Next Article in Journal
Nanoparticulate Fertilizers Increase Nutrient Absorption Efficiency and Agro-Physiological Properties of Lettuce Plant
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Macroscopic Properties of Humic Substances Using Modeling and Molecular Simulations
Previous Article in Journal
QTL Analysis of Yield and End-Use Quality Traits in Texas Hard Red Winter Wheat
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adsorption of As(V) at Humic Acid-Kaolinite-Bacteria Interfaces: Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Mechanisms
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Care and Nutrition Methods on the Content and Uptake of Selected Mineral Elements in Solanum tuberosum

1
Department of Dieteties, John Paul II University of Applied Sciences, Sidorska 95/97, 21-500 Biała Podlaska, Poland
2
Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Prusa 14, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
3
Department of Agriculture, Vocational State School of Ignacy Mościcki in Ciechanów, Narutowicza 9, 06-400 Ciechanów, Poland
4
Laboratory of Environmental Analyzes EKO-AGRO-TECH, John Paul II University of Applied Sciences, Sidorska 95/97, 21-500 Biała Podlaska, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(3), 690; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030690
Submission received: 30 January 2023 / Revised: 21 February 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published: 26 February 2023

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to evaluate the content and uptake of macronutrients (P, Ca, Mg, K) in Solanum tuberosum tubers and the effect of care with biostimulants from a three-year field experiment conducted at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Zawady, Poland. The experiment was set up in a split-plot arrangement with three replications. The first factor was two varieties of edible potato (Oberon and Malaga), and the second factor was five treatments with herbicide and biostimulants: (I) control facility, (II) herbicide (chlomazone + metribuzin), (III) herbicide and biostimulant PlonoStart, (IV) herbicide and biostimulant Aminoplant, (V) herbicide and biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium. Biostimulants and herbicide increased the concentration of P, Mg, Ca, and K compared to tubers harvested from the control facility. The Oberon variety had the highest macro-nutrient uptake capacity. The application of herbicide with biostimulants increased the uptake of the mentioned mineral nutrients compared to the control variant. Climatic conditions affected the content and uptake of selected elements.

1. Introduction

The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), owing to its high yields and unique nutritional values, is among the staple crops grown worldwide [1]. Macro- and micronutrients constitute about 1–1.2% of the total content of potato tubers [2,3]. In human nutrition, macroelements are elements whose demand in the diet exceeds 100 mg per day, e.g., phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and potassium, which are components taken up by plants in relatively large quantities at various stages of development [1]. These elements play mainly building and physiological functions in the plant, and determine the dietary value. Phosphorus is the basic component of compounds that determine energy processes. It is a part of specific proteins and participates in the transformation of carbohydrates. Calcium is considered to be an element conditioning the proper growth and development. Magnesium in the plant determines the basic processes of metabolism and energy, takes part in about 300 enzymatic reactions, and is also the active center of the chlorophyll molecule. Potassium plays an important role in water and ionic management of the organism, therefore in some diseases a potato diet is recommended [2,4]. The chemical composition of potato tubers depends on the cultivar, weather conditions, technology of cultivation, fertilization, harvesting storage conditions, and cropping systems [4,5,6,7]. In modern plant cultivation, various plant growth regulators called biostimulants are increasingly used. They are one of the elements of agrotechnics, which, apart from fertilizing and protection plants, can positively affect the size and quality of crops [8,9,10,11]. These preparations improve the uptake of nutrients from the soil [12,13,14], positively affect the intensity of photosynthesis and the course of life processes [15,16], increase the resistance of plants to stress factors such as diseases, high temperature, drought [9,17], and have a positive effect on the chemical composition and yields of plants [6,7,18,19]. So far, six distinct categories of biostimulants have been recognized, including microbial inoculants, humic substances, such as humic and fulvic acids, protein hydrolysates and amino acids, biopolymers, inorganic compounds, and seaweed extracts, all of which are commercially available with wide applications in agriculture [20,21,22,23]. The biostimulants can also increase nutrient use efficiency, partly substitute the chemical fertilizer inputs, and ameliorate the yield and quality of crops [24,25,26]. Foliar fertilization allows one to improve otherwise poor plant nutrition or supplement deficiencies of some bioelements [27,28]. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine the effect of the herbicide and selected biostimulants on the content and uptake of phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and potassium with the yield of two edible potato varieties. The research hypothesis regarding the use of herbicide and foliar fertilization with biostimulants was verified in the paper to positively affect the increase in the content of macronutrients in relation to the null hypothesis, suggesting no differences between them in objects where the herbicide is used and foliar fertilization with biostimulants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Growth Conditions and Experimental Design

Field studies were conducted from 2018 to 2020 at the location shown in Figure 1.
The experiment was conducted in triplicate in a split-plot arrangement. Soil parameters are shown in Figure 2.
The effects of two factors were studied: the yields of Malaga and Oberon potato tubers and the five methods of care given in Table 1.
Herbicides and biostimulants were dissolved in 300 dm3 of water per hectare. Other agrotechnical measures that were applied in the experiment are shown in Table 2. At the time of harvest, the yield from a plot of 12.96 dm3 per hectare was recalculated and tubers were sampled for determination according to the methodology of [28].

2.2. Chemical Analysis Methods

Chemical analyses were performed in three replications. The dry samples of approximately 0.2–0.3 g were digested with 6 mL HNO3 and 2 mL HCl. The samples and acid mixture were placed in the rotor and heated in the microwave digestion system. Mineralized samples were diluted to 50 mL with ultra-pure water. The resultant solution was tested by ICP-OES Spectrometer (SpectroBlue).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were statistically tested using variance analysis. Samples were analyzed and variance was performed using the Fisher–Snedecor test. A significant of difference was detected at p < 0.05 between the compared averages using multiple Tukey ranges [29].

2.4. Meteorological Conditions

Meteorological conditions from April to September were determined using the Sielianinov coefficient ( K ), expressed by the formula:
K =   t o t a l   p r e c i p i t a t i o n   0.1   s u m   o f   t e m p e r a t u r e s
According to the K -factor up to 0.4—extremely dry, 0.41–0.7—very dry, 0.71–1.0—dry, 1.01–1.3—relatively dry, 1.31–1.6 optimal, 1.61–2.0—relatively humid, 2.01–2.5—humid, 2.51–3.0—very humid, above 3.0—extremely humid [30].
According to the analysis presented by Skower et al. [30], 2018 was dry, 2019 was very dry, and 2020 was relatively dry. The comparison of the Sielaninov factor over the experiment is presented in Figure 3.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Content and Uptake of Phosphorus in Potato Tubers

Cultivated cultivars Oberon and Malaga had an impact on the content of phosphorus in potato tubers. The majority of this component was accumulated by cultivar Malaga. The applied methods of weed control and feeding with biostimulators increased the content of phosphorus in comparison to the control object. The herbicide Avatar 293 ZC increased the content of phosphorus in potato tubers, and then the biostimulators PlonoStart, Aminoplant, and Agro-Sorb Folium, in combination with the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC, increased the content of phosphorus. Weather conditions influenced the concentration of phosphorus. The most phosphorus was recorded in tubers harvested in 2020, a humid and warm year, in which July and August were characterized by above-average rainfall throughout the season. The analysis of variance did not prove the interaction of years with cultivars, years with care methods, varieties with care methods and years with experience factors (Table 3). Some authors [31,32] proved in their studies that the analyzed herbicides increased the content of phosphorus in comparison to the control object. Others have observed a decrease in phosphorus content under the influence of herbicides [33,34]. The applied fertilization with biostimulators in Bienia et al.’s research [35] caused the phosphorus content in the tubers to significantly increase by the Asahi SL biostimulant, while in the research [35] the application of Fortis Duotop Zn Mn + Fortis Aminotop fertilizers affected the phosphorus content. In the presented study, it was found that the P content of tubers depends on the type of herbicide, as well as on the applied biostimulants and weather conditions affecting the weed infestation of plantations. An evaluation of the weed infestation was performed using the quantitative-weight method about 2 weeks after the application of the treatment methods and before harvesting the potato tubers. The application of herbicide and herbicide with biostimulants showed a positive effect on reducing the number and fresh weight of weeds compared to the control variant [36]. In years characterized by increased moisture, the weed infestation of the plantation increases, and the competitiveness of the plants increases, which may result in lower nutrient content. In our study, after the application of an effective herbicide (Avatar 293 ZC), weed infestation was reduced, which significantly increased the supply of phosphorus to tubers, additionally supported by the biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium 4. In domestic research, the content of phosphorus in potato tubers was at the level of 1.8–3.9 g kg−1 [32,34], and in foreign ones it was usually larger and amounted to 2.2–4.9 g kg−1 [37,38]. Potato and other plants take phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium from the soil solution in the cation forms. The number of elements taken up by plants depends on the variety, soil richness in available forms of cations, and on the content of other ions in the soil, in particular. The research has shown that the Malaga variety was characterized by the smallest average phosphorus uptake (17.16 kg ha−1), and the Oberon variety was the highest average uptake of the element (22.69 kg ha−1) with the tuber yield (Table 4). The uptake is the percentage of the element in the tuber multiplied by the tuber dry matter yield. The object with the highest phosphorus uptake capacity was characterized by a mixture of Avatar 293 ZC herbicide and Agro-Sorb Folium4 biostimulant. After application of the Avatar 293 ZC herbicide with the Agro-Sorb Folium 4 biostimulator, the uptake of P with tuber yield was 23.65 kg ha−1. In the analyzed growing seasons, a significant differentiation of phosphorus uptake and tuber yield was found. The highest phosphorus uptake was obtained in 2018, 21.24 kg ha−1 (Table 5). This was due to better hydrothermal conditions (Table 3). High humidity (as indicated by the K-factor) in 2018, the months decided for the harvest, July–September, were relatively dry, dry, and relatively humid. Varieties influenced the formation of phosphorus uptake by the yield of tubers in a varied way, as evidenced by the demonstrated interaction of variety 3 years. In 2018, the highest amounts of phosphorus were taken up by potatoes of the Oberon variety 26.78 kg ha−1, a slightly lower intake of this component, but were shown in 2019 by the Malaga variety 18.05 kg ha−1 (Figure 4). The Agro-Sorb Folium 4 biostimulator significantly increased the uptake of phosphorus by the tuber yield of the tested cultivars. The phosphorus content is significantly influenced by the cultivar factor, and the applied NPK fertilization did not significantly differentiate this feature [39].

3.2. Content and Uptake of Calcium in Potato Tubers

The Malaga variety had a higher average calcium content compared to the Oberon variety. The Avatar 293 ZC herbicide used in the experiment and the same herbicide with biostimulators: PlonoStart, Aminoplant, and Agro-Sorb Folium 4 increased the calcium content in tubers in all the objects (Table 6). The highest average calcium contents were in tubers collected from objects treated with Agro-Sorb Folium 4 biostimulator and Avatar 293 ZC herbicide. (Table 6). In studies [34], significantly higher calcium content was the result of the Asahi SL biostimulator. Studies [35] also confirm the increase in calcium concentration using foliar fertilizers. During the years of the study, weather conditions significantly affected Ca concentration. The highest content and uptake of this element was found in tubers harvested in 2018, which was characterized by a favorable distribution of temperatures and precipitation during the potato vegetation. The lowest concentration and intake of calcium were obtained in 2020 (Figure 4). Meteorological conditions in the years of research had a significant impact on the uptake of calcium by the yield of potato tubers. The average calcium uptake by potato tubers was significantly dependent on the cultivar factor (Table 7). The Oberon cultivar was characterized by the highest calcium uptake capacity with tuber yield. The herbicide biostimulators used in the experiment increased the uptake of calcium on all tested objects (Figure 5).

3.3. Content and Uptake of Magnesium in Potato Tubers

The content of magnesium in tubers significantly depended on the cultivars, methods of herbicide and biostimulator application, and weather conditions in the years of the study (Table 8). The highest average content of magnesium was obtained in the Oberon variety. Other researchers found a significant influence of genetic factors on magnesium levels in potato tubers (Figure 4). The range of 0.8–1.1 g kg−1 [35,39] is most often given in the domestic literature, and even 5–10 g kg−1 [40] in the foreign literature. The tubers from the treatments treated with herbicide and biostimulators (objects 2–5) were characterized by a higher content of magnesium in relation to the control treatment. Studies that have been conducted indicate that the application of fertilizers can increase yields [41]. The highest amount of this element was recorded in tubers harvested from plots sprayed with Avatar 293 ZC herbicide and Agro-Sorb Folium 4 biostimulator (Figure 5). Tubers of the Oberon and Malaga cultivars accumulated the most magnesium in 2019 (Figure 4). The cultivars accumulated the least of this element in 2018, which was the most diverse in terms of moisture content. The interaction of years and methods of care, years, and experience factors was not demonstrated. The proven interaction of cultivars with herbicide and biostimulant application methods stems from the different response of cultivars in terms of magnesium content to herbicide and biostimulants applied (Table 9).

3.4. Content and Uptake of Potassium in Potato Tubers

The potassium content in tubers significantly depended on cultivars, herbicide and biostimulator application methods, and weather conditions in the years of the study (Table 9). The highest average content of potassium was obtained in the Oberon variety (Figure 4). The application of the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and the herbicide with biostimulators: PlonoStart, Aminoplant, and Agro-Sorb Folium 4 caused a decrease in potassium in potato tubers of the Oberon and Malaga cultivars compared to the control (Figure 5). Studies [35] also report a decrease in potassium after applying foliar fertilizers. Meteorological conditions significantly differentiated the content of potassium in the dry matter of tubers. The tubers accumulated most of this component in the warm and humid year of 2018, and the least in 2020. There was no interaction of years and methods of care, years and factors of the experiment, and varieties with methods of herbicide and biostimulant application. Between potato varieties, there are large differences between calcium and potassium contents [42,43]. The potassium content in the experiments compared to literature data [34,35] was at a similar level and amounted to 27.35 g kg−1. The Oberon variety had the highest potassium uptake capacity with tuber yield. The herbicide Avatar applied in the experiment with the biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium 4 significantly increased the uptake of potassium in all the tested objects. The highest concentration of potassium was obtained in 2018 (Figure 4). It was a wet year with the highest air temperature. The lowest calcium concentration and uptake was obtained in 2020, which was characterized by excessive precipitation compared to the perennial average and was the coolest compared to the other growing seasons (Table 10).

4. Conclusions

The content of mineral components (P, Ca, Mg, and K) in the tubers depended on the variety, care, and nutrition and meteorological conditions. The Malaga variety accumulated the most P and Ca, while the Oberon variety accumulated Mg and K. Herbicide and applied biostimulants with the same herbicide increased the concentration of the tested macronutrients (P, Mg, and Ca) and decreased K compared to tubers harvested from the control object. The highest amount of minerals was found in potatoes after application of the biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium 4 together with the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC, which suggests that Agro-Sorb Folium 4 is a stimulator of the accumulation of phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. In the conducted studies, the uptake of macroelements was affected by the cultivars, the method of application of the herbicide with biostimulants, and the climatic conditions in the years of the study. The Oberon variety was characterized by the highest macronutrient uptake capacity with tuber yield in relation to the Malaga variety, which also resulted from the highest yielding of this variety. The application of herbicide with biostimulants increased the uptake of all tested elements (P, Ca, Mg, K) compared to the control, and the highest values were recorded after the application of Avatar 293 ZC with Agro-Sorb Folium 4. Their content and uptake were affected by weather conditions. The highest P, Mg, and K content and uptake with tuber yield were found in the warm and humid year of 2018, while the highest amount of Ca in tubers was determined in 2019, which was the most variable in terms of humidity.

Author Contributions

Conceptual individual, K.Z. and M.G.; methodology, K.Z. and I.M.; software, M.G.; validation, K.Z., M.G. and I.M.; formal analysis, K.Z.; investigation, K.Z. and I.M.; resources, A.S. and A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M.; writing—review and editing, I.M., A.D.; visualization, K.Z. and I.M.; supervision, K.Z. and I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The research in this paper is the authors own research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Burlingame, B.; Mouillé, B.; Charrondière, R. Nutrients, bioactive non-nutrients and anti-nutrients in potatoes. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2009, 22, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ezekiel, R.; Singh, N.; Sharma, S.; Kaur, A. Beneficial phytochemicals in potato—A review. Food Res. Int. 2013, 50, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lombardo, S.; Pandino, G.; Mauromicale, G. Optimizing Nitrogen Fertilization to Improve Qualitative Performances and Physiological and Yield Responses of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Silveira, A.C.; Orena, S.; Medel-Maraboli, M.; Escalona, V.H. Determination of some functional and sensory attributes and suitability of colored- and noncolored-flesh potatoes for different cooking methods. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 40 (Suppl. S2), 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Manjunath, R.P.; Vishnuvardhana; Anjanappa, M.; Ramegowda, G.K.; Anilkumar, S.; Prasad, P.S. Influence of Foliar Spray of Micronutrient Formulation on Quality and Shelf Life of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2018, 6, 660–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Trawczyński, C. The effect of foliar preparation with silicon on the yield and quality of potato tubers in compared to selected biostimulators. Fragm. Agron. 2018, 35, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lombardo, S.; Lo Monaco, A.; Pandino, G.; Parisi, B.; Mauromicale, G. The phenology, yield and tuber composition of ‘early’ crop potatoes: A comparison between organic and conventional cultivation systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 28, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Mystkowska, I. Effect of agricultural treatments on the content of total and protein nitrogen in potato tubers. Ecol. Chem. Eng. A 2009, 16, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rutkowska, A. Biostimulators in modern plant cultivation. Studia i Raporty IUNG-PIB 2016, 48, 65–80. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yakhin, O.I.; Lubyanov, A.A.; Yakhin, I.A.; Brown, P.H. Biostimulants in Plant Science: A Global Perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Shekari, G.; Javanmardi, J. Application of cysteine, methionine and amino acid containing fertilizers to replace urea: The effects on yield and quality of Broccoli. Adv. Crop. Sci. Tech. 2017, 5, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Głosek-Sobieraj, M.; Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Wierzbowska, J.; Waśkiewicz, A. The Influence of Biostimulants on the Content of P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na in the Skin and Flesh of Potato Tubers. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mystkowska, I.; Rogóż-Matyszczak, A. Content and Uptake of Selected Microelements with Potato Tuber Yield Treated with Biostimulators. J. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 20, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zarzecka, K.; Mystkowska, I.; Gugała, M.; Dołęga, H. Content and uptake of selected macroelements with the yield of potato tubers depending on herbicides and biostimulants. J. Elem. 2019, 24, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Piotrowski, K.; Romanowska-Duda, Z. Positive impact of bio-stimulators on growth and physiological activity of willow in climate change conditions. Int. Agrophys. 2018, 32, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Głosek-Sobieraj, M.; Kowalska, E. The effect of plant growth regulators on the incidence and severity of potato diseases. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2015, 30, 5–20. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Sikorska, A.; Grzywacz, K.; Niewęgłowski, M. Marketable Yield of Potato and Its Quantitative Parameters after Application of Herbicides and Biostimulants. Agriculture 2020, 10, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Merga, B.; Dechassa, N. Growth and productivity of different potato cultivars. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 11, 528–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y. Biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. du Jardin, P. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Petropoulos, S.A.; Taofiq, O.; Fernandes, Â.; Tzortzakis, N.; Ciric, A.; Sokovic, M.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C. Bioactive properties of greenhouse-cultivated green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under biostimulants and water-stress effect. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 6049–6059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Petropoulos, S.A.; Fernandes, Â.; Plexida, S.; Chrysargyris, A.; Tzortzakis, N.; Barreira, J.C.M.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Biostimulants Application Alleviates Water Stress Effects on Yield and Chemical Composition of Greenhouse Green Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Pereira, C.; Dias, M.I.; Petropoulos, S.A.; Plexida, S.; Chrysargyris, A.; Tzortzakis, N.; Calhelha, R.C.; Ivanov, M.; Stojković, D.; Soković, M.; et al. The Effects of Biostimulants, Biofertilizers and Water-Stress on Nutritional Value and Chemical Composition of Two Spinach Genotypes (Spinacia oleracea L.). Molecules 2019, 24, 4494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Koch, M.; Naumann, M.; Pawelzik, E.; Gransee, A.; Thiel, H. The importance of nutrient management for potato production. Part, I. Plant nutrition and yield. Potato Res. 2020, 63, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Jasim, A.H.; Merhij, M.Y. Effect of foliar fertilization on yield of some potato varieties. Euphrates J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 10, 191–198. [Google Scholar]
  28. Roztropowicz, S. Methodology of Observation, Measurements and Sampling in Agricultural Experiments with Potatoes; Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute: Section Jadwisin, Poland, 1999; pp. 1–50. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  29. Koronacki, J. Statistics, for Students of Technical and Natural Sciences; WNT: Warsaw, Poland, 2009; p. 491. ISBN 83-204-2994-3. [Google Scholar]
  30. Skowera, B.; Jędrszczyk, E.S.; Kopcińska, J.; Ambroszczyk, A.M.; Kołton, A. The Effects of Hydrothermal Conditions during Vegetation Period on Fruit Quality of Processing Tomatoes. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 23, 195–202. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leszczyński, W.; Lisińska, G. Effect of herbicides on chemical composition of potato tubers and quality of the subsequent chips and starch. Starch Stärke 1985, 37, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wierzbicka, A. Content of minerals in potato tubers grown in the ecological system, their nutritional value and mutual relations. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2012, 57, 188–192. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gugała, M.; Zarzecka, K.; Baranowska, A.; Dołęga, H.; Sikorska, A. The influence of selected agrotechnical factors on the potassium content and its removal by potato tubers. Bothalia 2015, 45, 178–184. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wierzbowska, J.; Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Głosek-Sobieraj, M.; Sienkiewicz, S. Content of minerals in tubers of potato plants treated with bioregulators. Rom. Agric. Res. 2016, 33, 291–298. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bienia, B.; Sawicka, B.; Krochmal-Marczak, B. Content of macroelements in tubers of several potato varieties depending on the foliar fertilization applied. J. Elem. 2021, 26, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Ginter, A.; Mystkowska, I.; Sikorska, A. The Positive Effects of Mechanical and Chemical Treatments with the Application of Biostimulants in the Cultivation of Solanum tuberosum L. Agriculture 2023, 13, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Elfaki, A.E.; Abbsher, A.M. Nutritional situation of potato subjected to Sudanese cooking methods. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2010, 6, 880–924. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mahamud, M.A.; Chowdhury, M.A.H.; Rahim, M.A.; Mohiuddin, K.M. Mineral nutrient contents of some potato accessions of USA and Bangladesh. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ. 2015, 13, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Żołnowski, A.C. Studies on variability in yield and quality of edible potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under conditions of differentiated mineral fertilization. UWM Olszt. Diss. Monogr. 2013, 191, 1–259. [Google Scholar]
  40. White, P.J.; Bradshaw, J.E.; Dale, M.F.B.; Ramsay, G.; Hammond, J.P.; Warwick, H.R.I.; Broadley, M.R. Relationships between yield and mineral concentrations in potato tubers. HortScience 2009, 44, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nazir, A.; Bhat, M.A.; Bhat, T.A.; Fayaz, S.; Mir, M.S.; Basu, U.; Ahanger, S.A.; Altaf, S.; Jan, B.; Lone, B.A.; et al. Comparative Analysis of Rice and Weeds and Their Nutrient Partitioning under Various Establishment Methods and Weed Management Practices in Temperate Environment. Agronomia 2022, 12, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nassar, A.M.; Sabally, K.; Kubow, S.; Leclerc, Y.N.; Donnelly, D.J. Some Canadian-grown potato cultivars contribute to a substantial content of essential dietary minerals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 4688–4696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Van Niekerk, C.; Schönfeldt, H.; Hall, N.; Pretorius, B. The role of biodiversity in food security and nutrition: A potato cultivar case study. Food Nutr. Sci. 2016, 7, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. The experiment was conducted in Zawady, a town located in Mazowieckie province, Siedlce county, Zbuczyn municipality, Poland.
Figure 1. The experiment was conducted in Zawady, a town located in Mazowieckie province, Siedlce county, Zbuczyn municipality, Poland.
Agronomy 13 00690 g001
Figure 2. Soil parameters.
Figure 2. Soil parameters.
Agronomy 13 00690 g002
Figure 3. Sielianinov’s coefficient.
Figure 3. Sielianinov’s coefficient.
Agronomy 13 00690 g003
Figure 4. Content of selected macronutrients in varieties (Malaga and Oberon) and years 2018–2020.
Figure 4. Content of selected macronutrients in varieties (Malaga and Oberon) and years 2018–2020.
Agronomy 13 00690 g004
Figure 5. Content of selected macronutrients in the variants of the experiment.
Figure 5. Content of selected macronutrients in the variants of the experiment.
Agronomy 13 00690 g005
Table 1. Description of the second factor of the experiment.
Table 1. Description of the second factor of the experiment.
No.Active Substance/CompositionDose
Preparation
Usage
1* C object mechanical weeding—no preparations were used
2** H 1.5 dm3 ha−17–10 days following tuber planting
3*** H + P (Ntotal—16.4,%, K2O—0.75%, CaO—0.07%, MgO—0.02%, S—941 mg kg−1, lactic acid bacteria, actinomycetes)1.5 dm3 ha−1 and
2.0 dm3 ha−1
herbicide—7–10 days following tuber planting biostimulator twice—end of emergence and rows closure
4**** H + AP (Ntotal—9.48%, Norganic—9.2%, N-NH4—0.88%, Corganic—25%, free amino acids—11.57%, organic matter—87.7%)1.5 dm3 ha−1 and 1.5 dm3 ha−1just before plants emergence
5***** H + ASF (Ntotal—2.2%, B—0.02%, Mn—0.05%, Zn—0.09%, total amino acids—13.11%, free amino acids—10.66%)1.5 dm3 ha−1
and
4.0 dm3 ha−1
herbicide—just before plants emergence
biostimulator twice—end of emergence and rows closure
* C—control, ** H—clomazone + metribuzin *** P—PlonoStart, **** AP—Aminoplant ***** ASF—Agro-Sorb Folium.
Table 2. Treatments used in the experiment.
Table 2. Treatments used in the experiment.
Agrotechnical TreatmentsSpecificationDates
Fertilization25 t ha−1 farmyard manure and mineral fertilizers: 44.0 kg ha−1 P (46% TSP triple superphosphate), 124.5 kg ha−1 K (60% potash salt),
and 100 kg ha−1 N (34% ammonium salt)
autumn,
spring—before planting
Planting of potato tubersspacing 0.675 × 0.37 mthe third week of April
Weed controlmechanical weeding and herbicides with biostimulants after planting to rows closure
Colorado potato beetle controlinsecticides: thiamethoxam * at a dose of 0.08 kg ha−1, deltamethrin at a dose of 0.15 dm3 ha−1, lambdacyhalothrin at a dose of 0.25 dm3 ha−1, thiacloprid * and deltamethrin at a dose of 0.4 dm3 ha−1 during vegetation
Late blight controlfungicides: metalaxyl-M + mancozeb * at a dose of 2.0 kg ha−1 and mancozeb * at a dose of 2.5 kg ha−1during vegetation
Harvesting of potato tubersphysiological maturityfirst week of September
* substances have been withdrawn by the European Union.
Table 3. Phosphorus in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
Table 3. Phosphorus in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C2.6442.6412.6502.645
    2.    H2.6182.6402.6422.633
    3.    H + P2.6852.6532.7182.685
    4.    H + AP2.8362.6482.8192.768
    5.    H + AS2.8992.6982.9022.833
Mean2.7362.6562.7462.713
Malaga
    1.    C2.7832.6532.7872.741
    2.    H2.7502.6422.7532.715
    3.    H + P2.8712.6822.8882.814
    4.    H + AP2.9002.7272.9032.843
    5.    H + AS2.9112.8792.9202.903
Mean2.8432.7172.8502.803
Mean for varieties
    1.    C2.7142.6472.7192.693 a
    2.    H2.6842.6412.6982.674 a
    3.    H + P2.7782.6682.8032.750 a
    4.    H + AP2.8682.7892.8612.806 a
    5.    H + AS2.9052.7892.9112.868 a
Mean2.7902.6872.7982.758
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with letters refer to interactions between the factors.
Table 4. Uptake of phosphorus with the of Solanum tuberosum (kg ha−1 D.M.).
Table 4. Uptake of phosphorus with the of Solanum tuberosum (kg ha−1 D.M.).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C23.86 A18.24 A15.80 A19.30 c
    2.    H25.26 A19.85 A16.43 A20.51 c
    3.    H + P26.87 A23.25 A20.57 A23.56 b
    4.    H + AP27.95 A22.48 A19.14 A23.19 b
    5.    H + AS29.98 A24.78 A25.84 A26.87 a
Mean26.7821.7219.5622.69
Malaga
    1.    C14.22 A12.58 A14.61 A13.80 c
    2.    H15.37 A18.09 A15.19 A16.22 b
    3.    H + P16.50 A19.29 A17.96 A17.92 b
    4.    H + AP16.37 A18.56 A17.44 A17.46 b
    5.    H + AS17.81 A21.72 A21.76 A20.43 a
Mean16.0518.0517.3917.16
Mean for varieties
    1.    C19.0415.4115.2116.55 c
    2.    H20.3218.9715.8118.37 c
    3.    H + P21.6921.2719.2720.74 b
    4.    H + AP22.1620.5218.2920.32 b
    5.    H + AS23.9023.2523.8023.65 a
Mean21.2419.8918.4819.87
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with capital letters refer to interactions between the factors.
Table 5. Calcium in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
Table 5. Calcium in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C0.3850.3250.2230.311
    2.    H0.3880.3270.2340.316
    3.    H + P0.3910.3310.2430.322
    4.    H + AP0.4370.3350.2640.345
    5.    H + AS0.4470.3790.2810.369
Mean0.4100.3430.2490.334
Malaga
    1.    C0.3890.3310.2430.321
    2.    H0.3900.3460.2560.331
    3.    H + P0.3930.3520.2600.335
    4.    H + AP0.4540.3710.2600.362
    5.    H + AS0.4600.3860.2830.376
Mean0.4170.3570.2600.345
Mean for varieties
    1.    C0.3870.3280.2330.316
    2.    H0.3890.3370.2450.324
    3.    H + P0.3920.3420.2520.329
    4.    H + AP0.4460.3630.2620.357
    5.    H + AS0.4540.3830.2820.373
Mean0.414 a0.350 b0.255 c0.340
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with letters refer to interactions between the factors. Means in the last row (followed by lowercase) are for treatments and cultivars and years.
Table 6. Uptake of calcium in potato tubers (g kg−1 dry matter).
Table 6. Uptake of calcium in potato tubers (g kg−1 dry matter).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C3.44 A2.24 B1.33 B2.34 c
    2.    H3.75 A2.47 B1.45 C2.56 c
    3.    H + P3.91 A2.91 B1.87 C2.90 b
    4.    H + AP 4.30 A3.01 B1.78 C3.03 b
    5.    H + AS4.60 A3.50 B2.48 C3.53 a
Mean4.00 a2.83 b1.78 c2.87
Malaga
    1.    C 2.00 A1.56 A1.28 A1.61 c
    2.    H 2.19 A2.37 A1.40 B1.99 b
    3.    H + P2.24 A2.54 A1.62 B2.13 b
    4.    H + AP2.57 A2.52 A1.58 B2.22 b
    5.    H + AS2.80 A2.92 A2.11 B2.61 a
Mean2.36 a2.38 a1.60 b2.11
Mean for varieties
    1.    C2.721.901.311.98 b
    2.    H2.972.421.432.27 b
    3.    H + P3.072.721.752.52 b
    4.    H + AP3.442.771.682.63 b
    5.    H + AS3.703.212.303.07 a
Mean3.18 a2.60 b1.69 c2.49
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with capital letters refer to interactions between the factors. Means in the last row (followed by lowercase) are for treatments and cultivars and years.
Table 7. Magnesium in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
Table 7. Magnesium in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C0.846 A1.155 B1.129 A1.043 a
    2.    H0.857 A1.186 B1.147 A1.063 a
    3.    H + P0.879 A1.195 B1.151 A1.075 a
    4.    H + AP0.880 A1.212 B1.161 A1.084 a
    5.    H + AS0.893 A1.258 A1.174 A1.108 a
Mean0.8711.2011.1521.075
Malaga
    1.    C0.822 A0.983 B0.931 C0.912 b
    2.    H0.827 A1.154 A1.005 B0.995 b
    3.    H + P0.832 A1.163 A1.013 B1.003 b
    4.    H + AP0.850 A1.193 A1.098 A1.047 a
    5.    H + AS0.859 A1.214 A1.125 A1.066 a
Mean0.8381.1411.0341.004
Mean for varieties
    1.    C0.8341.0691.0300.978 b
    2.    H0.8421.1701.0761.029 a
    3.    H + P0.8561.1791.0821.039 a
    4.    H + AP0.8651.2031.1301.066 a
    5.    H + AS0.8761.2361.1501.087 a
Mean0.855 c1.171 a1.093 b1.040
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with capital letters refer to interactions between the factors. Means in the last row (followed by lowercase) are for treatments and cultivars and years.
Table 8. Uptake of magnesium in potato tubers (g kg−1 dry matter).
Table 8. Uptake of magnesium in potato tubers (g kg−1 dry matter).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C7.65 A7.99 A6.73 A7.46 e
    2.    H8.28 A9.00 A7.13 A8.14 d
    3.    H + P8.74 B11.69 A8.82 B9.75 b
    4.    H + AP8.68 B10.27 A7.89 B8.95 c
    5.    H + AS9.21 B11.51 A10.43 A10.38 a
Mean8.5110.098.208.93
Malaga
    1.    C4.19 A4.68 A4.87 A4.58 d
    2.    H4.63 B7.89 A5.50 B6.01 c
    3.    H + P4.76 C8.33 A6.31 B6.47 b
    4.    H + AP4.80 C8.12 A6.60 B6.51 b
    5.    H + AS5.21 B9.16 A8.39 A7.59 a
Mean4.727.646.336.23
Mean for varieties
    1.    C5.926.345.806.02 b
    2.    H6.468.456.327.07 a
    3.    H + P6.7510.017.578.11 a
    4.    H + AP6.749.207.257.73 a
    5.    H + AS7.2110.339.418.99 a
Mean6.62 b8.86 a7.27 b7.58
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with capital letters refer to interactions between the factors. Means in the last row (followed by lowercase) are for treatments and cultivars and years.
Table 9. Potassium in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
Table 9. Potassium in Solanum tuberosum (g kg−1 D.M.).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C30.5527.8926.5328.32 a
    2.    H28.1827.2125.4826.96 b
    3.    H + P30.2727.2926.3227.96 a
    4.    H + AP30.2827.4126.3328.01 a
    5.    H + AS30.4427.8326.4828.25 a
Mean29.9427.5326.2327.90
Malaga
    1.    C29.4926.7126.4127.54 a
    2.    H26.1925.9425.6125.91 a
    3.    H + P28.0626.8826.4027.11 a
    4.    H + AP27.2026.6126.0526.62 a
    5.    H + AS27.5726.6026.3326.83 a
Mean27.7026.5126.1626.79
Mean for varieties
    1.    C30.0227.3026.4727.93 a
    2.    H27.1926.5825.5526.44 a
    3.    H + P29.1726.9926.3627.51 a
    4.    H + AP 28.7427.0126.1927.31 a
    5.    H + AS29.0127.2226.4127.55 a
Mean28.82 a27.02 b26.20 b27.35
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with letters refer to interactions between the factors. Means in the last row (followed by lowercase) are for treatments and cultivars and years.
Table 10. Uptake of potassium in potato tubers (g kg−1 dry matter).
Table 10. Uptake of potassium in potato tubers (g kg−1 dry matter).
VariantYearsMean
201820192020
Oberon
    1.    C276.2193.0157.9209.03 c
    2.    H272.5205.5158.5212.17 c
    3.    H + P301.2238.0200.8246.67 b
    4.    H + AP298.3232.6178.7236.53 b
    5.    H + AS314.9257.0236.0269.30 a
Mean292.6225.2186.4234.73
Malaga
    1.    C150.2126.9138.3138.47 c
    2.    H146.6177.2141.3155.03 b
    3.    H + P161.3192.0164.2172.50 b
    4.    H + AP153.6181.2156.2163.67 b
    5.    H + AS166.6200.2196.5187.77 a
Mean155.7175.5159.3163.50
Mean for varieties
    1.    C213.2 A160.0 B148.1 B173.77 b
    2.    H209.6 A191.4 A149.9 B183.63 b
    3.    H + P231.3 A215.0 A182.5 A209.60 a
    4.    H + AP226.0 A206.9 A167.5 B200.13 a
    5.    H + AS240.1 A228.6 A216.3 A228.33 a
Mean224.1 a200.4 b172.9 c199.13
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns marked with capital letters refer to interactions between the factors. Means in the last row (followed by lowercase) are for treatments and cultivars and years.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mystkowska, I.; Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Ginter, A.; Sikorska, A.; Dmitrowicz, A. Impact of Care and Nutrition Methods on the Content and Uptake of Selected Mineral Elements in Solanum tuberosum. Agronomy 2023, 13, 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030690

AMA Style

Mystkowska I, Zarzecka K, Gugała M, Ginter A, Sikorska A, Dmitrowicz A. Impact of Care and Nutrition Methods on the Content and Uptake of Selected Mineral Elements in Solanum tuberosum. Agronomy. 2023; 13(3):690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030690

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mystkowska, Iwona, Krystyna Zarzecka, Marek Gugała, Agnieszka Ginter, Anna Sikorska, and Aleksandra Dmitrowicz. 2023. "Impact of Care and Nutrition Methods on the Content and Uptake of Selected Mineral Elements in Solanum tuberosum" Agronomy 13, no. 3: 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030690

APA Style

Mystkowska, I., Zarzecka, K., Gugała, M., Ginter, A., Sikorska, A., & Dmitrowicz, A. (2023). Impact of Care and Nutrition Methods on the Content and Uptake of Selected Mineral Elements in Solanum tuberosum. Agronomy, 13(3), 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030690

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