for the stimulation of plant growth, stress tolerance, and disease management. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Sarhan, T.Z. Effect of humic acid and seaweed extracts on growth and yield of potato plant (Solanum tuberosum L.) Desiree cv. Mesop. J. Agric. 2011, 39, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yanbo, X. Effect of bio-stimulant Kelpak on potato yield. Chin. Potato J. 2008, 22, 134–136. [Google Scholar]
  15. Haider, M.W.; Ayyub, C.M.; Pervez, M.A.; Asad, H.U.; Manan, A.; Raza, S.A.; Ashraf, I. Impact of foliar application of seaweed extract on growth, yield and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Soil Environ. 2012, 31, 157–162. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wierzbowska, J.; Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Głosek-Sobieraj, M.; Sienkiewicz, S. Effect of biostimulators on yield and selected chemical properties of potato. J. Elem. 2015, 20, 575–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nardi, S.; Pizzeghello, D.; Muscolo, A.; Vianello, A. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1527–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Selim, E.M.; Shedeed, S.I.; Asaad, F.F.; El-Neklawy, A.S. Interactive effect of humic acid and water stress on chlorophyll and mineral nutrient contents of potato plants. J. App. Sci. Res. 2012, 8, 531–537. [Google Scholar]
  19. Verlinden, G.; Pycke, J.; Mertens, J.; Debersaques, F.; Verheyen, K.; Baert, G.; Bries, J.; Haesaert, G. Application of humic substances results in consistent increase in crop yield and nutrient uptake. J. Plant Nutr. 2009, 32, 1407–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alenazi, M.; Wahb-Allah, M.A.; Abdel-Razzak, H.S.; Ibrahim, A.A.; Alsadon, A. Water regimes and humic acid application influences potato growth, yield, tuber quality and water use efficiency. Am. J. Potato Res. 2016, 93, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, C.; He, S.; Huang, Y.; Yang, H.; Wang, M.; Liu, L.; Tang, M. Effect of fulvic acid on agronomic traits and yield of autumn potato. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 18, 1448–1451. [Google Scholar]
  22. Suh, H.Y.; Yoo, K.S.; Suh, S.G. Effect of foliar application of fulvic acid on plant growth and fruit quality of tomato (Lycoporsicon esculentum L.). Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 2014, 55, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karakurt, Y.; Unlu, H.; Unlu, H.; Padem, H. The influence of foliar and soli fertilization of humic acid on yield and quality of pepper. Acta Agric. Scand. B-PS 2009, 59, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ozdamar Unlu, H.; Unlu, H.; Karakurt, Y.; Padem, H. Change in fruit yield and quality in response to foliar and soil humic acid application in cucumber. Sci. Res. Essays 2011, 6, 2800–2803. [Google Scholar]
  25. Udding, J.; Gelang-Alfredsson, G.; Piikkki, K. Evaluating the relationship between leaf chlorophyll concentration and SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter readings. Photosynth. Res. 2007, 91, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gianquinto, G.; Goffart, J.P.; Olivier, M.; Guarda, G.; Colauzzi, M.; Dalla Costa, L.; Delle Vedove, G.; Vos, J.; Mackerron, D.K.L. The use of hand-held chlorophyll meters as a tool to assess the nitrogen status and guide nitrogen fertilization of potato crop. Potato Res. 2004, 47, 35–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, R.; Chen, J.; Qin, Y.; Fan, M. Possibility of using a SPAD chlorophyll meter to establish a normalized threshold index of nitrogen status in different potato cultivars. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 834–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Su, Y.; Guo, H.; Chen, Y. Relationship between SPAD readings chlorophyll contents and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 4, 690–693. [Google Scholar]
  29. Raminez, D.A.; Yactayo, W.; Gutiérrez, R.; Mares, V.; De Mendiburu, F.; Posadas, A.; Quiroz, R. Chlorophyll concentration in leaves is an indicator of potato tuber yield in water-shortage conditions. Sci. Hort. 2014, 168, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bărăscu, N.; Duda, M.M.; Olteanu, G. Study of dynamics SPAD and NDVI values of potato plants according to the differentiated fertilization. Bull. UASVM Agric. 2016, 73, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Dvořák, P.; Král, M. Effect of organic mulching on soil water potential and SPAD values as factors on yield of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.). Tarim Bilim. Derg. 2019, 25, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Caruso, G.; De Pascale, S.; Cozzolino, E.; Cuciniello, A.; Cenvinzo, V.; Bonini, P.; Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y. Yield and nutrition quality of vesuvian piennolo tomato PDO as affected by farming system and biostimulant application. Agronomy 2019, 9, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Dima, S.-O.; Neamtu, C.; Desliu-Avram, M.; Ghiurea, M.; Capra, L.; Radu, E.; Stoica, R.; Faraon, V.-A.; Zamfiropol-Cristea, V.; Constantinescu-Aruxandei, D.; et al. Plant biostimulant effects of baker’s yeast vinasse and seleniu on tomatoes through foliar fertilization. Agronomy 2020, 10, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Di Mola, I.; Ottaiano, L.; Cozzolino, E.; Senatore, M.; Giordano, M.; El-Nakhel, C.; Sacco, A.; Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Mori, M. Plant-based biostimulants influence the agronomical, physiological, and qualitative responses of baby rocket leaves under diverse nitrogen conditions. Plants 2019, 8, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Skowera, B. Changes of hydrothermal conditions in the Polish area (1971–2010). Fragm. Agron. 2014, 31, 74–87. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  36. Wadas, W.; Kalinowski, K. Effect of titanium on assimilation leaf area and chlorophyll content of very early-maturing potato cultivars. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2017, 16, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pietkiewicz, S. An indicator-based analysis of plant growth. Wiad. Bot. 1985, 29, 29–42. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  38. Wadas, W.; Dziugieł, T. Growth and marketable potato (Solanum tuberosum L) tuber yield in response to foliar application of seaweed extract and humic acids. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 6, 13219–13230. [Google Scholar]
  39. de la Casa, A.; Ovando, G.; Bressanini, L.; Martinez, J.; Rodriguez, A. Radiation use efficiency in potato crop estimated from the foliage coverage. Agriscientia 2011, 28, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Camargo, D.C.; Montoya, F.; Moreno, M.A.; Ortega, J.F.; Córcoles, J.I. Impact of water deficit on light interception, radiation use efficiency and leaf area index in a potato crop (Solanum tuberosum L.). J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 154, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Howlader, O.; Hoque, M.A. Growth analysis and yield performance of four potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 2018, 43, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Van Delden, A.; Pecio, A.; Haverkort, A.J. Temperature response of early foliar expansion of potato and wheat. Ann. Bot. 2000, 86, 355–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Tang, R.; Niu, S.; Zhang, G.; Chen, G.; Haroon, M.; Yang, Q.; Rajora, O.P.; Li, X.Q. Physiological and growth responses of potato cultivars to heat stress. Botany 2018, 96, 897–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kolachevskaya, O.O.; Lomin, S.N.; Arkhipov, D.V.; Romanov, G.A. Auxin in potato: Molecular aspects and emerging roles in tuber formation and stress resistance. Plant Cell Rep. 2019, 38, 681–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ha, S.; Vankova, R.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K.; Tran, L.-S.P. Cytokinins: Metabolism and function in plant adaptation to environmental stresses. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Li, J.; Zhong, Y.; Guo, H. Correlation of leaf area with yield and quality in potato. Chin. Potato J. 2013, 27, 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ascione, S.; Ruggiero, C.; Vitale, C. Contribution of growth components on relative, plant, crop and tuber growth rate of nine potato cultivars in southern Italy. Int. J. Sci. 2013, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 10 00387 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of plant biostimulants on chlorophyll content (Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) value); average of the three year tests on three cultivars. Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 1. Effect of plant biostimulants on chlorophyll content (Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) value); average of the three year tests on three cultivars. Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 10 00387 g001
Agronomy 10 00387 g002 550
Figure 2. Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) in relation to potato growing season (a) and cultivar (b). Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 2. Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) in relation to potato growing season (a) and cultivar (b). Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 10 00387 g002
Table
Table 1. Hydrothermal conditions during potato growing period.
Table 1. Hydrothermal conditions during potato growing period.
MonthTemperature (°C)Rainfall (mm)Hydrothermal Index
201220132014Many year201220132014Many year 201220132014
April8.97.49.88.329.936.045.041.21.11.61.5
May14.615.313.512.253.4105.992.753.01.22.22.2
June16.318.015.416.876.298.855.463.81.51.81.2
Hydrothermal index value: up to 0.4 extremely dry; 0.41–0.7 very dry; 0.71–1.0 dry; 1.01–1.3 rather dry; 1.31–1.6 optimal; 1.61–2 rather humid; 2.01–2.5 humid; 2.51–3 very humid; >3 extremely humid [35].
Table
Table 2. Assimilation area in relation to plant biostimulant, potato growing season and cultivar.
Table 2. Assimilation area in relation to plant biostimulant, potato growing season and cultivar.
Plant BiostimulantYearsCultivar
201220132014DenarLordMiłek
Assimilation leaf area (m2)
Without biostimulant0.7131 b0.5411 b0.9438 b0.7214 a0.6425 b0.8341 a
Bio-algeen S900.7847 a0.5746 ab1.0379 a0.8120 a0.8008 a0.7845 a
Kelpak SL0.7964 a0.6035 a0.9434 b0.7871 a0.7636 ab0.7926 a
HumiPlant0.7963 a0.5947 ab0.9170 b0.7592 a0.6903 b0.8584 a
LAI (m2·m−1)
Without biostimulant4.22 b3.21 b5.59 b4.27 a3.81 b4.49 a
Bio-algeen S904.65 a3.41 ab6.15 a4.81 a4.75 a4.65 a
Kelpak SL4.72 a3.58 a5.59 b4.66 a4.43 ab4.70 a
HumiPlant4.72 a3.52 ab5.43 b4.46 a4.09 b5.09 a
SLA (m2·kg−1)
Without biostimulant2.87 b3.63 a3.33 a3.37 a3.26 a3.20 a
Bio-algeen S903.20 a3.53 a3.41 a3.38 a3.36 a3.41 a
Kelpak SL3.07 ab3.65 a3.32 a3.37 a3.33 a3.34 a
HumiPlant3.12 a3.54 a3.32 a3.21 a3.31 a3.46 a
Means within columns followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Assimilation area in relation to potato growing season and cultivar.
Table 3. Assimilation area in relation to potato growing season and cultivar.
Year and CultivarWeight of Leaves (kg)Assimilation Leaf Area (m2)LAI (m2·m−1)SLA (m2·kg−1)
Year
20120.254 b0.7726 b4.58 b3.06 c
20130.169 c0.5785 c3.43 c3.59 a
20140.287 a0.9605 a5.69 a3.35 b
Cultivar
Denar0.235 ab0.7699 b4.56 b3.33 a
Lord0.222 b0.7243 c4.29 c3.31 a
Miłek0.251 a0.8174 a4.84 a3.35 a
Means within columns followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Effect of plant biostimulants on assimilation area; average of the three year tests on three cultivars.
Table 4. Effect of plant biostimulants on assimilation area; average of the three year tests on three cultivars.
Plant biostimulantWeight of Leaves (kg)Assimilation Leaf Area (m2)LAI (m2·m−1)SLA (m2·kg−1)
Without biostimulant0.234 a0.7327 b4.34 b3.28 a
Bio-algeen S900.243 a0.7991 a4.74 a3.38 a
Kelpak SL0.268 a0.7811 a4.63 a3.345 a
HumiPLant0.230 a0.7693 a4.56 a3.33 a
Means within columns followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Tuber yield in relation to plant biostimulant, potato growing season and cultivar.
Table 5. Tuber yield in relation to plant biostimulant, potato growing season and cultivar.
Plant BiostimulantYearsCultivarMean
201220132014DenarLordMiłek
Total tuber yield (t·ha−1)
Without biostimulant40.26 a31.46 b31.38 b33.54 a34.49 a35.07 a34.37 b
Bio-algeen S9040.45 a36.88 a33.19 ab36.97 a37.66 a35.89 a36.84 a
Kelpak SL41.43 a36.30 a33.40 ab35.63 a37.64 a37.89 a37.04 a
HumiPlant42.29 a33.85 b35.27 a36.76 a37.99 a36.66 a37.14 a
Marketable tuber yield (t·ha−1)
Without biostimulant39.49 a29.75 b29.34 b31.84 a33.10 a33.64 a32.86 b
Bio-algeen S9038.96 a34.64 a30.62 b34.49 a35.47 a34.26 a34.74 ab
Kelpak SL40.22 a34.12 a30.62 b33.50 a35.46 a36.00 a34.99 a
HumiPlant41.43 a31.61 ab32.83 a34.95 a36.21 a34.71 a35.29 a
Means within columns followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Correlation coefficient between tuber yield and assimilation area and SPAD.
Table 6. Correlation coefficient between tuber yield and assimilation area and SPAD.
Plant Growth CharacteristicsTotal Tuber YieldMarketable Tuber Yield
Weight of leaves+0.1496+0.1356
Assimilation leaf area−0.0199−0.0488
LAI−0.0206−0.0494
SLA−0.5537*−0.5767*
SPAD+0.1886+0.1894
* significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 7. Effect of experimental factors on assimilation area, chlorophyll content (SPAD value) and tuber yield.
Table 7. Effect of experimental factors on assimilation area, chlorophyll content (SPAD value) and tuber yield.
Experimental FactorsWeight of LeavesAssimilation Leaf AreaLAISLASPADTotal Tuber YieldMarketable Tuber Yield
Year (Y)**************
Biostimulant (B)ns****nsns**
Y × Bns*****ns**
Cultivar ©*****ns**nsns
Y × Cns****nsns****
B × C*****nsnsnsns
Y × B × Cns****nsnsns
* significant at p ≤ 0.05, ** significant at p ≤ 0.01, ns—non-significant.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wadas, W.; Dziugieł, T. Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants. Agronomy 2020, 10, 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030387

AMA Style

Wadas W, Dziugieł T. Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants. Agronomy. 2020; 10(3):387. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030387

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wadas, Wanda, and Tomasz Dziugieł. 2020. "Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants" Agronomy 10, no. 3: 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030387

APA Style

Wadas, W., & Dziugieł, T. (2020). Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants. Agronomy, 10(3), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030387

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop