vegetable crops - asahi sl – biostymulatorasahisl.pl/bio/vegetable crops.pdf · the series of...

BiostimulatorsIN MODERN AGRICULTURE

W a r s a w 2 0 0 8

Vegetable Crops

E D I T O R : Zbigniew T. Dąbrowski

1

B io s t imu l a to r sIN MODERN AGRICULTURE

Vegetable crops

EDITOR: Zbigniew T. Dabrowski

Warsaw 2008

,

BiostimulatorsIN MODERN AGRICULTURE

W a r s a w 2 0 0 8

Vegetable Crops

E D I T O R : Zbigniew T. Dąbrowski

2

The series of monographs under a common name BIOSTIMULATORS IN MODERN AGRICULTUREcontains a review of recent research related to this subject and consists of the following parts:

GENERAL ASPECTSFIELD CROPSSOLANACEOUS CROPSVEGETABLE CROPSFRUIT CROPSORNAMENTAL AND SPECIAL PLANTS

EDITORIAL BOARD:Andrzej Sadowski, Department of Pomology,Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS) � chairmanZbigniew T. D¹browski, Department of Applied Entomology, WULSHelena Gawroñska, Laboratory of Basic Natural Sciences in Horticulture, WULSAleksandra £ukaszewska, Department of Ornamental Plants, WULSAdam S³owiñski, Arysta LifeScience Poland

PRODUCTION EDITORS:Zbigniew T. D¹browski, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS)Anna Karbowniczek, Arysta LifeScience PolandAda Krzeczkowska, Wie� JutraHalina Skrobacka, Wie� Jutra

REVIEWERS:Zbigniew T. D¹browski, Department of Applied Entomology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS)Ma³gorzata Kie³kiewicz-Szaniawska, Department of Applied Entomology, WULSMarian Saniewski, Institute of Pomology and Floriculture, SkierniewiceAnna Tomczyk, Department of Applied Entomology, WULS

This edition was supported by Arysta LifeScience

Cover: Plantpress

ISBN 83-89503-57-3

Published by the Editorial House Wie� Jutra, LimitedJanowskiego 602-784 Warszawaphone: (0 22) 643 82 60e-mail: [email protected] by RykoCopies 300, publishing sheets: 7.0

3

CONTENTS

PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... 5

RESPONSE OF ONION AND CARROT TO ASAHI SL BIOSTIMULATOR USEDWITH HERBICIDES .................................................................................................................... 7

Adam Dobrzañski, Zbigniew Anyszka, Jerzy Pa³czyñski

THE INFLUENCE OF GOËMAR GOTEO BIOSTIMULATOR ON YIELDAND QUALITY OF TWO CHINESE CABBAGE CULTIVARS ................................................. 21

Marek Gajewski, Katarzyna Gos, Justyna Bobruk

THE INFLUENCE OF BIOSTIMULATORS ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF LEAFAND ICEBERG LETTUCE � GROWN UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS ...................................... 28

Mariola £yszkowska, Janina Gajc-Wolska, Katarzyna Kubi�

EFFECT OF AMINOPLANT AND ASAHI ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF LETTUCEGROWN ON ROCKWOOL ......................................................................................................... 35

Katarzyna Kowalczyk, Teresa Zielony, Marek Gajewski

DOES THE NANO-GRO® BIOSTIMULATOR INCREASES TOLERANCE OF TYTUS F1CUCUMBER PLANTS IN EARLY GROWTH PHASE TO ULTRAVIOLET-B RADIATION? ... 44

El¿bieta Skórska

EFFECTIVENESS OF NATURAL PRODUCTS IN PROTECTION OF CUCUMBERGROWN UNDER COVER AGAINST POWDERY MILDEW .................................................... 54

Agnieszka Ostrowska, Barbara Dyki, Józef Robak

EFFECT OF 5-AMINOLEVULINIC ACID (ALA) FROM PENTAKEEP® FERTILIZERSON YIELD AND QUALITY OF VEGETABLES GROWN IN THE FIELDAND UNDER COVERS ............................................................................................................... 61

Irena Babik, Józef Babik, Jacek Dy�ko

POLISH SUMMARIES ............................................................................................................... 75

5

PREFACE

The high yield potential of modern cultivars is often restrained by various envi-ronmental stresses both of biotic and abiotic nature, affecting the crop status. Thepresent approach in pro-ecological plant protection from such biotic stresses asweeds, diseases and pests emphasises enhancement of naturally occurring compo-unds, organisms or plant defence mechanisms. These compounds should fill thegap resulting from the regulatory decisions of national authorities in many coun-tries, leading to restrictions in use of a number of synthetic pesticides.

Extensive research carried out in the last two decades has shown that somenatural products may be efficiently used in enhancing the plant�s endogenous resi-stance or tolerance to the biotic and abiotic stresses. A group of such active pro-ducts is presently classified as biostimulators. When reduction of the chemical inputis expected, the use of biostimulators becomes a particularly promising option. Bio-stimulators are defined as compounds of biological origin and should act by incre-asing natural capabilities of plants to cope with stresses. Biostimulators do not actneither as nutrients nor affect directly the stress factors making them less harmfulfor plants.

The efficacy of biostimulators is not limited to reducing effects of biotic andabiotic stresses. They stimulate growth and development of plants under unfavo-urable soil and climatic conditions. Although the effects of biostimulators are notso spectacular and not always stable over the years � due to interaction with otherused chemicals and/or environmental factors � the interest of farmers in using bio-stimulators is successively increasing over time.

According to the national legislation, biostimulators are related to the categoryof plant protection products. Therefore they must comply with all rules for registra-tion and hence �prior to formal approval for use they must be tested for safety tohumans and the environment.

The dynamic increase of research projects on biostimulators and of farmers�interest in their use in agriculture and horticulture production provoked an idea ofthe international conference on �Biostimulators in Modern Agriculture�. It wasorganized by the Laboratory of Basic Sciences in Horticulture, at the Faculty ofHorticulture and Landscape Architecture at the Warsaw University of Life Scien-ces. The conference has attracted a large group of scientists and graduate studentsfrom universities and research institutions involved in basic and applied research

6

in agriculture as well from the industry. About three hundred sixty participants inc-luded also representatives of farmers and distributors of agricultural supplies.

The extensive and creative discussions during the conference and interest inconference materials as well as suggestions from participants indicated the urgentneed for dissemination of the state of knowledge on biostimulators. This inspiredthe organizers of the Conference to co-ordinate preparing reviews on recent scien-tific achievements in the field of biostimulators, including the practical aspects oftheir application on various crops. Following suggestions appearing at the Confe-rence, the organisers invited scientists having experience and achievements in workon biostimulators to prepare relevant reviews related to particular products andcrops.

Based on the submitted manuscripts the Editorial Board decided to publish aseries of monographs entitled: �BIOSTIMULATORS IN MODERN AGRICULTU-RE� comprising the following six volumes: �General Aspects�, �Field Crops�, �So-lanaceous Crops�, �Vegetable Crops�, �Fruit Crops� and �Ornamental and Spe-cial Plants�.

The Editors hope that this publication would fill the gap in knowledge on themechanisms of action of various biostimulators and on the conditions for their highefficacy. We are very grateful to the authors who willingly agreed to contribute tothese books.

EDITORS

7

RESPONSE OF ONION AND CARROT TO ASAHI SL

BIOSTIMULATOR USED WITH HERBICIDES

Adam Dobrzañski, Zbigniew Anyszka, Jerzy Pa³czyñskiResearch Institute of Vegetable Crops, Skierniewice, Poland

INTRODUCTION

Protection against weeds on onion and carrot plantations relies mainly on the use ofherbicides. Among the herbicides recommended for post emergence application on onionare those in which oxyfluorfen is the active ingredient [Dobrzañski et al. 1998, Tei et al.1999, Dobrzañski 2004], and linuron in the case of carrot [Dobrzañski 1975, Tei et al.2002]. These herbicides may cause temporary symptoms of damage or growth inhibitionin crop plants. The symptoms may occur even when recommended doses have beenapplied.

Oxyfluorfen does not translocate within plants, but disrupts the process of photosyn-thesis and destroys cell membranes [Cobb 1992, Dobrzañski et al. 2003]. The symptomsof damage appear as white spots that gradually turn brown. They are found on weedplants and, in some situations, on onion leaves.

Linuron is a photosynthesis inhibitor that has a systemic mode of action [Cobb 1992].The symptoms of damage caused by this active component include chloroses, necrosesand plant growth inhibition. Carrot plants exhibit a high degree of �physiological resistan-ce� to linuron, and even when maximum recommended doses are applied, the damagesymptoms are mainly nothing more than temporary inhibition of plant growth.

The temporary �herbicide-induced stress� does not always have to mean a negativeeffect on yield size and quality. For onion and carrot plants, competition from weeds canpose a greater threat than herbicide phytotoxicity. Once competition from weeds hasbeen eliminated, the cultivated plants often yield a better crop despite the temporarysymptoms of phytotoxicity caused by herbicide use [Dobrzañski, Pa³czyñski 2007, Anyszka,Dobrzañski 1998]. Nevertheless, such symptoms make the user anxious and suspiciousthat they may have undesirable consequences.

Asahi SL is a growth stimulator recommended for use on many agricultural crops,mainly to increase yielding and improve yield quality, and to reduce the adverse effects ofstress-inducing factors [S³owiñski 2004]. The time of Asahi SL application may coincidewith the time of herbicide application.

The aim of the experiments described in this paper was to determine: (1) if Asahi SLcan be used in a mixture with herbicides, (2) what effect Asahi SL has on the efficacy ofherbicides in controlling weeds, (3) how onion and carrot plants respond to Asahi SL thatis used in a mixture with herbicides, or separately, after prior treatment with herbicides.

8

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiments including onion cv B³oñska (2002-2005), and carrot cv Narbone(2002) and Nerac F1 (2003-2004) were carried out in Skierniewice, on a pseudopodsolicsoil (1.3-1.5% organic matter, pH H2O 6.5). Onion seeds were sown on 15-16 April(2002-2005) in rows 45 cm apart. Carrot seeds were sown on 24-29 April (2002-2004) inrows 40 cm apart.

In the experiments with onion in 2002-2003, oxyfluorfen, in the form of the herbici-de Goal 240 EC containing 240 g of active ingredient (a.i.) in 1 litre, was used in threetreatments at 24 g·ha-1 a.i. each, or in two treatments, first at 60 g·ha-1 and then at72 g·ha-1. Asahi SL (a mixture of phenolic compounds) was used at a rate of 0.5 l.ha-1,added to each herbicide treatment, or applied separately, 2-3 days after spraying withthe herbicide.In 2004-2005, Asahi SL was used in combination with the adjuvant Atpo-lan 80 EC (76% of paraffinic oil with surfactant). Oxyfluorfen was then applied 3 timesat 24 g·ha-1 and 60 g·ha-1, and as a one-off treatment at 120 g·ha-1. With the three-parttreatments, Asahi SL was used 2-3 days after each herbicide application, whereas withthe one-off treatment it was used 2-3 days and 14 days after spraying with oxyfluorfen.

In the experiments with carrot, Asahi SL was used in a mixture with linuron (Linu-rex 500 SC, 500 g of linuron in 1 litre) in a single treatment at 750 g·ha-1 a.i., or in twotreatments (1st � 190 g·ha-1, 2nd � 250 g·ha-1), or separately, 2-3 days after herbicideapplication.

Spraying and observations were carried out following standard international require-ments [EPPO 2004]. Spraying was carried out by a field sprayer equipped with a sprayboom, whose length equaled the width of the experimental plot, and Tee-Jet 8002VSspray nozzles delivering liquid at a pressure of 0.4 MPa. The spray boom was kept at aheight of 50 cm above the surface being sprayed. The degree of weed control wasassessed on the basis of the reduction in fresh weed biomass 7-11 days after the lasttreatment in onion, and 8-15 days after the last treatment in carrot. Prior to harvest, thelevel of weed infestation was determined. Phytotoxicity of the herbicides towards thecrop plants was assessed 7-10 days after the last treatment in onion, and after 8-11days in carrot. A number of biometric measurements were also carried out. In onion, in2004-2005, 14 days after the last treatment, a sample of 10 plants from each plot wasused to determine the average biomass of 1 plant, the number of leaves, and leafheight. Before harvesting onions, the extent of leaf fall-over was assessed. In carrot,after the last treatment, around the middle of July in 2002-2003, the weight and lengthof leaves, and the average weight of one carrot root were determined using a sampleof 10 plants from each plot. At harvest, apart from the carrot roots, the tops of thecarrot plants were also weighed. The onion and carrot crops were sorted according tothe accepted standards.

The experiments were set up in a random block design. Each experimental plot mea-sured 12.15 m2 for onion, and 9 m2 for carrot. Yield-related results were evaluated withan analysis of variance, using Newman-Keuls test to compare mean values at the P =0.05 level of significance.

9

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

WEED CONTROL EFFICACY OF THE HERBICIDES USED WITH ASAHI SL

The herbicide used on onion (oxyfluorfen), in a mixture with the biostimulator AsahiSL, or in a series of treatments in which the biostimulator was applied 2-3 days after eachherbicide treatment, was found to be very effective in controlling weeds, irrespective ofthe rate and time of application.

Weed control efficacy in onion, 7-10 days after the last treatment, was about 90%(Tab. 1 and 3). In general, the use of Asahi SL, regardless of the number of treatments,adjuvant additions, and the rate and time of herbicide application, did not modify theefficacy of oxyfluorfen. One would expect that Asahi SL should accelerate or improvethe recovery and regrowth of severely damaged weeds, that is, those that have not beendestroyed by the herbicide. This should be reflected in a higher level of weed coveragebefore onion harvest on those plots on which Asahi SL had been used.

The weed controlling effect of oxyfluorfen persisted for a long time because in 2002-2003 the level of weed coverage before harvest was 1.0-10.3%, and for the control plot4.3-12.8%. In 2004-2005, weed coverage was in the range 1.0-5.3%, whereas for thecontrol plot it was at a level of 19.8-23.3%. Some small differences among the experi-mental combinations may have been caused by chance.

In carrot, Asahi SL used in a mixture with linuron, or separately 2-3 days after herbi-cide treatment, did not affect weed control efficacy. The overall average efficacy of thedifferent ways of using linuron was above 90% (Tab. 5). Asahi SL did not increase therate of weed regrowth because weed coverage levels before harvest on all the plotstreated with herbicide and herbicide + biostimulator were in the range 0.6-4.7% (Tab. 5).In both onion and carrot, the obtained results did not prove that Asahi SL had an effect onweed regeneration.

In the available literature, there is no detailed information on the combined use ofAsahi SL and herbicides in onion and carrot. It is generally believed that biostimulatorshave an �anti-stress action� [S³owiñski 2004, Maciejewski et al. 2007]. One would thusexpect that Asahi SL should counteract symptoms of herbicide-induced phytotoxicity notonly in crop plants but also in weeds. And for this reason, weed control efficacy followingthe use of this stimulant should be lower. Such an outcome was not observed in theexperiments described here.

In view of the results of these experiments with respect to weed control, it is reaso-nable to conclude that Asahi SL can be safely used in a mixture with oxyfluorfen orlinuron, or alternatively, separately. This agrees with the information on the use of somepost emergence herbicides on sugar beet [Kositorna 2004, S³owiñski 2004, Pulkrábek etal. 2006].

10

RESPONSE OF ONION AND CARROT TO ASAHI SL USED WITHHERBICIDES

Oxyfluorfen�s phytotoxicity towards onion depended mainly on the rates and times ofthis herbicides application and not on the way Asahi SL was used (Tab. 1 and 3). Theaverage degree of damage to onion plants for the years 2002-2003 after three treatments(24 g·ha-1 each) at a few days� intervals, beginning at the 1-1.5 leaf stage in onion, was1.3-4.3%. As a result of applying Asahi SL at 0.5 l·ha-1, 2-3 days after each herbicidetreatment, the average degree of damage was 2.0-4.3%, and 1.3-3.5% after using it in amixture with the herbicide. Increasing the herbicide dose to 60 g·ha-1 in the first treat-ment at the 2-leaf stage in onion, followed by a dose of 72 g·ha-1 after 5-7 days, resultedin an increase in phytotoxicity to 21.0-22.0%. Application of Asahi SL after each herbici-de treatment did not reduce phytotoxicity.

The degree of damage to onion plants in 2004 was within the limits of 0-2.0% andwithin 2.0-7.0 in 2005, depending on the rate and time of herbicide application. The addi-tion of Asahi SL to the herbicide applied three times at 24 g·ha-1 and at 60 g·ha-1, and in asingle treatment at 120 g·ha-1, did not affect oxyfluorfen�s phytotoxicity towards onionplants. In 2004-2005, plant biomass, the number of leaves and leaf height, determined 2weeks after the last treatment, were 33.7-50.2 g, 5-6, and 43-49.7 cm, respectively. Thedifferences between the parameters under comparison were not proven statistically, al-though in comparison with the control combination, onion plants were marked by some-what better growth in that their biomass was 28.7 g, the number of leaves � 5, and theheight � 43.7 cm. However, these parameters were mainly dependent on the herbicideused, and not on the biostimulator.

An indicator of the maturity of onion plants and their readiness for harvesting is theextent of leaf fall-over. Usually, harvesting begins when at least 50% of onion plants in agiven area have fall-over leaves [Dobrzañski, Adamicki 2006]. In 2002-2003, the avera-ge degree of leaf fall-over was 73.8-98.8%, and there were no differences between theexperimental combinations, including the control (Tab. 1). In 2004-2005, on the plots thathad been treated with herbicide or herbicide + Asahi SL, the average leaf fall-over was inthe range 21.3-88.8%, and 23.8-49.5% on the control plot. The addition of Asahi SL didnot have any large effect on onion plants in this respect, either (Tab. 3).

In 2002-2003, the average total yield of onion (Tab. 2) was by 28.0%, and in 2004-2005 (Tab. 4) by 42.3% higher in comparison with those plots on which no herbicide hadbeen used on onion plants after sprouting. This outcome can be attributed to effectiveweed control rather than any favorable effects of Asahi SL, since the differences betweenthe experimental combinations were not proven statistically significant. In some years, ho-wever, there was a noticeable tendency for higher yields associated with the use of thebiostimulator. For example, in 2002, after Asahi SL had been used three times in a mixturewith oxyfluorfen (24 g·ha-1), the total yield increased by 1.3%, and in 2003 by 2.2%, inrelation to the combination where only the herbicide was used (Tab. 2). In 2005 (Tab. 4), inthose combinations in which the herbicide had been used three times at 24 g·ha-1 and60 g·ha-1 with the addition of the biostimulator and adjuvant in each treatment, the totalyield was higher by 8.5% compared with the sole use of the herbicide.

11R

EV

O-LLAF

FA

ELN

OD

NA,

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OF

OYTI

CIX

OTOTY

HP

DN

AY

CA

CIFFE

LO

RTN

OC

DE

EW

NO

LSI

HA

SA

FO

TC

EFFE

EHT.1

ELB

AT)3002-2002(

NOI

NO

NI)3002-2002(

meroibzdezrpilubec

uroipyzczseina

ma³aziæ�onzcyskototif,uneforoulfysko

¹zcjóbotsawhc

æ�onzcetuksan

LSihas

Awy³p

W.1alebaT

GNI

RU

DHT

WO

RG

NOI

NO

FO

EG

ATS

TN

EMT

AE

RTugeibaz

sazcdopilubecaza

F

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OET

AR

akwa

Duneforoulfysko

g[.

ah1-

].i.a

LSI

HA

SA

ETA

Rak

waD

LSihas

Al[.

ah1-]

NOIT

CU

DE

RS

SA

MOI

BNI

ajckudeR

ysamoib

]%[

EG

AR

EV

OC

DE

EW

TS

EV

RA

HE

ROF

EB

zezrpeicyrko

Pdezrp

ytsawhc

meroibz]

%[

YTICI

XOT

OTYH

Pæ�onzcyskototi

F]

%[

RE

VO-LL

AFF

AEL

TS

EV

RA

HE

ROF

EB

uroipyzczseina

ma³aZmeroibz

dezrp]

%[)1

GAT

SF

AEL

5.1-1aic�il

5,1-1azaf/

ESY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/SY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/)2

EG

ATS

FA

EL5.1-1

aic�il5,1-1

azaf/Y

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/S SY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/)3

FA

EL5.1-1

aic�il5,1-1

azaf//

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op /

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op

)4/

EG

ATS

SE

VA

EL2

ic�il2

azaf/

RET

FA

SYA

D7-5

�hcaind

7-5op

)5G

ATS

SE

VA

EL2

ic�il2

azaf/E /

RET

FA

SYA

D7-5

�hcaind

7-5op

)6/

EG

ATS

SE

VA

EL2

ic�il2

azaf/

RET

FA

SYA

D7-5

�hcaind

7-5op

)7K

CE

HC

alortnok/

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 06 27 06 27 06 27 �

� � � 5.01 5.0

5.05.0

2 5.05.0 � � 5.0

1 5.05.0

2 5.0 �

6.59-2.093

)9.29(4

2.79-8.19

)5.49(0.69-9.98

)0.39(0.99-9.88

)0.49(6.89-6.58

)1.29(4.99-3.77

)4.88(0

5.8-3.2

3.6-3.2

9.7-0.2

3.01-0.1

8.6-5,1

5.7-0.2

8.21-3.4

5.3-0.2

3.4-0.2

5.3-3.1

5.12-3.4

0.22-3.4

0.12-7.3

0

3.89-8.37

3.89-3.47

5.89-3.87

5.89-8.57

8.89-8.67

8.79-3.47

3.69-0.87

KC

EH

CT

AS

SA

MOI

BD

EE

Wg[ilortnok

wwótsa

whcasa

moiB

. m2-]

5802-166S

RA

EYR

OF

NA

EM

3731=tal

zainder�/

:ET

ON

1,

NOIT

ACIL

PP

AN

EF

RO

ULFY

XO

YR

EV

ER

ETF

ASY

AD

3-2D

EILP

PA

LSI

HA

SA

2,

NE

FR

OUL

FYX

OHTI

WE

RUT

XIM-

KN

ATNI

DEIL

PP

AL

SIH

AS

A3

,3002-2002R

OF

)OT-

MO

RF(

EG

NA

R4

.S

RA

EYR

OF

NA

EM

.YD

UTS

NW

O:E

CR

UO

S:ainein�ajb

O1

,meneforoulfysko

ugeibazmyd¿ak

opind3-2

ynawosots

LSihas

A2

,mrneforoulfysko

zeininazsei

mw

oty¿uL

SihasA

3hcatal

w)od-do(

serkaz,3002-2002

4.tal

zainder�

.ensa³w

ainadab:o³dór�

12)3002-2002(

NOI

NO

NIE

RUT

CU

RTS

DLEIY

EHT

NO

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OD

NA

LSI

HA

SA

FO

TC

EFFE

EHT.2

ELB

AT)3002-2002(

êrutkurtsogejiilubec

nolpan

uneforoulfyskoiL

SihasA

wy³pW.2

alebaT

GNI

RU

DHT

WO

RG

NOI

NO

FO

EG

ATS

TN

EMT

AE

RTugeibaz

sazcdopilubecaza

F

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OET

AR

akwa

Duneforoulfysko

g[.

ah1-

].i.a

LSI

HA

SA

ETA

Rak

waD

LSihas

Al[.

ah1-]

DLEIY

LAT

OTynlógo

nolP gk[

.001

. m2-]

ROF

HDL

EIY/A

DLEIY

FO

OITA

RNI

MC

6>S

NOI

NO

FO

NOIT

CA

RFE

HT,L

SIH

AS

A+

EDI

CIB

RE

HR

ETFA

�A.

AID

YLN

OE

DICI

BR

EH

RETF

A�

H6>

ycinder�olubecijckarf

unolpkenusot

Sudycibrehi

LSihas

Auina

wosotsazop

mc)

H(udycibreh

ogemas

od)

A(]

%[2002

3002R

OFN

AE

MS

RA

EYtal

zainder�

20023002

ROF

NA

EM

SR

AEY

talz

ainder�)1

EG

ATS

FA

EL5.1-1

aic�il5,1-1

azaf/SY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/SY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/)2

EG

ATS

FA

EL5.1-1

aic�il5,1-1

azaf//

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)3E

GAT

SF

AEL

5.1-1aic�il

5,1-1azaf/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)4T

SS

EV

AEL

2ic�il

2azaf/

EG

A/

RET

FA

SYA

D7-5

�hcaind

7-5op

)5/

EG

ATS

SE

VA

EL2

ic�il2

azaf/

RET

FA

SYA

D7-5

�hcaind

7-5op

)6/

EG

ATS

SE

VA

EL2

ic�il2

azaf/

RET

FA

SYA

D7-5

�hcaind

7-5op

)7/

KC

EH

Calortnok

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 06 27 06 27 06 27 �

� � � 5.01 5.0

5.05.0

2 5.05.0 � � 5.0

1 5.05.0

2 5.0 �

a9.082

a4.872

a8.092

a4.082

a1.882

a6.482

a4.642

ba8.093

ba2.153

a3.744

ba7.983

ba1.553

ba5.083

b7.672

a9.533

a8.413

a1.963

a1.533

a6.123

a6.233

a7.162

2.52=

0.0013

2.031

8.131

2.91=

0.0013

9.431

4.431

6.113

8.61=

0.0013

1.74

5.691

0.32=

0.0013

8.46

5.97

79.83

0.12=

0.0013

2.79

6.751

1.12=

0.0013

7.69

3.401

2.013

KC

EH

CT

AS

SA

MOI

BD

EE

Wg[ilortnok

wwótsa

whcasa

moiB

. m2-]

5802-166/

SR

AEY

RO

FN

AE

M3731

=talz

ainder�:

ETO

N1

,N

OITA

CILP

PA

NE

FR

OUL

FYX

OY

RE

VE

RET

FA

SYA

D3-2

DEIL

PP

AL

SIH

AS

A2

HTIW

ER

UTXI

M-K

NAT

NID

EILP

PA

LSI

HA

SA

,N

EF

RO

ULFY

XO

3001

gkNI

DLEIY

. m2-.

OTG

NID

RO

CC

AL

EV

EL%5

EHT

TA

TN

ER

EF

FID

YLTN

ACI

FIN

GIS

TO

NE

RA

RETT

ELE

MA

SE

HTY

BD

EW

OLLO

FN

MUL

OC

ANI

HTIW

SN

AE

M.T

SET

EG

NA

REL

PITLU

MSL

UE

K-N

AM

WE

N.Y

DUT

SN

WO:

EC

RU

OS

:ainein�ajbO

1,

meneforoulfyskougeibaz

myd¿akopind

3-2yna

wosotsL

SihasA

2meneforoulfysko

zeininazsei

mw

oty¿uL

SihasA

301

gkw

nolp0

. m2-.

¹bosyzdêi

meintotsi

êis¹in¿ór

einimaretili

mymasi

mikatenozcanzo

hcanmulok

wic�otraW

zrpy

eimoizop

.aslueK-ana

mwe

Nutset

50,0=

P.ensa³

wainadab:o³dór�

13NI

RE

VO-LL

AFF

AEL

NO

DN

A,N

EFR

OULFY

XO

FO

YTICI

XOT

OTYH

PD

NA

YC

ACIFF

EL

ORT

NO

CD

EE

WN

OL

SIH

AS

AF

OT

CEFF

EE

HT.3EL

BAT

)5002-4002(N

OIN

O)5002-4002(

meroibzdezrpilubec

uroipyzczseina

ma³aziæ�onzcyskototif,uneforoulfysko

¹zcjóbotsawhc

æ�onzcetuksan

LSihas

Awy³p

W.3alebaT

GNI

RU

DHT

WO

RG

NOI

NO

FO

EG

ATS

TN

EMT

AE

RTugeibaz

sazcdopilubecaza

F

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OET

AR

akwa

Duneforoulfysko

g[.

ah1-

].i.a

LSI

HA

SA

ETA

Rak

waD

LSihas

Al[.

ah1-]

NOIT

CU

DE

RS

SA

MOI

BNI

ajckudeR

ysamoib

]%[

EG

AR

EV

OC

DE

EW

TS

EV

RA

HE

ROF

EB

zezrpeicyrk

Odezrp

ytsawhc

meroibz]

%[

YTICI

XOT

OTYH

Pæ�onzcyskototi

F]

%[

RE

VO-LL

AFF

AEL

TS

EV

RA

HE

ROF

EB

uroipyzczseina

ma³aZmeroibz

dezrp]

%[)1

/E

GAT

SF

AEL

5.1-1aic�il

5,1-1azaf

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)2E

GAT

SF

AEL

5.1-1aic�il

5,1-1azaf/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)3E

GAT

SF

AEL

2aic�il

2azaf/ SY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/SY

AD

7-5R

ETF

A�

hcaind7-5

op/)4

GAT

SS

EV

AEL

2ic�il

2azaf/

E SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)5AT

SS

EV

AEL

4-3ic�il

4-3azaf/

EG

)6S

SE

VA

EL4-3

ic�il4-3

azaf/E

GATSY

AD

3-2R

ETF

A�

hcaind3-2

op/SY

AD

41R

ETF

A�

hcaind41

op/)7

KC

EH

Calortnok/

42 42 42 42 42 42 06 06 06 06 06 06021

021 � � �

� � � 5.01 5.0

5.0 � � � 5.01 5.0

5.0 � � 5.05.0 �

9.39-8.682

)4.09(3

0.69-5.29

)3.49(9.59-3.88

)1.29(1.39-4.48

)8.88(3.89-6.46

)5.18(6.88-5.17

)1.08(0

3.5-5.1

8.4-9.1

5.4-0.1

0.5-1.2

3.5-9.2

3.4-9.3

3.32-8.91

5.2-0

0.2-3.0

8.6-5.1

0.7-0.1

0.5-0.2

5.4-5.1

0

3.68-3.13

8.88-5.23

0.97-8.82

8.17-8.82

5.67-3.12

0.67-3.62

5.94-8.32

KC

EH

CT

AS

SA

MOI

BD

EE

Wg[ilortnok

wwótsa

whcasa

moiB

. m2-]

8812-185/

SR

AEY

RO

FN

AE

M4831

=talz

ainder�

:ET

ON

1,

NOIT

ACIL

PP

AN

EF

RO

ULFY

XO

YR

EV

ER

ETF

ASY

AD

3-2D

EILP

PA

LSI

HA

SA

2,5002-4002

RO

F)

OT-M

OR

F(E

GN

AR

3.

SR

AEY

RO

FN

AE

M.Y

DUT

SN

WO:

EC

RU

OS

:ainein�ajbO

1,


myd¿akopind

3-2yna

wosotsL

SihasA

2,5002-4002

hcatalw

)od-do(serkaz

3.tal

zainder�

.ensa³w

ainadab:o³dór�

14)5002-4002(

NOI

NO

NIE

RUT

CU

RTS

DLEIY

EHT

NO

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OD

NA

LSI

HA

SA

FO

TC

EFFE

EHT.4

ELB

AT T002-4002(

êrutkurtsogejiilubec

nolpan

uneforoulfyskoiL

SihasA

wy³pW.4

aleba)5

GNI

RU

DHT

WO

RG

NOI

NO

FO

EG

ATS

TN

EMT

AE

RTugeibaz

sazcdopilubecaza

F

NEF

RO

ULFYX

OET

AR

akwa

Duneforoulfysko

g[.

ah1-

].i.a

LSI

HA

SA

ETA

Rak

waD

LSihas

Al[

.ah

1-]

DLEIY

LAT

OTynlógo

nolP gk[

.001

.m

2-]

ROF

HDL

EIY/A

DLEIY

FO

OITA

RNI

MC

6>S

NOI

NO

FO

NOIT

CA

RFE

HT,L

SIH

AS

A+

EDI

CIB

RE

HR

ETFA

�A.

AID

YLN

OE

DICI

BR

EH

RETF

A�

H6>

ycinder�olubecijckarf

unolpkenusot

Sudycibrehi

LSihas

Auina

wosotsazop

mc)

H(udycibreh

ogemas

od)

A(]

%[4002

5002R

OFN

AE

MS

RA

EYtal

zainder

�

40025002

ROF

NA

EM

SR

AEY

talz

ainder�

)1E

GAT

SF

AEL

5.1-1aic�il

5,1-1azaf/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)2E

GAT

SF

AEL

5.1-1aic�il

5,1-1azaf/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

)3G

ATS

FA

EL2

aic�il2

azaf/E

SYA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

YA

D7-5

RET

FA

�hcaind

7-5op/

S)4

EG

ATS

SE

VA

EL2

ic�il2

azaf/R

ETF

ASY

AD

7-5�

hcaind7-5

op/ /R

ETF

ASY

AD

7-5�

hcaind7-5

op)5

EG

ATS

SE

VA

EL4-3

ic�il4-3

azaf/

)6E

GAT

SS

EV

AEL

4-3ic�il

4-3azaf/

RET

FA

SYA

D3-2

�hcaind

3-2op/

ETF

ASY

AD

41�

hcaind41

op/R

)7K

CE

HC

alortnok/

42 42 42 42 42 42 06 06 06 06 06 06021

021 � � �

� � � 5.01 5.0

5.0 � � � 5.01 5.0

5.0 � � 5.05.0 �

a6.424

a9.424

a9.963

a0.743

a2.353

a6.963

b0.912

ba2.543

a0.673

ba2.133

ba5.753

ba8.892

ba3.103

b1.192

9.483

5.004

6.053

8.643

0.623

5.533

1.152

=0.0015.032

2 7.901

=0.0016.971

2

9.28

=0.0013.271

2

2.49

7.452

6.02=

0.0012

0.151

2.31=

0.0012

6.971

9.9=

0.0012

7.071

9.312

6.521=

0.0012

4.031

4.69=

0.0012

3.131

1.19=

0.0012

5.231

3.432

:ET

ON

1,

NOIT

ACIL

PP

AN

EF

RO

ULFY

XO

YR

EV

ER

ETF

ASY

AD

3-2D

EILP

PA

LSI

HA

SA

2gk

NIDL

EIY.

001. m

2-.

OTG

NID

RO

CC

AL

EV

EL%5

EHT

TA

TN

ER

EF

FID

YLTN

ACI

FIN

GIS

TO

NE

RA

RETT

ELE

MA

SE

HTY

BD

EW

OLLO

FN

MUL

OC

ANI

HTIW

SN

AE

MT

SET

EG

NA

REL

PITLU

MSL

UE

K-N

AM

WE

N.Y

DUT

SN

WO:

EC

RU

OS

:ainein�ajbO

1,


myd¿akopind

3-2yna

wosotsL

SihasA

2gk

wnolp

.001

. m2-.

.ensa³w

ainadab:o³dór�

15

YTICIXOTOTYHPDNAYCACIFFELORTNOCDEEWNOLSIHASAFOTCEFFEEHT.5ELBAT)4002-2002SRAEY(TORRACNINORUNILFO

iwhcramaldæ�onzcyskototifiuneforoulfysko¹zcjóbotsawhcæ�onzcetuksanLSihasAwy³pW.5alebaT)4002-2002(

HTWORGTORRACFOEGATSTNEMTAERTGNIRUD

ugeibazsazcdopiwhcramazaF

NORUNILETARakwaDunorunil

g[ . ah 1- ].i.a

LSIHASAETARakwaDLSihasA

l[ . ah 1- ]

NOITCUDERSSAMOIBNI

ajckudeRysamoib

]%[

EGAREVOCDEEWTSEVRAHEROFEB

zezrpeicyrkoPmeroibzdezrpytsawhc

]%[)1 GATSSEVAEL5-3 ic�il5-3eizafw/E

)2 /EGATSSEVAEL5-3 ic�il5-3eizafw� SYAD3-2RETFA hcaind3-2op/)3 EGATSSEVAEL5-3 ic�il5-3eizafw/

� ERUTXIMKNATNI eininazseimw/)4 EGATSSEVAEL2-1 ic�il2-1azaf/

� SYAD41-7RETFA hcaind41-7op/)5 EGATSSEVAEL2-1 ic�il2-1azaf/


� SYAD41-7RETFA hcaind41-7op/)7 KCEHC alortnok/

057

057�

057

091052091052091052

�

�

�5.0 1

5.0 2

��5.0 1

5.05.0 2

5.0�

4.99-8.19 3

)9.59( 4

7.99-1.29)9.49(

8.89-7.88)6.39(

7.89-8.18)9.09(

8.99-7.59)8.79(

7.99-2.79)0.89(

0

7.4-6.0

1.4

2.3-0.1

5.3-9.0

1.3-6.0

8.3-0.1

6.51-2.5

KCEHCTASSAMOIBDEEWg[ilortnokwwótsawhcasamoiB .m 2- ]

3902�862SRAEYROFNAEM )6801=talzainder�/

:ETON 1 ,NOITACILPPANERUNILYREVERETFASYAD3-2DEILPPALSIHASA 2 NIDEILPPALSIHASA,NERUNILHTIWERUTXIM-KNAT 3 ,4002-2002ROF)OTMORF(EGNAR 4 .SRAEYROFNAEM

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS:ainein�ajbO 1 ,menorunilugeibazmyd¿akopind3-2ynawosotsLSihasA 2 zeininazseimwoty¿uLSihasA

,enorunil 3 ,4002-2002hcatalw)od-do(serkaz 4 .talzeinder�.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

There were also some changes in yield structure. In some years, and in some combi-nations, higher percentages of large onions � the fractions with diameter above 7.5 cmand above 6 cm � were observed in the structure of the total yield. As a consequence ofusing Asahi SL in a mixture with oxyfluorfen at 24 g·ha-1, the percentage of large diame-ter onions increased by 31.8% (2002) and 96.5% (2003). In the other cases, applicationof herbicide + Asahi SL did not produce unequivocal results because for the same expe-rimental combination the percentage of large onions in the yield structure increased oneyear and decreased the next. In 2004-2005, the addition of Asahi SL to the herbicide usedthree times caused the percentage of large onions with diameter >6 cm to increase by9.7-51.0% (Tab. 4). This tendency was noticeable in 2005 in the other combinations also(herbicide � 3 times at 60 g·ha-1, and once at 120 g·ha-1), because the percentage of suchonions increased by 70.7-79.6%.

In the available Polish scientific literature, there are no studies which would providemore detailed information on the response of onion to Asahi SL and other biostimulators.However, in other countries, e.g. the Czech Republic, the �Instructions for Use� label onAsahi SL includes recommendations for onion [Atonik.... 2007]. One would thus assumethat they are based on positive results of experiments. The Czech recommendations donot specify if they refer to onion grown from seed or from sets.

It is known that the response of onion to different treatments (including herbicides)depends on the cultivation method [Dobrzañski, Adamicki 2006]. In Poland, Asahi SL and

16)4002-2002(TORRACNIERUTCURTSDLEIYEHTNONORUNILDNALSIHASAFOTCEFFEEHT.6ELBAT

)4002-2002(êrutkurtsogejiiwhcramnolpanunoruniliLSihasAwy³pW.6alebaT

GNIRUDHTWORGTORRACFOEGATSTNEMTAERT

ugeibazsazcdopiwhcramazaF

NORUNILETARAKWADUNORUNI

g[ . ah 1- ].i.a

LSIHASAETARakwaDLSihasA

l[ . ah 1- ]

YTICIXOTOTYHPæ�onzcyskototiF

]%[

DLEIYELBATEKRAMywoldnahnolP

gk[ . 001 . m 2- ]

HDLEIY/ADLEIYFOOITARLSIHASA+EDICIBREHRETFA�A

YLNOEDICIBREHRETFA�HuinawosotsazopunolpkenusotS

ogemasod)A(udycibrehiLSihasA)H(udycibreh ]%[

4002 ROFNAEM4002-2002

talzainder�4002-2002

4002 ROFNAEM4002-2002

talzainder�4002-2002

)1 EGATSSEVAEL5-3 ic�il5-3eizafw/)2 EGATSSEVAEL5-3 ic�il5-3eizafw/

� SYAD3-2RETFA hcaind3-2op/)3 EGATSSEVAEL5-3 ic�il5-3eizafw/

� ERUTXIMKNATNI eininazseimw/)4 EGATSSEVAEL2-1 ic�il2-1azaf/



� SYAD41-7RETFA hcaind41-7op/)7 CEHC

alortnoK

057057

�057

091052091052091052

�

��5.0 1

5.0 2

��5.0 1

5.05.0 2

5.0

�

0.2-5.15.1-2.1

3.1-0.1

8.1-3.1

3.1-8.0

8.1-0.1

0

ba9.067ba4.627

ba9.807

ba6.517

a1.967

ba3.607

b3.145

a2.656a3.376

a9.256

a5.966

a3.896

a2.626

a5.285

9.607=0.001 3

8.201

3.001

6.517=0.001 3

5.701

7.89

3.145 3

2.656=0.001 3

3.201

4.99

5.966=0.001 3

7.401

1.39

5.285 3

:ETON 1 ,NOITACILPPANERUNILYREVERETFASYAD3-2DEILPPALSIHASA 2 ,NERUNILHTIWERUTXIM-KNATNIDEILPPALSIHASA3 NIDLEIY gk . 001 . m 2- .

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS:ainein�ajbO 1 ,menorunilugeibazmyd¿akopind3-2ynawosotsLSihasA 2 ,menorunilzeininazseimwoty¿uLSihasA 3 gkwnolp . 001 . m 2- .

.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

17

other biostimulators are commonly used by onion producers, and it is generally believedthat if they do not damage onion plants, then they most likely give positive results. Theresults of our experiments over four years do not support, nor do they reject, this widely-held view, because, as can be expected, Asahi SL may improve crop quality in someyears. The experiments presented here deal with only one variety of onion grown in asingle location. It can not be ruled out that different varieties can respond to the appliedbiostimulator in different ways.

Onion plants have narrow, tube-like leaves that are not very good at covering the soilsurface at any time during the entire vegetative period. For that reason, during spraytreatments, a considerable amount of the agent being applied does not settle on the le-aves, but on the surface of the soil, regardless of the technique employed to carry out thetreatment. Since onion leaves are also covered with a thin layer of wax that makes itdifficult for the agent to penetrate inside the plant, one would expect that the addition ofan adjuvant to the working solution should make it more effective. That is why, in 2004-2005, Asahi SL was used with an adjuvant. However, the hypothesis was not confirmedby the experimented data.

In carrot, the phytotoxicity of linuron used with the biostimulator was low, irrespecti-ve of the treatment method, because the degree of damage to leaves fell within the range0.8-2.0% (Tab. 6). At such low level of damage, it is difficult to try and find what effect,if any, the biostimulator has on herbicide phytotoxicity. Nevertheless, in those combina-tions that included Asahi SL, slightly better plant growth and a 0.5% reduction in theextent of damage were observed in the initial period after treatment.

In 2002-2003, around 10 July, the carrot plants had 8-9 leaves, and the average weightof the above-ground parts was within the range 11.8-15.7 g (depending on the combina-tion). In those combinations that involved the use of herbicide only, or herbicide with theaddition of Asahi SL, the weight of the above-ground parts in 2002 was by 1-10%, and in2003 by 29-43% greater than the corresponding values for the control combination withoutherbicide. In spite of that, no significant differences attributable to Asahi SL were found.

The average weight of 1 carrot in 2002-2003 did not depend on the biostimulator,either, but mainly on the herbicide used, and was 29.9-48.8 g. There were no significantdifferences in the length of the carrot leaves measured from the top to the end of leafblade, which was about 30 cm. The number of carrot roots at harvest was between 25.5to 30.4 per linear meter of row, and did not depend on the applied treatments. The 3-yearaverage for carrot tops at harvest was 126.8-132.5 kg·100 m-2, and was the highest forthe combination where Asahi SL had been applied 2-3 days after the treatment withlinuron at the 3-5 leaf stage in carrot. However, the differences were not proven statisti-cally significant.

In terms of both the total and marketable yields of carrot, the significance of thedifferences between the experimental combinations in 2002-2003 was not proven statisti-cally. Therefore, apart from the overall average yield for 3 years, Table 6 contains yieldsizes for 2004 only, where the significance of the differences between the combinationsbecame evident. Because of the lack of statistically proven differences, the beneficialeffect of the biostimulator on the yielding of carrot plants cannot be definitely confirmed.Nevertheless, there was a noticeable tendency for higher yields in 2003-2004 in those

18

combinations in which Asahi SL was used 2-3 days after the herbicide treatment at the 3-5 leaf stage (the marketable yield was higher by 2.8-6.8%).

In the years 2002 and 2004, as a result of using Asahi SL after two herbicide treat-ments (at the 1-2 leaf stage and after 7-14 days), the yield was higher by 7.3-7.5%compared with the sole use of the herbicide. In 2003, no differences were noted. Thehighest average marketable yield for 3 years (698 kg·100 m-2) was obtained after usingAsahi SL at 0.5 l·ha-1 applied after the treatments with linuron that had been carried outtwice � at the 1-2 leaf stage and after 7-14 days. When linuron was used on its own atthose times, the yield was 669.5 kg·100 m-2. Considering the soil conditions in which theexperiments were conducted, the average yield of carrot was relatively high, exceeding50 tones per ha in 2002, and even 70 tones per ha in 2003-2004. At this high level ofyielding it is probably difficult to show the effect of any additional action that may contri-bute to increased yielding, including that of biostimulators.

The onion and carrot plants were grown in a soil that was quite rich in nutrients andunder irrigation on an as-needed basis. It is possible that watering had a greater effect onthe growth and yielding of the plants than the action of the biostimulator.

In the experiments, the herbicides were used within the range of recommended do-ses, which do not always put plants under considerable herbicide stress. Even in onion,where the extent of damage caused by oxyfluorfen amounted to as much as 22% in somecombinations, the anti-stress action of Asahi SL did not make itself obvious because thelevels of damage to onion plants were the same regardless of whether or not Asahi SLhad been used. According to the results of these experiments, and also of those carriedout earlier [Dobrzañski et al. 1998], even fairly extensive damage to onion leaves by aherbicide that works like oxyfluorfen, which gives the user cause for concern, does notalways translate into a negative impact on yielding.

The fact that Asahi SL does not always have a yield-increasing effect is confirmedby Vavarina [1998a, b], who reported that Atonik (the former trade name of Asahi SL)did not have any effect on the yielding of cucumber plants grown under irrigation andproper fertilization, i.e. in �stress-free� conditions. He also could not demonstrate anyeffects on yielding in some experiments with capsicum and tomato, although he does notrule out that under certain conditions the results may be positive. However, Csizinsky[1990] and Csizinsky et al. [1990] report that following the use of this biostimulator, yieldsof capsicum minimally increase in comparison with water spraying. They also emphasizethat different responses can be expected from different varieties.

There are very few published results of research work on the use of Asahi SL onvegetable crops, especially those that were used to help register this product. In spite ofthat, recommendations for use of this biostimulator can be found on currently valid �In-structions for Use� labels in some countries. For example, in the Czech Republic, AsahiSL is allowed for use on tomato, cucumber, capsicum, onion and garlic [Atonik... 2007], inHungary � on cucumber, capsicum, melon and tomato [Registered... 2007]. In Poland,the �Instructions for Use� label [Asahi SL 2005] lists cucumber, tomato, leek, celery,carrot (authorization expiry date: 12 April 2011). Yet there are almost no published resultsthat would meet the standards of a scientific research paper. Among the published stu-dies concerning the use of Asahi SL on vegetable crops, a paper by Czeczko and Mikos-

19

Bielak [2004] can also be mentioned here. It records a positive effect of this biostimulatoron the yields of celeriac and leek after 3 to 5 treatments. The paper is very informative,as it describes changes in the chemical composition of several vegetable species. It doesnot, however, satisfy the criteria required for registration of synthetic growth regulators.

CONCLUSIONS

The biostimulator Asahi SL, used post emergence in combination with herbicidescontaining oxyfluorfen and linuron does not modify the weed control efficacy of theseherbicides, irrespective of the number of treatments, and whether it is used in a mixturewith herbicide or applied 2-3 days after herbicide treatment. Weeds that have been da-maged or are dying as a result of treatments with these herbicides do not regenerate.Asahi SL did not alter the selectivity of herbicides to the crops. The response of onion andcarrot plants depended to a larger extent on the herbicides and the way they were usedthan on the biostimulator, because competition from weeds was the basic factor thatdetermined the course of plant growth and yielding. A desirable effect of Asahi SL wasthat it did not prolong the ripening period in onion, indicated by the degree of leaf fall-overbefore harvest. The extent of leaf fall-over before harvest depended mainly on the dosesof oxyfluorfen.

In onion, in some years, there was an increase in yield when Asahi SL and oxyfluor-fen were used three times, especially as a mixture, with Asahi SL (0.5 l·ha-1) added toeach treatment. Asahi SL produced positive changes in the structure of the yield of onion.In general, the percentage of large onions with diameter above 6 cm, and of good quality,increased. In carrot, however, Asahi SL did not change the structure of the yield becausethe size of the marketable yield as a share of the total yield was similar in all the tret-ments.

With high carrot yields, it was difficult to prove yield-increasing influence of thebiostimulator, although in some years, after two treatments with linuron (first at the 1-2leaf stage in carrot, and then after 7-14 days), the marketable yield was higher by 7.3-7.5% compared with the sole use of the herbicide.

The carrot and onion plants were grown in a soil with an optimum nutrient contentand under irrigation. The herbicides may have acted as stress-inducing agents. Theywere used in the range of recommended doses, which do not always induce herbicidestress. It is reasonable to think that in such conditions a statistically-proven, yield-incre-asing effect of the biostimulator does not always become apparent.

20

REFERENCES

Anyszka Z., Dobrzañski A. 1998: Influence of reduced rates and split application of herbicides on weedcontrol and on yield in carrots (Daucus carota L.). Veg. Crops Res. Bull., vol. 49, 49-61.

Asahi SL. Etykieta � instrukcja stosowania. Zezw. Ministerstwa Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi Nr 935/2001,MRiRW Nr R-48/2005, s. 3.

Atonik Rostlinný Stimulátor 2007: Czech label.Cobb A.1992: Herbicides and Plant Physiology. Chapman & Hall. London.Csizinszky A.A. 1990: Response of two bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) cultivars to foliar and-soil-

applied biostimulants. Soil and Crop. Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc., 49,199-203.Csizinszky A.A., Stanley C. D., Clark G.A.1990: Foliar and-soil-applied biostimulant studies with micro-

irrigated pepper and tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc., 103, 113-117.Czeczko R., Mikos-Bielak M. 2004: Efekty stosowania biostymulatora Asahi w uprawie ró¿nych gatun-

ków warzyw. Ann. UMCS, sec. E. vol 59(3), 1073-1079.Dobrzañski A. 1975: Chemiczne zwalczanie chwastów w marchwi. Biul. Warz., vol. 18, 92-11.Dobrzañski A., Pa³czyñski J., Anyszka Z. 1998: Wyniki do�wiadczeñ wdro¿eniowych z zastosowaniem

herbicydu oksyfluorofen (Goal 240 EC), metod¹ dawek dzielonych, w cebuli z siewu. Biul. Warz., vol.48, 29-33.

Dobrzañski A., Dyki B., Pa³czyñski J. 2003: Zmiany morfologiczne i cytologiczne wywo³ywane przezoksyfluorofen na niektórych warzywach cebulowych. Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Ro�l., vol. 43, nr 1,102-108.

Dobrzañski A. 2004: The problem of weeds and weed control management in onion. Now. Warz./Veg CropsNews, 39, 43-52.

Dobrzañski A., Adamicki F. 2006: Uprawa cebuli. Plantpress, Kraków.Dobrzañski A., Pa³czyñski J. 2007: Nowy sposób ochrony cebuli przed chwastami zredukowanymi

dawkami oksyfluorofenu. Now. Warz./Veg. Crops News, 44, 15-27.EPPO Standards 2004: Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products. Vol.4. Herbicides and plant growth

regulators. Second edition. European Plant Protection Organization, Paris.Kositorna J. 2004: Zastosowanie biostymulatora wzrostu Asahi SL jako �rodka chroni¹cego burak cukrowy

przed stresem wywo³anym przez herbicydy. Gazeta Cukrownicza, 2-3, 58-63.Maciejewski T., Szuka³a J., Jarosz A. 2007: Wp³yw biostymulatora Asahi SL i Atonik SL na cechy

jako�ciowe bulw ziemniaków. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng., vol. 52(3), 109-112.Pulkrábek J.,Urban J., Valenta J. 2006: Vliv abiotických a biotických stresorù na vlasntosti rostlin

(Sbornik pøispevku). Fakulta agrbiologie, potravinových a pøirodnich zdrojù ÈZU v Praze, 17.5 2006,82-86.

Registered Pesticides in Hungary 2007: [http:www.neoland.hu/angol.htm].S³owiñski A. 2004: Biostymulatory w nowoczesnej ochronie ro�lin. Ochrona Ro�lin, 2, 16-17.Tei F., Ascard J., Baumann D.T., Caussanel J.P., Dobrzañski A.et al. 1999: Weeds and weed management

in onion � a review. 11 th Symposium European Weed Research Society, Basel, 131.Tei F., Baumann D.T., Bleeker P.O., Dobrzañski A. et al. 2002: Weeds and weed management in carrots

� a review. 12th European Weed Research Society Symposium, Wageningen: Proceedings, 14-15.Vavarina C.S. 1998a: Atonik plant growth stimulator: Effect on cucumber under seepage irrigation in SW

Florida. Vegetable Horticulture, 30 Mar. [www.imok.vfl.edu/veghort/pubs/sta_rpts/atoncuce].Vavarina C.S. 1998b: Atonik plant growth stimulator:effect on tomato under seepage irrigation in SW

Florida. Vegetable Horticulture, 06 Apr. [www.imok.vfl.edu/veghort/pubs/sta_rpts/atoniktom].

21

THE INFLUENCE OF GOËMAR GOTEO BIOSTIMULA-

TOR ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF TWO CHINESE CAB-

BAGE CULTIVARS

Marek Gajewski, Katarzyna Gos, Justyna BobrukWarsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

INTRODUCTION

Chinese cabbage is the vegetable crop characterized by a very fast growth, but aweak root system, what results in some problems in its cultivation. In Poland, it is grownmainly as a spring or autumn crop. For improving root system development of cultivatedplants, some growth stimulators were recommended in agricultural practice [Szwonek2003, Boehme et al. 2005, S³owiñski 2006]. One example of such biostimulators is theorganic-mineral Goëmar Goteo preparation, based on the concentrate made of marinealgae, with an addition of phosphorus and potassium. The preparation was elaborated tostimulate plant growth and development, and also the activity of root system. GoëmarGoteo is applied directly to the soil, with irrigation of the plant. The concentrate namedGA12, made of algae species Ascophyllum nodosum in a complicated technologicalprocess, shows biological activity of such substances as: amino acids, vitamins, polysac-charides and phytohormons [www.ppjw.pl/produkty-goteo.html]. Other well known rootgrowth biostimulators, based also on different algae species extracts are: Bio-algeen S-90 and Kelpak. Some effects of Goëmar Goteo treatment on cultivated plant species aredescribed in world literature. The positive effects demonstrated in the experiments were:bigger root system with more fibrous roots, higher resistance of a plant to unfavorableenvironmental conditions, better uptake of nutrients from the soil, and, as the final effect,higher and more stable yield [Wysocka-Owczarek 2002a,b]. Chemical content of GoëmarGoteo preparation is as follows: organic substances 1.3-2.4%, phosphorus (P2O5) > 24.8%,potassium (K2O) > 4.75%. Gruszczyk and Berbeæ [2004] reported that plant growthbiostimulators application resulted in better growth and higher yield of cultivated plants,however there is no information available on the effect of such biostimulators on Chinesecabbage growth and yield. Experiments performed on soybean plants indicated that Bio-algeen-S90 applied as a growth regulator significantly increased the total yield [Red�epo-viæ et al. 2006]. Bio-algeen S-90 and Goëmar Goteo application positively affected soy-bean plants growth parameters, mainly resulted in better and more active root system.Another positive results were obtained with Goëmar Goteo preparation in the case ofglasshouse tomato cultivation [Ligowski 2006]. Active ingredients of Goëmar Goteostimulated the nitrate reductase and root phosphatases [Joubert, Lefranc 2008]. GoëmarGoteo contains also high amount of phosphorus. This macronutrient is an important factorfor root system growth and development. The influence of phosphorus fertilizers on nitra-

22

tes accumulation in cultivated plants was reported in literature [Wang, Li 2004]. Forexample, the nitrates concentration was significantly decreased in green cabbage, butsignificantly increased in white cabbage and rape by phosphorus fertilizers. Another ef-fect of Goëmar Goteo application is the stimulation of polyamines synthesis in a plant.Polyamines are important anti-stress compounds of plant cells [Joubert, Lefranc 2008].

The aim of the experiment was to assess the influence of Goëmar Goteo biostimula-tor on the yield and quality of two popular cultivars of Chinese cabbage, grown in diffe-rent periods of the vegetation season, under climatic conditions of central Poland.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hybrid cultivars of Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. var. pekinensis (Lour.)Olsson) � Kasumi F1 and Bilko F1 were grown in 2006-2007 in the open field experiment.These cultivars, of Dutch origin, are widely grown in Poland as the standard cultivars.The Chinese cabbage was grown during two growing periods, which are usual for Chine-se cabbage cultivation in this geographic region: (a) at autumn period 2006 or (b) atspring-summer period 2007. After the spring-summer cultivation, cabbages were harve-sted at the end of July, and after the autumn term of cultivation � at the beginning ofOctober. Chinese cabbage was grown from plantlets, which were planted out on theExperimental Field at Warsaw-Wilanów. The soil was alluvial loam, of pH 7.1 and humuscontent about 1.5%. Mineral fertilization was applied out before planting out plantlets, atthe doses of 140 kg N, 80 kg P2O5 and 120 kg K2O per ha. The plantlets were producedin an unheated plastic tunnel. Goëmar Goteo preparation was applied at the dose of0.1%, two times to the soil during watering plantlets and in 2006 also four times afterplanting them out, in 2-week intervals. The plantlets were spaced in the field at 60×40cm. The experiment was set up in a split-plot design, with three replications of 30 plantsin each.

At the harvest time the following parameters were determined: total and marketableyield of the heads, total and marketable mass of the heads, dry matter content in the heads(by drying samples at 1050C, until stable weight), soluble solids content using digital refrac-tometer, nitrates content (spectrophotometrically, using Fiastar device), vitamin C content(by Tillman`s titration method). The analysis of a outer leaves colour of the heads withcarried out in the CIE Lab system using HunterLab Mini Scan XE spectrophotometer, andCIE Lab system with determination of such parameters as: L � lightness, a � greenness, b� yellowness). These observations were made at the both terms of cultivation.

For Chinese cabbage collected at the autumn term of harvest, sensory evaluationwas performed at the sensory laboratory of the Department of Vegetable and MedicinalPlants, using the quantitative descriptive analysis method (QDA) [Anonymous 1999].The expert panel, consisting of 12 persons, selected and trained according to ISO stan-dard [Anonymous 1996], carried out the evaluation. At the first part of QDA procedure,�brainstorming� sessions were run to select sensory attributes for Chinese cabbage. Pa-nelists generated a set of eight main attributes for taste/flavour and texture of Chinesecabbage. List of attributes/definition of attributes/anchoring points are as follows: 1. colo-ur/visual evaluation of colour/light green � dark green; 2. crispness/mouthfeel of crisp-

23

STIA

RTL

ACI

SYH

PD

NA

DLEIY

EHT

NO

NOIT

ACIL

PP

AO

ETO

GR

AM

ËO

GF

OE

CN

EULF

NIE

HT.1EL

BAT

.N

OITA

VITLU

CF

OM

RET

NM

UTU

AE

HTNI

EG

AB

BA

CE

SE

NIH

CF

O)R

UOL

OC

SE

VA

EL(o

Gmetaraperp

ainawotkart

wy³pW.1

alebaTë

wjeiksñikepytsupak

)ic�ilê

wrab(enzcyzif

yhcecinolp

anoeto

Gra

m.y

warpueini

mretmynneisej

RA

VITLU

Canai

mdO

-TA

ERT

TN

EM

-otkarTeina

w

LAT

OTDL

EIYnol

Pyti

wok³ac gk[.

m001

2 ]

-TE

KR

AM

ELB

ADL

EIYnol

Py

woldnah gk[.

m001

2 ]

NA

EM

TH

GIE

WD

AE

HF

Oainder

�asa

mik

wó³g]gk[

NA

EM

FO

TH

GIE

W-T

EK

RA

MD

AE

HEL

BA

asam

ainder�

awoldnah

ikwó³g

]gk[

NIR

UOL

OC

SE

VA

ELM

ETSY

SB

ALEI

Cic�il

awra

BbaL

EIC

eimetsys

w La

b

imusa

K

okliB

SR

AVITL

UC

RO

FS

NA

EM

naimdo

aldeinder

�N

EMT

AE

RTR

OF

SN

AE

Maina

wotkartald

einder�

oetoG

LO

RTN

OC

oetoG

LO

RTN

OC

imusa

Kokli

Boeto

GL

ORT

NO

C

566525567077

a595

b867

a517

a846

034523564024

a873

b344

b844

a373

65.219.110.278.1

a42.2

a49.1

b92.2

a98.1

66.181.122.190.1

b24.1

a61.1

b44.1

a41.1

7.662.560.660.56

a0.66

a5.56

b4.66

a1.56

7.9�3.9�9.9�1.9�

a5.9�

a5.9�

b8.9�

a2.9�

8.722.622.033.13

a0.72

b8.03

a0.92

a8.82

50.0=

pB

xA

RIN/

DSL

96.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

8.0

ER

A50.0

=p

TA

TS

ETD

SH

S'YE

KUT

OTG

NID

RO

CC

AYLT

NA

CIFI

NGI

SR

EF

FID

HCI

HW

SN

AE

M:ET

ON

TTEL

TN

ER

EF

FID

HTIW

DE

KR

AM

.n.S

RE

/.sn.r

.TN

ACI

FIN

GIS

NIN

OITC

AR

ETNI

�..Y

DUT

SN

WO:

EC

RU

OS

�.n.r/.s.n,imaretili

mynneimdo

onozcanzo50,0

=p

yzrpa'yekuT

utsetg

weintotsi

êisec¹in¿ór

einder�:agaw

Uantotsiein

ajckaretni.ensa³

wainadab:o³dór�

ness/not crispy � very crispy; 3. juiciness/amount of liquid released when chewing sam-ple/not juicy � very juicy; 4. flavour of cabbage/characteristic flavour of fresh cabbagenone � very intensive; 5. sweet taste/basic taste/none � very intensive; 6. sharp flavour/mouthfeel of spicy flavour/none � very intensive; 7. bitter taste/basic taste/none � veryintensive; 8. off-flavour/flavour non typical for cabbage/none � very intensive. Also ove-rall quality impression was evaluated (low quality � high quality). The samples wereserved to panelists in a totally random order. Results of the evaluation were converted tonumerical values (from 0 to 10). The analysis was performed during two independentsessions. For coding samples and for initial processing of the data, Analsens softwarewas used.

Semi-consumer`s hedonic testof liking was also performed. For thisevaluation non-structural scale wasalso used, with anchoring points: �Ido not like it� � �I like it very much�.

Data obtained were subjectedto analysis of variance, using Stat-graphicsPlus 4.1 software. Meansseparation was conducted usingTukey`s HSD test at probability le-vel p = 0.05.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION

Both cultivars of Chinese cab-bage used in the experiment arecommonly cultivated in Poland, andboth cultivars, at the opinion of far-mers, show extensive vegetativegrowth and are highly yielding ones.The experimented results demon-strated that both the total yield andthe marketable yield obtained werequite high (Tab. 1, Tab. 4). Due tothe lack of data concerning appli-cation of root system biostimulatorson Chinese cabbage, the discussionof our results cannot be fully per-formed. However, compared to theresults obtained by other authorswith other plant species, the positi-ve effect of Goëmar Goteo onplant yield was confirmed. Goëmar

24

OGFOECNEULFNIEHT.2ELBAT Ë NOITISOPMOCLACIMEHCEHTNONOITACILPPAOETOGRAMNOITAVITLUCFOMRETNMUTUAEHTNIEGABBACESENIHCFO

oGmetaraperpainawotkartwy³pW.2alebaT ë mynneisejwjeiksñikepytsupakynzcimehcda³ksanoetoGramywarpueinimret

RAVITLUCanaimdO

TNEMTAERTeinawotkarT

ELBULOSSDILOS

tkartskE ]%[

RETTAMYRDasamahcuS

]%[

SETARTINynatozA

gm[ . ON 3 ]gk

CNIMATIVCanimatiW

gm[ . ]g001imusaK

okliB

SRAVITLUCROFSNAEMnaimdoaldeinder�

TNEMTAERTROFSNAEMainawotkartaldeinder�

oetoGLORTNOC

oetoGLORTNOC

imusaKokliBoetoG

LORTNOC

0.32.32.24.2

b1.3a3.2a6.2b8.2

1.40.48.44.4

a1.4b6.4a5.4a2.4

5011795859956

a158a908b2301a826

0.116.99.119.8

a3.01a4.01b5.11a3.9

50.0=pBxARIN/DSL .n.r/.s.n 2.0 .n.r/.s.n .n.r/.s.n

.1.BATEES:ETONNWO:ECRUOS .YDUTS

.1.batzrtap:agawU.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

Goteo application resulted in an increase of the total and marketable yield of bothcultivars, especially when they were grown in the autumn period. At the spring-summerterm of cultivation, only the effect on total yield was significant (Tab. 4). Also the meantotal head mass and the marketable head mass were higher, for both cultivars, afterGoëmar Goteo application. Visual observation made on root system after digging outsome randomly chosen plants showed that the system of Goëmar Goteo treated plantswas a little more developed, with more lateral small roots. This phenomenon was obse-rved in the case of tomato plants in other experiment [Ligowski 2006].

Chemical analysis of heads showed differences in some parameters between combi-nations of the experiment (Tab. 2 and Tab. 5). Positive influence of Goëmar Goteotreatment on vitamin C content in heads was noted for both cultivars in the autumn termof cultivation, and in the case of cv Kasumi � in the spring term. Both cultivars had similarmean content of this vitamin. The tendency to higher dry matter content after GoëmarGoteo application was noted for the autumn term of cultivation. The effect in the case ofspring-summer term was insignificant. Differences between cultivars in dry matter con-tent were observed and cv Kasumi showed lower dry matter content than cv Bilko inboth terms of growing. The effect of Goëmar Goteo on soluble solids or nitrate contentin Chinese cabbage was not clear, since both cultivars reacted in different ways to thetreatment. Slightly higher nitrates content in cabbage was noted after Goëmar Goteoapplication in the autumn term of cultivation, and similar slight tendency for the spring-summer term. Chinese cabbage is the vegetable of high tendency to nitrates accumula-tion in leaves [Guttormsen 1996]. Since toxic action of nitrates derivates is underlined inliterature and rigorous regulation in the case of nitrates in vegetables exists, various me-thods of lowering nitrates accumulation in plants are studied. For example, in literaturethe differentiated effect of phosphorus fertilization on nitrates accumulation in some plantspecies is reported [Wang, Li 2004]. Since Goëmar Goteo biostimulator has high contentof phosphorus, observed unstable effect of this chemical on nitrates accumulation inChinese cabbage could be caused by phosphorus interaction with nitrates. Also algaefiltrates can show nitrates decreasing action [Joubert, Lefranc 2008]. Nitrates content in

25N

MUT

UA

EHT

NIE

GA

BB

AC

ES

ENI

HC

FO

SET

UBI

RTTA

YR

OS

NE

SE

HTN

ON

OITA

CILP

PA

OET

OG

RA

MË

OG

FO

EC

NE

ULFNI

EHT.3

ELB

ATN

OITA

VITLU

CF

OM

RET

oG

metaraperpaina

wotkartwy³p

W.3alebaT

ëy

warpueini

mretmynneisej

wjeiksñikepytsupak

enzcyrosnesyhcec

anoeto

Gra

m

RAVITL

UC

anaimd

OT

NE

MTAE

RTeina

wotkarTR

UOL

OC

awra

BS

SE

NP

SIR

Cæ�ohcur

KS

SE

NICI

UJæ�otsyzco

SF

OR

UO

VALFE

GA

BB

AC

ytsupakka

mS

TE

EW

SET

SAT

kam

Sikdo³s

PR

AH

SR

UO

VALFka

mS

yrtso

RETTI

BET

SAT

kam

Sikzrog

RU

OVALF-FF

Oycbo

kam

S

imusa

K

okliB

SR

AVITL

UC

RO

FS

NA

EM

naimdo

aldeinder

�T

NE

MTA

ERT

RO

FS

NA

EM

ainawotkart

aldeinder

�

oetoG

K/LO

RTN

OC

lortnooeto

GK/L

ORT

NO

Clortno

imusa

Kokli

Boeto

GK/L

ORT

NO

Clortno

03.201.410.546.3

a02.3

b33.4

a66.3

a78.3

60.679.576.600.7

a20.6

a48.6

a73.6

a94.6

03.570.565.590.5

a91.5

a33.5

b34.5

a80.5

44.530.550.567.5

a42.5

a14.5

a52.5

a04.5

32.276.225.236.2

a54.2

a85.2

a83.2

b56.2

24.285.250.216.3

a05.2

b38.2

a42.2

b01.3

17.029.075.010.1

a28.0

a97.0

a46.0

b79.0

05.043.001.091.0

a24.0

a51.0

a03.0

a72.0

50.0=

pB

xA

RIN/

DSL

34.0.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n32.0

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

.1.B

ATE

ES:

ETO

N:

EC

RU

OS

.YD

UTS

NW

O.1.bat

zrtap:agaw

U.ensa³

wainadab:o³dór�

OG

FO

EC

NE

ULFNI

EHT.4

ELB

ATË

ES

ENI

HC

FO)

RU

OLO

CS

EVA

EL(STI

ART

LA

CISY

HP

DN

ADL

EIYE

HTN

ON

OITACIL

PP

AO

ETO

GR

AM

NOITAVITL

UC

FO

MR

ETG

NIR

PS

EHT

NIE

GA

BB

AC

ywarpu

einimret

mynnesoiw

wjeiksñikepytsupak

)ic�ilê

wrab(enzcyzif

yhcecinolp

anoeto

Gra

mëoG

metaraperpaina

wotkartwy³p

W.4alebaT

RAVITL

UC

anaimd

OT

NE

MTAE

RTeina

wotkarTDL

EIYL

ATOT

ytiwok³ac

nolP

gk[.

m001

2 ]

ELB

ATE

KR

AM

DLEIY

ywoldnah

nolP

gk[.

m001

2 ]

TH

GIE

WN

AE

MD

AE

HF

Oainder

�asa

m]gk[ik

wó³g

TH

GIE

WN

AE

MEL

BAT

EK

RA

MF

OD

AE

Hasa

mainder

�ik

wó³ga

woldnah]gk[

NIR

UOL

OC

SE

VAEL

MET

SYS

BAL

EIC

eimetsys

wic�ila

wraB

baLEI

C

La

bi

musaK

okliB

SR

AVITL

UC

RO

FS

NA

EM

naimdo

aldeinder

�T

NE

MTA

ERT

RO

FS

NA

EM

ainawotkart

aldeinder

�

oetoG

LO

RTN

OC

oetoG

LO

RTN

OC

imusa

Kokli

Boeto

GL

ORT

NO

C

047694825444

b816

a684

b436

a074

862022442462

a442

a452

a652

a242

58.142.123.111.1

b55.1

a22.1

b95.1

a81.1

76.055.016.066.0

a16.0

a46.0

a46.0

a16.0

4.760.661.562.46

a7.66

a7.46

b3.66

a1.56

6.9�7.8�7.9�1.9�

a2.9�

a4.9�

b7.9�

a9.8�

8.827.624.333.23

a8.72

b9.23

b1.13

a5.92

50.0=

pB

xA

RIN/

DSL

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n.n.r/.s.n

.n.r/.s.n

.1.B

ATE

ES:

ETO

N.Y

DUT

SN

WO:

EC

RU

OS

.1.batzrtap:aga

wU

.ensa³w

ainadab:o³dór�

26

NOITISOPMOCLACIMEHCEHTNONOITACILPPAOETOGRAMËOGFOECNEULFNIEHT.5ELBATNOITAVITLUCFOMRETGNIRPSEHTNIEGABBACESENIHCFO

oGmetaraperpainawotkartwy³pW.5alebaT ë wjeiksñikepytsupakynzcimehcda³ksanoetoGramywarpueinimretmynnesoiw

RAVITLUCanaimdO


ELBULOSSDILOS

tkartskE ]%[

RETTAMYRDasamahcuS

]%[

SETARTINynatozA

[ gm . ON 3 ]gk

CNIMATIVCanimatiW

gm[ . ]g001imusaK

okliB

SRAVITLUCROFSNAEMnaimdoaldeinder�

TNEMTAERTROFSNAEMainawotkartaldeinder�

oetoGC LORTNO

oetoGC LORTNO

imusaKokliBoetoG

C LORTNO

0.23.20.35.3

a2.2b3.3a5.2b9.2

2.44.40.59.4

a3.4b0.5a6.4a7.4

194874154283

a584a714a174a034

9.526.418.615.12

a3.02a2.91a4.12a1.81

50.0=pBxARIN/DSL .n.r/.s.n .n.r/.s.n .n.r/.s.n 2.3

.1.BATEES:ETONNWO:ECRUOS YDUTS

.1.batzrtap:agawU.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

Figure 1. Scores for overallsensory quality and consu-mer's liking for Chinesecabbage in relation to treat-m e n tSOURCE: OWN study.Rysunek 1. Oceny jako�ci ogólneji po¿¹dalno�æ kapusty pekiñskiejzale¿nie od traktowania�ród³o: badania w³asne.

6FRUH��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

*RWHR &RQWURO *RWHR &RQWURO

.DVXPL %LONR /6'

2YHUDOO�VHQVRU\�TXDOLW\ +HGRQLF�WHVW

the cabbage from the spring-summer term of growing was about two-times lowerthan in the second term. However, nitrates level was not very high in both terms ofcultivation, since it did not reach 1200 mg . NO3

. kg-1 f.w. Another observed effect ofGoëmar Goteo application was the influence on leaves colour parameters. Leaves ofboth cultivars of Chinese cabbage were more green after Goëmar Goteo application,since the �a� parameter (greenness intensity) had a lower negative value.

Sensory evaluation of vegetables and other food items brings valuable information ontheir quality characteristics [Abbott 1999]. Sensory traits are usually the main factordetermining consumer`s satisfaction, and they are also important as the quality compo-nent of Chinese cabbage. There are some reports on sensory quality of Chinese cabbage[Gajewski 2004], but not on the influence of biostimulators on sensory characteristics.The set of sensory descriptors (attributes) used in this work in profiling analysis wassimilar to the set applied in analysis described in the cited report. In this experiment somedifferences in sensory descriptors concerning taste/flavour were found for the cultivarsand for the treatments (Tab. 3). Namely, cabbages treated with Goëmar Goteo prepara-

27

tion were a little more juicy, less sweet, less bitter and of less sharp, spicy flavour. Nosignificant differences in overall sensory quality or in results of semi-consumer`s hedonictest for cabbage liking were found between treated and untreated material (Fig. 1). Chi-nese cabbage cv Bilko was rated slightly higher than cv Kasumi in respect of overallquality in profile analysis and of flavour quality in the hedonic test.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Goëmar Goteo application in Chinese cabbage cultivation influenced some parame-ters of the yield but the effect depended on growing term and the cultivar.

2. One of noticeable effects of the treatment was an increased marketable yield andalso total and marketable mass of heads, compared to the untreated cabbage.

3. Leaves of Chinese cabbage had more intensive green colour after Goëmar Goteoapplication.

4. The positive effect of Goëmar Goteo biostimulator was noted in the case of vitaminC and dry matter content in Chinese cabbage.

5. Treatment of Chinese cabbage with Goëmar Goteo did not influence overall sensoryquality of heads, nor flavour score in consumer`s hedonic test, but influenced some ofsensory attributes.

REFERENCES

Anonymous 1996: Sensory analysis. Experts. PN-ISO 8586-2.Anonymous 1999: Sensory analysis. Methodology. PN-ISO 6564.Abbott J. 1999: Quality measurement of fruits and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 15, 207-225.Boehme M., Schevtschenko J., Pinker I. 2005: Effect of biostimulators on growth of vegetables in

hydroponical systems. Acta Hortic. 697, 337-344.Gajewski M. 2004: Modeling of sensory quality of Chinese cabbage cultivars (Brassica rapa L. var. peki-

nensis (Lour.) Olsson) after storage. Veg. Crops Res. Bull., 60, 97-105.Gruszczyk M., Berbeæ S. 2004. Porównanie wp³ywu wybranych preparatów stosowanych dolistnie na

plony i jako�æ surowca z³ocienia maruny (Chrysanthemum parthenium L.). Ann. UMCS, vol. LIX (2),755-759.

Guttormsen G. 1996: The effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield, quality, and storage ability of Chinesecabbage. Norsk-Landbruksforsking, 10(3/4), 189-198.

Joubert J.-M., Lefranc G. 2008. Sea weed phytostimulants in agriculture: recent studies on mode of actiontwo types of products from algae: growth and nutrition stimulants and stimulants of plant defensereactions. Biostimulators on Modern Agriculture. SGGW, Warsaw, 7-8.02, 16.

Ligowski D. 2006: Wp³yw metody, rodzaju pod³o¿a i biostymulatorów na parametry wzrostu rozsadypomidorów szklarniowych. Praca in¿., WSE-H Skierniewice.

Red�epoviæ S., Èolo J., Bla�inkov M., Poljak M., Pecina M., Sikora S., �eput M. 2006: Effect ofinoculation and growth regulator on soybean yield and photosynthetic pigment content. Agric. Con-spectus Sci., 71(3), 75-80.

S³owiñski A. 2006: Program poprawy jako�ci warzyw. Owoce Warzywa Kwiaty, 6, 35.Szwonek E. 2003: Goëmar BM86 � wyci¹g nawozowy z alg morskich. Owoce Warzywa Kwiaty, 7, 17.Wang Zhao-Hui, Li Sheng-Xiu 2004: Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on plant growth and

nitrate accumulation in vegetables. J. Plant Nutrition, 27(3), 539-556.Wysocka-Owczarek M. 2002a: Biostymulatory wzrostu w uprawie pomidorów pod os³onami. I. Has³o

Ogrodnicze, 4, 73-74.Wysocka-Owczarek M. 2002b: Biostymulatory wzrostu w uprawie pomidorów pod os³onami. II. Has³o

Ogrodnicze, 5, 55-57.[www.ppjw.pl/produkty-goteo.html.]

28

THE INFLUENCE OF BIOSTIMULATORS ON YIELD AND

QUALITY OF LEAF AND ICEBERG LETTUCE

� GROWN UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

Mariola £yszkowska, Janina Gajc-Wolska, Katarzyna Kubi� Warsaw University of Life Science, Warsaw, Poland

INTRODUCTION

Many new products such as liquid fertilizers or foliar feeds have been introduced intothe agricultural market in recent years as alternative to traditional solid fertilization. Theyare also recommended to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of traditional solidfertilization. These products are called biostymulators and they are derived from naturalmaterials such as seaweeds, fishes, and animals. They may also contain added inorganicnutrient and/or other biological compounds [Edmeades 2002]. The efficacy of biostymu-lators has been evaluated in many field trials with vegetable crops, however only someresearchers have reported statistically significant positive effects on crop yields and cropquality [Blunden, Wildgoose 1977, Abetz 1980, Abetz, Young 1983, Verkleij 1992]. Thecontent of nitrate in leaves of lettuce is the most important factor responsible for qualityof this leafy vegetable. Other factors such as a type, amount, and form of nitrogen ferti-lization [Lips et al. 1990, Elia et al. 1998] as well as geographical region, season ofproduction and biostimulants treatments [Walters 1991, Edmeades 2002] may also modu-late yield and quality of lettuce. Goëmar Goteo and Aminoplant are examples of recentlyintroduced on market. Goëmar Goteo is an organic-mineral fertilizer which contains al-gae extract (Ascophyllum nodosum) with addition of phosphorus (>24,8% P2O5) andpotassium (4,75% K2O). This products, main purpose is the stimulation of the root systemgrowth. It is used to watering plantlets. Aminoplant is an organic fertilizer which containsaminoacids and short peptide chains. It is recommended to cultivation with high restric-tion on nitrates content. Its application is recommended in production of lettuce (vegeta-bles) with lower nitrates content.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of biostimulators on yield andchemical content of cultivars of selected leaf and iceberg lettuce.


The study involving Goteo and Aminoplant biostimulators was conducted on suchnew leaf lettuce cultivars as: Kitare and Versai and on Argentinas cultivar of iceberglettuce, at the Experimental Field of the Department of Vegetables and Medicinal Plantsin 2007. The experiments were repeated three times: 1 � from the end of March to mid-June, 2 � from the end of June to the beginning of September, 3 � from the end of July tomid-October. Plantlets were produced in multiplates filled with a pit substrate and were

29

[DLEIYLATOTNOSTNALUMITSOIBFOTCEFFE.1ELBAT gk . m 2- fo] ECUTTELEERHTSRAVITLUC ( )TSEVRAHFOSMRETEERHTROFNAEM

gk[yta³asnaimdohcezrtynlógonolpanwórotalumytsoibwy³pW.1alebaT .m 2- wónimrethcezrtzainder�(])wóroibz

SRAVITLUCynaimdO

LORTNOCalortnoK

STNALUMITSOIByrotalumytsoiB

NAEMainder�

OETOG TNALPONIMA +OETOGTNALPONIMA

eratiK *a86.3 a85.2 a88.3 a37.3 ba54.3

iasreV a02.2 a54.2 a23.2 a43.2 b33.2

sanitnegrA a99.6 a37.3 a92.6 a87.3 a91.5

NAEMainder�

a92.4 b29.2 a51.4 ba82.3

TAYLTNACIFINGISREFFIDTONODRETTELEMASEHTHTIWSEULAV:SNOITANALPXE a .50.0=.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS

O ainein�ajb : yzrpenawocin¿órzeintotsi¹seinimaretilimymasimytenozcanzoic�otraw a .50,0=.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

planted into the field at 40 × 40 cm spacing in three replications of 10 plants in each. Thefollowing treatments with biostimulators were used: (1) watering with Goteo (twice � 2weeks after sowing and 1 week before planting); (2) spraying with Aminoplant (twice �1 week and 3 weeks after planting); (3) � a combination of treatments (1) and (2).Waterwas applied to the soil where group of control (untreated) plants were grown. Afterharvest, marketable yield in kg m-2 and mean weights of head/rosette in g were determi-ned. Dry matter content was analyzed at 1040C, total sugars was measured with Luffa-Schoorla method [Char³ampowicz 1966] and nitrate N-NO3 content using spectrophoto-metric method, with FIAstar 5000 device [FOSS TECATOR AB Sweden 1990]. Statisti-cal analysis was performed with the use of the multivarious analysis of variance. Thedifferences between the sources of variance were examined by the Fischer-Snedecortest at a = 0,05. A determined comparison of the mean values was made by using theTukey multiple range test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSION

The results in the currently run experiments indicate that biostymulators based onmarine algae extracts affected marketable yield and mean weight of head/rosette oflettuce cultivars. The higher total and marketable yield of lettuce were obtained fromplants treated with Aminoplant and water than from plots treated with Goteo and Goteo +Aminoplant (Tab. 1 and 2). The application of Goteo + Aminoplant resulted in highermean weight of lettuce head/rosette compared to the separately applied Goteo and Ami-noplant. Among the examined cultivars Kitare and Argentinas had the highest mean we-ight of head/rosette (Tab. 3).

Blunden and Wildgoose [1977] reported a statistically significant effect of the seawe-ed extract on the vegetable species, however its efectiveness was changeable.

High dry matter and total sugars levels in non-mulched lettuce, observed particularlyin 2006, might have been connected with the low yield harvested from this control com-bination [Siwek et al. 2007]. The highest dry matter content in lettuces was given after

30

NOSTNALUMITSOIBFOTCEFFE.2ELBAT DLEIYELBATEKRAM gk[ .m 2- ] ECUTTELEERHTFO)TSEVRAHFOSMRETEERHTROFNAEM(SRAVITLUC

gk[yta³asnaimdohcezrtywoldnahnolpanwórotalumytsoibwy³pW.2alebaT .m 2- hcezrtzainder�(])wóroibzwónimret

SRAVITLUCynaimdO

LORTNOCalortnoK


NAEMainder�


eratiK *a26.3 a45.2 a77.3 a76.3 ba04.3

iasreV a71.2 a24.2 a92.2 a13.2 b03.2


NAEMainder�

a22.4 b87.2 a90.4 ba42.3

.1.BATEES:SNOITANALPXE.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS

O .1.batwkaj:ainein�ajb.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

[DAEHFOTHGIEWNAEMNOSTNALUMITSOIBFOTCEFFE.3ELBAT g ECUTTELEERHTFO])TSEVRAHFOSMRETEERHTROFNAEM(SRAVITLUC

hcezrtzainder�(yta³asnaimdohcezrt]g[kewó³gêsam¹inder�anwórotalumytsoibwy³pW.2alebaT)wóroibzwónimret

SRAVITLUCynaimdO

LORTNOCalortnoK


NAEMainder�


eratiK *b04.054 b8.043 b9.964 b4.564 b6.134

iasreV b36.272 b9.303 b5.092 b1.492 c3.092


NAEMainder�

a04.545 ba0.115 ba7.035 a8.055

.1.BATEES:SNOITANALPXE.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS.1.batwkaj:ainein�ajbO


NOSTNALUMITSOIBFOTCEFFE.4ELBAT ]%[RETTAMYRDFOTNETNOC ECUTTELEERHTFO)TSEVRAHFOSMRETEERHTROFNAEM(SRAVITLUC

zainder�(yta³ashcanaimdohcezrtw]%[ysamjehcusæ�otrawazanwórotalumytsoibwy³pW.4alebaT)wóroibzwónimrethcezrt

SRAVITLUCynaimdO

LORTNOCalortnoK


NAEMainder�


eratiK *a16.4 a56.3 a13.4 a68.3 a11.4

iasreV a42.4 a04.4 a57.4 a49.3 a33.4


NAEMainder�

a77.4 ba59.3 a33.4 ba77.3



31

Figure 1A. Combi-nations in experi-ment: control,Goteo (watering),Aminoplant(spraying) andGoteo + Aminoplant(watering + spray-ing)Rysunek 1 A.Kombinacje wdo�wiadczeniu:Kontrola, Goteo(podlewanie) Amino-plant (opryskiwanie)oraz Goteo + Amino-plant (podlewanie +opryskiwanie)

Figure 1B. Combi-nation with Goteo(watering) and withAminoplant(spraying)Rysunek 1B. Kombi-nacja z Goteo(podlewanie) i zAminoplantem(opryskiwanie)

A

B

C

Figure 1C. Combi-nation with Goteo(catering)Rysunek 1C. Kombi-nacja z Goteo(podlewanie)

32

Figure 1E.Cultivar Kitarein controlcombinationRysunek 1E.Odmiana Kitare wkombinacjikontrolnej

D

E

Figure 1D.Cultivar Versaiin controlcombinationRysunek 1D.Odmiana Versai wkombinacjikontrolnej

EERHTFO]%[SRAGUSLATOTFOTNETNOCNOSTNALUMITSOIBFOTCEFFE.5ELBAT)TSEVRAHFOSMRETEERHTROFNAEM(SRAVITLUCECUTTEL

jenawotkartyta³ashcanaimdohcezrtw]%[me³ógowórkucæ�otrawazanwórotalumytsoibwy³pW.5alebaT)wóroibzwónimrethcezrtzainder�(imarotalumytsoib

SRAVITLUCynaimdO

LORTNOCalortnoK


NAEMainder�


eratiK b45.1 b80.2 b60.2 b42.2 b89.1

iasreV b25.1 b86.1 b29.1 b85.1 b76.1


NAEMainder�

b07.2 b77.2 a42.3 b78.2



33

application of Aminoplant and water than Goteo as well as Goteo + Aminoplant combina-tions (Tab. 4). There were differences among cultivars in dry matter content. The highestdry matter content was assessed in Versai cultivar (Tab. 4). The Argentinas cultivar wascharacterized by the highest content of total sugars in leaves untreated and treated byAminoplant (Tab. 5).

It is known that the content of nitrate in lettuce is limited by a head size [Bergmann,Neubert 1976, Fontes et al. 1997] as well as by nitrate content in soil [Devienne-Barret etal. 2000]. The results of the present study show that the higher nitrate content was foundin the untreated (control) lettuce leaves and leaves of plants treated with Goteo + Amino-plant combination than in plants treated with Goteo and Aminoplant separately. The ave-rage higher nitrate content was assessed in untreated (control) leaves of cv Versai than inother two lettuce cultivars (Tab. 6).

[ETARTINFOTNETNOCNOSTNALUMITSOIBFOTCEFFE.6ELBAT ONgm 3 g001 1- ]SSAMHSERF)TSEVRAHFOSMRETEERHTROFNAEM(SRAVITLUCECUTTELEERHTFO

ONgm[wónatozaæ�otrawazanwórtalumytsoibwy³pW.6alebaT 3 g001 1- hcanaimdohcezrtw]ysam.w�)wóroibzwónimrethcezrtzainder�(yta³as

SRAVITLUCynaimdO

LORTNOCalortnoK


NAEMainder�


eratiK *ba43.601 a67.69 a58.501 a16.131 a91.011

iasreV a53.751 a21.811 a91.301 a31.231 a07.721

sanitnegrA b24.45 a52.56 b94.55 b49.45 b35.75

NAEMainder�

a40.601 b44.39 b81.88 a32.601



CONCLUSIONS

1. Goteo and Aminoplant applications in lettuce growing under field conditions do notinfluence significantly total and marketable yield and weight of head, although theeffect depended on the cultivar.

2. Similarly, dry matter content and nitrate in lettuce leaves of examined cultivars do notincrease significantly after treatments with Goteo and Aminoplant applications.

3. Additional doses of biostimulators used in various periods of plant growth should beverified in the future.

34

REFERENCES

Abetz P. 1980: Seaweed extract: have they a place in Australian agriculturae and horticulturae. Aust. J. Agric.Res., 46, 23-29.

Abetz P., Young C.L. 1983. The effect of seaweed extract sprays derived from Ascophyllum nodosum onlettuce and cauliflower crops. Botanica Marina, 26, 487-492.

Bergmann W., Neubert P. 1976: Pflanzendiagnoze und Pflanzenanalyze. VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag Jena.Blunden G., Wildgoose P.B. 1977: The effects of aqueous seaweed extract and kinetin on potato yields. J.

Sci. Food Agric., 28, 121-125.Char³ampowicz Z. 1966: Analizy przetworów z owoców, warzyw i grzybów. WPLiZ, Warszawa.Devienne-Barret F., Justes E., Machet J.M., Mary B. 2000: Integrated control of nitrate uptake by crop

growth rate and soil nitrate availability under field conditions. Ann. Bot., 86, 995-1005.Edmeades D. C. 2002: The effects of liquid fertilizers derived from natural products on crop, pasture, and

animal production: a revive. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 53, 965-976.Elia A., Santamaria P., Serio F. 1998: Nitrogen nutrition, yield and quality of spinach. J. Sci. Food Agric.

76, 341-346.Fontes P.C.R., Pereira P.R.G., Conde R.M. 1997. Critical chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen

in leaves associated to maximum lettuce yield. J. Plant Nutr., (USA), v. 20(9), 1061-1068.Lips S., Leidi E., Siberbush M., Soares M., Lewis O. 1990: Physiological aspects of ammonium and

nitrate fertilization. J. Plant Nutr., 13, 1271-1289.Siwek P., Kalisz A., Wojciechowska R. 2007: Effect of mulching with film of different colours made from

original and recycled polyethylene on the microclimate and yield of butterhead lettuce and celery. FoliaHortic., 19(1), 25-35.

Verkleij F.N. 1992: Seaweed extract in agriculture and horticulture: a review. Biological Agriculture andHorticulture, 8, 309-324.

Walters C. 1991: Nitrate and nitrite in foods. [In:] Nitrates and nitrites in food and water (M. Hill, Ed.), pp.93-107. Ellis Harwood, New York.

35

EFFECT OF AMINOPLANT AND ASAHI ON YIELD

AND QUALITY OF LETTUCE GROWN ON ROCKWOOL

Katarzyna Kowalczyk, Teresa Zielony, Marek GajewskiWarsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

INTRODUCTION

The product quality is a serious concern in greenhouse lettuce production, especiallyduring winter and spring time when lettuce is a valuable source of many nutrients forhuman. A high content of nitrate ions in leafy vegetables, partly resulting from an exces-sive nitrogen fertilization, causes a significant accumulation of nitrates � compounds thatmay even present a threat to human health. The problem is particularly important duringperiods of a low light intensity. Therefore, determining the optimal nitrogen fertilizationdosage at a high yielding seems very important. It especially concerns leafy vegetables,showing a tendency to accumulate mineral nitrogen forms in usable plant parts [Bassioniet al. 1980, Durman, Custic 1990, Micha³ojæ 2000]. Hydroponic technologies, includingrockwool cultivation systems, offer the capacity of a controlled plant fertilization. Enga-ging in the vegetable production the chemicals of regulatory effect on plant growth anddevelopment (biostimulators) is one of means for obtaining the increase in yield per unitarea and a higher yield quality. These preparations are responsible for supplying plantswith products of complex biochemical reactions, synthesized in order to enhance plantlife processes.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of Aminoplant (Siapton) and Asahiapplications on yield and quality of lettuce grown on rockwool at different levels of nitro-gen fertilization.


A butterhead lettuce cv Brigade (de Ruiter Seeds) was used for the study. Plantletswere grown in plastic cylinders (Æ 6 cm) filled with peat substrate. Six-leaf stage plantswere planted into rockwool slabs (1000 x 100 x 75 mm), 5 plants per one slab. Studieswere conducted in two chambers of different nutrient composition. The content of nitro-gen in the nutrient used for fertigation was 105 mg N-NO3 dm-3 for one chamber and 140mg N-NO3 dm-3 in the other. Proportions of other macroelements were maintained inboth nitrogen level, and the amount of microelements equal (Tab. 1). 100x concentratedfertilizers were prepared and stocked in two containers: container A: Ca(NO3)2, KNO3,sequestered Fe; container B: K2SO4, H3PO4, MgSO4 as well as MnSO4

. H2O, H3BO3,CuSO4

. 5 H2O, ZnSO4 . 7 H2O, (NH4)6Mo7O24

. 4 H2O. Such nutrients were dilutedautomatically with computer controlled Dosatron dosing pumps.

36

Each grow slab was supplied with nutrient by two capillaries. The plants were wate-red from 9oo to 15oo, with about 3-5 two-minute cycles per hour. The amount of thenutrient supply ranged from 70 to 200 cm3 per plant and was adjusted to the plant growthphase and light conditions. Part of the plants were sprayed every 7 days (5 times duringthe cultivation) with: Aminoplant (Siapton) of 0.2% and 0.4% concentrations, Asahi of0.1% concentration.

A three-factor split-plot experiment was set up. Four replicates were carried out, eachcomprising 10 plants. Factor A � plants treated with Aminoplant (0.2% Aminoplant, 0.4%Aminoplant and no Aminoplant � the control); Factor B � plants treated with Asahi (0.1%Asahi and no Asahi � the control) and Factor C � nitrogen fertilization (105 mgN-NO3 dm�3 and 140 mg N-NO3 dm�3). Aminoplant contains 52.2 % of organic matter, over8.7% of organic nitrogen (>110 g dm�3) and 700g dm�3 of amino acids. Asahi contains sodiumortho and para-nitro phenolate, sodium 5-nitro guaiacolate in sodium hydroxide solution.

Studies were carried out in winter and spring cycles in 2005-2007 at the followingdates: winter cycle from 04.11.2005 (planting term) to 20.01.2006 (harvest time) andfrom 15.11.2006 to 16.01.2007; spring cycle from 26.01.2006 to 23.03.2006 and from13.02.2007 to 30.03.2007.

For each growing cycle a weight of lettuce heads and their quality were determinedaccording to analyses of some chemical and physical parameters. For quality check,three plants from each experimental group were chosen at random. From each of theplants selected a representative sample (comprising fragments of leaves of different agefrom youngest to eldest) was collected. Leaf samples were then cut into small fragmentsand mixed together. They were examined for the content of vitamin C using Tillmansmethod, the concentration of nitrates using a spectrophotometric method (by Fiastar ana-lyzer), soluble solids content by refractometric method (in %), the content of P withcolorimetric test, the content of K and Ca with flame method, chlorophyll a+b concentra-tion and total carotenoids content according to Lichtenthaller and Wellburn [1983] and amass by drying at 1050C. The collected plant material was also assessed for the colour ofleaves. Colour of leaves was instrumentally measured with HunterLab Mini Scan spec-trophotometer, and expressed in CIE Lab system, where L � lightness (from 0 to 100units), a intensity in red (+) or green (�), b � intensity in yellow (+) or blue (�). Themeasurements were done in the outer central parts of outer leaves, between ribs. Tworeadings for each plant were made.

Statistical analyses were performed with Statgraphics Plus 4.1, using a three-factoranalysis of variance. For the evaluation of statistical important differences between me-ans the results were compared by t-student, at the significance level P = 0.05.

RESULTS

The yield of lettuce depended on the production cycle and the season (Tab. 1-4).Significant differences were found in winter production cycle with a mean mass of head114.7 g in one year but yet 147.6 g in the other. In the later, a significant influence ofAminoplant was marked, especially for the plants treated also with Asahi (Tab. 2). Duringa spring production of the first year, the lettuce yield was higher when treated with Amino-

37

TNEREFFIDTASTNALPECUTTELROFYLPPUSTNEIRTUNEHTFONOITISOPMOC.1ELBATLEVELNOITAZILITREF

aine¿owanhcamoizophcyn¿óryzrpyta³asaldikwy¿opda³kS.1alebaT

TNETNOCSTNEMELEORCIMDNA-ORCAMwótnemeleorkimi-orkamæ�otrawaZ gm[ . md 3- ]

N P K gM aC eF nM B uC nZ oM CE Hp1REBMAHC

1aremaK2REBMAHC

2aremaK

501

041

04

65

522

003

03

04

051

002

2

2

6.0

6.0

3.0

3.0

51.0

51.0

3.0

3.0

50.0

50.0

9.1

1.2

5.5

5.5

NWO:ECRUOS .YDUTS.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

NI)RAEY6002/5002(ELCYCGNIWORGRETNIWNIECUTTELFODLEIYEHT.2ELBATNOITAZILITREFETARTINFOLEVELEHTDNATNEMTAERTS'NOITARAPERPNOECNEDNEPED

DAEHECUTTELFOTHGIEWNAEM( [g )]wótaraperphcynawosotsazdoic�on¿elazw,)kor6002/5002(mywomizulkycwyta³asnolP.2alebaT

)]g[yta³asikwó³gasamainder�(ogewotozaaine¿owani


ihasA NAEMainder�DETAERT

enawotkarTDETAERTNUenawotkarteiN

NAEMainder�

gm . md 3- ON-N 3 NAEMainder�


gm . md 3- ON-N 3

501 041 501 041 501 041tnalponimA %2.0

%4.0%0.0

0.5115.2017.89

0.3212.9115.311

0.9119.0111.601

5.2010.8015.711

5.7317.7110,121

0.0219.2112.911

7.8012.5011.801

2.0315.8112.711

a5.911b9.111

ba7.211

NAEMainder�

4.501 6.811 a0.211 3.901 4.521 a4.711 4.701 a0.221 7.411

TADEREFFIDSNAEM P TNEREFFIDHTIWDEKRAMERATSETDSLOTGNIDROCCA50.0=TNACIFINGISNINOITCARETNI.SRETTEL

NWO:ECRUOS .YDUTS.eintotsiêis¹in¿ór¹retil¹mas¹tenozcanzoic�otraW


ECNEDNEPEDNI)RAEY7002/6002(ELCYCGNIWORGRETNIWNIECUTTELFODLEIY.3ELBATTHGIEWNAEM(NOITAZILITREFETARTINFOLEVELEHTDNATNEMTAERTS'NOITARAPERPNO

)]g[DAEHECUTTELFOwótaraperphcynawosotsazdoic�on¿elazw,)kor7002/6002(mywomizulkycwyta³aseinawonolP.3alebaT

)]g[yta³asikwó³gasamainder�(ogewotozaaine¿owani




NAEMainder�



gm . md 3- ON-N 3

501 041 501 041 501 041tnalponimA %2.0

%4.0%0.0

8.1518.3612.731

7.2519.2614.051

2.2513.3618.341

4.9210.5319.341

7.1615.9416.331

5.5412.2416.931

6.0414.9414.041

2.7512.6510.241

*ba9.841a8.251b2.141

NAEMainder�

9.051 3.551 a1.351 1.631 3.841 b4.241 b5.341 a8.151 6.741

:NOITANALPXE .2.BATEES.2.BATEES:ECRUOS

O .2.batwkaj:einein�ajb.2.batkaj:o³dór�

38

>J@

�

��

��

��

��

��

$PLQRSODQW

��

$PLQRSODQW

��

&RQWURO /6'

:LQWHU�JURZLQJ�F\FOH

6SULQJ�JURZLQJ�F\FOH

plant, particularly for 0.4% concentration. However, no positive effect of Asahi formula-tion on the lettuce yield was found (Tab. 3). During a spring production in the second yearof the study, the highest head mass gained the lettuce from the combination with Amino-plant and Asahi as well as the plants with 140 mg N dm�3 nitrogen fertilization (Tab. 4).

The analysis of the two-year study revealed a significant increase in lettuce head massof the cv Brigade after the application of 0.2% Aminoplant in the case of winter productioncycle, and after 0.4% Aminoplant application in the case of the spring cultivation (Fig. 1).Comparing to the control it was the increase by 5.7% and 10.8%, in winter and springrespectively. No significant differences in head mass were found for lettuce plants treatedwith Asahi (Fig. 2). Both in winter and spring cycles, the plants gave the yield of a highermass when fertilized with the nutrient of a higher nitrogen content (Fig. 3).

NOECNEDNEPEDNI)RAEY6002(ELCYCGNIWORGGNIRPSNIECUTTELFODLEIY.4ELBATTHGIEWNAEM(NOITAZILITREFETARTINFOLEVELEHTDNATNEMTAERTS'NOITARAPERP

]g[DAEHECUTTELFOwótaraperphcynawosotsazdoic�on¿elazw,)ukor6002(mynnesoiwulkycwyta³asnolP.4alebaT

]g[aine¿owani




NAEMainder�



gm . md 3- ON-N 3

501 041 501 041 501 041tnalponimA %2.0

%4.0%0.0

2.8612.8815.381

2.3126.7324.902

7.0919.2124.691

6.0912.1221.471

1.1325.3625.612

8.0123.2423.591

4.9717.4028.871

1.2225.0529.212

*ba7.002a7.722b9.591

NAEMainder�

9.971 1.022 a0.002 3.591 0.732 a2.612 b7.781 a5.822 1.802

.2.BATEES:NOITANALPXE.2.BATEES:ECRUOS

.2.batwkaj:einein�ajbO.2.batkaj:o³dór�

>J@

�

��

��

��

��

��

��1 ��1 /6'

:LQWHU�JURZLQJ�F\FOH

6SULQJ�JURZLQJ�F\FOH

Figure 1. Effect of Aminoplant treatment onthe weight of lettuce head in dependence ongrowing period (means for 2 years)SOURCE: OWN Study.Rysunek 1. Wp³yw traktowania Aminoplantem namasê g³ówki sa³aty w zale¿no�ci od terminu uprawy(�rednie z dwóch lat)�ród³o: badania w³asne.

Figure 2. Effect of Asahi treatment on theweight of lettuce head in dependence ongrowing period (means for 2 years)SOURCE: OWN study.Rysunek 2. Wp³yw traktowania Asahi na masêg³ówki sa³aty w zale¿no�ci od terminu uprawy(�rednie z dwóch lat)�ród³o: badania w³asne.

39

NOECNEDNEPEDNI)RAEY7002(ELCYCGNIWORGGNIRPSNIECUTTELFODLEIY.5ELBAT�NOITAZILITREFETARTINFOLEVELEHTDNATNEMTAERTS'NOITARAPERP

]g[DAEHECUTTELFOTHGIEWNAEMaine¿owaniwótaraperphcynawosotsazdoic�on¿elazw,)ukor7002(mynnesoiwulkycwyta³asnolP.5alebaT

]g[yta³asikwó³gasamainder��ogewotoza




NAEMainder�



gm . md 3- ON-N 3

501 041 501 041 501 041tnalponimA %2.0

%4.0%0.0

3.9815.2815.581

2.3223.8320.802

2.6024.0126.691

6.2814.7910.181

9.3025.7025.902

2.3914.2022.591

9.5819.9813.381

5.3129.2228.802

*a7.991a4.602a0.691

NAEMainder�

7.581 2.322 a4.402 0.781 0.702 a6.691 b3.681 a1.512 7.002

NOITANALPXE RUOSDNA .2BATEES:EC.2.batwkaj:o³dór�ieinein�ajbO

TNEREFFIDHTIWNOITAZILITREFSTNALPEHTDNAIHASATNALPONIMAFOTCEFFE.6ELBATON-NNEGORTINFOLEVEL 3 ROFSNAEM(SELCYCGNIWORGOWTNIECUTTELFOYTILAUQNO

)SRAEY2ON-Nmetozaaine¿owanogenawocin¿órziihasAutnalpomnimAwy³pW.6alebaT 3 hcówdwyta³asæ�okajan

)talhcówdzainder�(ywarpuhcalkyc

STNALPTNEMTAERT

nil�oreinawotkarT

RETTAMYRDasamahcuS

]%[

SETARTINynatozA

gm[ . ON 3 gk 1- ]

CNIMATIVCanimatiW

gm[ . g001 1- ]

CSSKSRS]%[

P K aC

gm[ . g001 1- ]

ELCYCGNIWORGRETNIWywarpulkycywomiZ

2.0tnalponimA4.0tnalponimA

/LORTNOC alortnokRIN/DSL

ihasA/LORTNOC alortnok

RIN/DSLN501N041

RIN/DSL

54.465.414.4

.n.r/.s.n84.474.4

.n.r/.s.na95.4b63.4

71.0

a8.2562b3.1813a5.0262

69.063a6.1352b8.4013

27.492a7.5852b7.0503

27.492

ba98.21b56.11a56.31

59.104.2160.31.n.r/.s.n

07.2167.21.n.r/.s.n

b0.2ba3.2

a4.262.02.23.2

.n.r/.s.na4.2b1.2

22.0

5.931.044.93

.s.r/.s.n4.049.83

.n.r/.s.nb0.63a4.34

00.5

b1.237b4.237a3.847

83.516.3370.537

.n.r/.s.n8.2378.537

.s.r/.s.n

4.1016.5010.211

.s.r/.s.n6.3011.901.n.r/.s.n

8.3119.89

.s.r/.s.n

ELCYCGNIWORGGNIRPSywarpulkycynnesoiW

2.0tnalponimA4.0tnalponimA

/LORTNOC alortnokRIN/DSL

ihasA/LORTNOC alortnok

RIN/DSLN501N041

RIN/DSL

b42.4a28.4b54.4

72.0a27.4b92.4

22.0b52.4a57.4

22.0

7.00321.71911.1322.s.r/.s.na4.1191b8.7832

71.243a8.3681b5.5342

71.243

b06.02a19.42a45.32

57.262.3287.22

.n.r/.s.na93.42b46.12

01.2

8.17.17.1

.n.r/.s.nb6.1a9.1

11.0b6.1a9.1

11.0

3.120.027.22

.n.r/.s.n2.125.12

.n.r/.s.n4.323.91

.s.r/.s.n

1.5569.8857.766

.n.r/.s.n5.0560.426

.n.r/.s.nb9.625a6.747

60.001

6.50012.2014.801

.n.r/.s.n9.4019.501

.n.r/.s.nb6.19a2.911

44.41

NWO:ECRUOS .YDUTS.ensa³wainezcilbo:o³dór�

40

Plants treated with 0.4% Aminoplant showed a higher, than in the control, dry mattercontent in leaves, irrespectively of a production cycle. However, only in the case ofspring cycle the differences were significant (Tab. 6). Similarly, lettuce plants treatedwith Asahi showed a higher dry matter content as compared to the control. Also in thiscase the differences were statistically significant only for the spring cycle. However, theplants fertilized at winter with a lower nitrogen concentration in nutrient showed a higherdry matter content (4.59%) as compared to the plants supplied with a 140 mg N dm�3

nitrogen concentration (4.36%) while plants of the spring cycle, on the contrary, 4.25%and 4.75%, respectively.

In the winter cycle, the highest nitrates concentration was showed by the plantstreated with 0.4% Aminoplant formulation. On the other hand, lettuce plants treated withAsahi showed a lower nitrates concentration by 20% in winter, and 25% in spring (Tab.6). The accumulation of nitrates in plants was also clearly related to the production cycleand nitrogen fertilization applied. Vitamin C was accumulated in higher amount by theplants of spring cycle, and SRSK by the plants of winter cycle. Only in the case of springcycle, at a higher fertilization rate, plants accumulated more ions of potassium and cal-cium as compared to plants supplied with a 105 mg N dm-3 nutrient (Tab. 6).

The influence of Aminoplant and Asahi on leaves colour in both growing cycles ispresented in Table 7. Application of Aminoplant in concentration of 0.2% and 0.4% in the

TNEREFFIDHTIWNOITAZILITREFSTNALPEHTDNAIHASATNALPONIMAFOTCEFFE.7ELBATON-NNEGORTINFOLEVEL 3 NIECUTTELFORUOLOCEHTDNATNETNOCLLYHPOROLHCNO

)SRAEY2ROFSNAEM(SELCYCGNIWORGOWTON-Nmetozaaine¿owanogenawocin¿órziihasAutnalponimAwy³pW.7alebaT 3 iuliforolhcæ�otrawazan

)talhcówdzainder�(ywarpuhcalkychcówdwyta³asrolok

STNALPTNEMTAERT

nil�oreinawotkarT

LLYHPOROLHCliforolhC

gm[ . g 1- ]

SDOINETORACydionetoraK

[ m g 1- ]

SEVAELFOSRETEMARAPRUOLOC

ic�ilywrabyrtemaraP

a b b+a L a bELCYCGNIWORGRETNIW

ywarpulkycywomiZ

2.0tnalponimA4.0tnalponimAalortnok/lortnoC

RIN/DSLihasA

alortnok/lortnoCRIN/DSL

N501N041

RIN/DSL

63.083.083.0

.n.r/.s.nb43.0a04.0

83.063.0

.n.r/.s.n

c82.0b73.0a83.0

23.073.0.S.N

43.053.0

.n.r/.s.n

c46.0b57.0a67.0

b66.0a77.0

a27.0b17.0

80.199.070.1

.n.r/.s.n99.001.1

.s.r/.s.n40.150.1

.n.r/.s.n

11.9515.8592.85

.n.r/.s.n75.8507.85

.s.r/.s.n18.8564.85

.n.r/.s.n

32.31�62.31�10.31�.n.r/.s.nb14.31�a39.21�

34.062.31�80.31�.n.r/.s.n

00.8318.8349.73

.n.r/.s.n29.8385.73

.s.r/.s.n13.8381.83

.n.r/.s.n

ELCYCGNIWORGGNIRPSywarpulkycynnesoiW

2.0tnalponimA4.0tnalponimAalortnok/lortnoC

RIN/DSLihasA

alortnok/lortnoCRIN/DSL

N501N041

RIN/DSL

ba42.0a92.0b12.0

32.062.0

.n.r/.s.na72.0b22.0

b50.0b40.0a80.0

30.080.0

.n.r/.s.nb20.0a90.0

92.033.092.0

.n.r/.s.na62.0b43.0

92.013.0

.n.r/.s.n

37.037.036.0

.n.r/.s.n37.066.0

.n.r/.s.na19.0b94.0

30.4597.4565.35

.n.r/.s.n82.4579.35

.n.r/.s.n92.4569.35

.n.r/.s.n

43.31�74.31�49.21�.n.r/.s.na00.31�b15.31�

34.0b87.31�a43.31�

34.0

ba99.53a59.63b91.53

66.1b02.53a88.63

63.185.6305.53

.n.r/.s.n

NWO:ECRUOS .YDUTS.ensa³wainezcilbo:o³dór�

41

winter growing cycle resulted in a tendency to increasing green colour intensity (lower a*value). Similar influence of Asahi on green colour of leaves was significantly proved. Theinfluence of N doses on leaves colour parameters was insignificant, with a tendency tomore intensive green colour for lower N doses. In the case of spring term of cultivation,the influence of Aminoplant in both concentrations on green colour intensity showed thesame tendency, as for the winter term of cultivation. However, Asahi application resultedin significantly lower green colour intensity of leaves than in control. It can be also notedthat higher level of nitrogen resulted in decreasing green colour intensity of leaves.

DISCUSSION

The yielding of lettuce was related to the period season of cultivation. A higher meanmass of lettuce head was noted for the spring cycle, with better light conditions, as com-pared to the winter one. Such a relationship between the yield of plants and light condi-tions during the cultivation period is among others corroborated by Escobar-Gutierrez etal. [2002]. By determining photosynthesis, the light initiates some metabolic processes inplants that lead to mass gain. Aminoplant caused the increase in mean head mass ofBrigade lettuce irrespectively the cultivation date (winter or spring). The highest increaserate of lettuce yield was observed for the spring production cycle at spraying the plantswith Aminoplant of 0.4% concentration. The positive effect of the preparation on plantyield is corroborated by Maini [2000].

Nitrogen fertilization rate was a determinant for the plant yield too. The increase innitrogen fertilization rate enables obtaining a higher yield but at the same time convey arisk of deteriorating the yield quality resulting from an excessive nitrate accumulation. Itparticularly refers to leaf vegetables [Durman, Custic 1990, Paterson, Rahn 1996, Mi-cha³ojæ 2000, Jarosz, Dzida 2006]. The lettuce fertilized with a 140 mg N dm3 nutrientgave in both cycles heads of bigger sizes and higher nitrates content as compared to theplants fertilized with a 105 mg N dm3 nutrient. Despite the fact that in all of the cases thecontent of nitrate was lower than allowable levels for glasshouse lettuce, the lettuce fromspring cultivation showed a lower nitrate content than the one from winter cultivation.The above corroborates the important role of climatic factors in nitrate accumulation invegetables. A low light intensity during cultivation leads to an excessive nitrate accumu-lation while a high light intensity i.e. a long day, activates photosynthesis and nitrate re-ductase resulting in a lower nitrate content in plants [Dapoigny et al. 2000]. Many otherfactors determine nitrates content in plants, acting simultaneously during the cultivation.Therefore, nitrates content in plant is difficult to predict [Lisiewska, Kmiecik 1991]. Thepresent study does not corroborate the earlier report of Maini [2000] on the positiveeffect of Aminoplant on the reduction of nitrates level in lettuce. Asahi treatments on thecontrary, contributed to reduced nitrates content in leaves of Brigade lettuce both inwinter and spring cultivation. Involving Asahi in lettuce production did not increase theplant mass unlike a yield promoting effect obtained for celery, tomato and leek fieldcultivation by Czeczko and Mikos-Bielak [2004]. The authors also observed an increasein the content of reducing sugars and phenolics � substances responsible for the improve-ment of antioxidant properties in vegetables. Experiments of Kositorna [2004] corrobora-ted a yield-simulative effect of the preparation.

42

One of the estimated quality features was among others a dry matter, according toGonella and coworkers [2004] a key market value parameter of fresh vegetables eatenraw, determining their shelf life. The present results showed a significant increase in drymatter content of leaves for the cultivar Brigade grown in the spring date and treatedeither with Asahi or 0.4% Aminoplant but a slight gain for the winter cultivation.

The effect of nitrogen fertilization on dry matter content in the cultivar Brigade wasnot clear. In plants grown in winter, dry matter content was higher for nitrogen fertiliza-tion at the dose of 105 mg N dm�3, whereas in the spring cultivation a higher dry mattercontent was showed by heads of the lettuce fertilized with the dose of 140 mg N dm�3.The increase in dry matter content in response to higher doses of nitrogen was alsoreported by Jarosz, Dzida [2006]. However, Kowalska et al. [2006] claimed that drymatter content and the rate of nitrogen fertilization were unrelated.

In spite of some studies indicating the positive effect of Aminoplant on vitamin Cconcentration in vegetables [Nadolny, Rogoziñska 1985] and of Asahi on vitamin Cconcentration in leek [Czeczko, Mikos-Bielak 2004], no such effect of Aminoplant orAsahi was found for lettuce. A higher rate of nitrogen fertilization resulted in a reducedvitamin C concentration in lettuce, particularly in plants from the spring cultivationwhat is consistent with the results obtained by Kowalska et al. [2006]. The content ofvitamin C in lettuce was also related to the cultivation date. Higher vitamin C contentwas found in leaves of the lettuce grown in the spring date as compared to the winterone. A relationship between vitamin C concentration and light conditions are also pro-ved by Kowalska et al. [2006].

In the plants investigated, a higher concentration of chlorophyll a+b and caroteno-ids was found for winter cultivations. On the other hand, the results here presentedcontradict the earlier findings of Politycka and Golcz [2004], reporting on a higherchlorophyll content at a more intensive nitrogen fertilization. The influence of Asahi onintensity of green colour of leaves was different in both growing cycles. Aminoplantapplication resulted only in slight tendency to increasing greenness of leaves. Differentreaction of plants on Asahi application in both terms of cultivation may results fromdifferent light intensity levels in winter and spring, and positive reaction of the plants inwinter could be related to lower light intensity level. However, a parameter of colourwas not strictly related to chlorophyll content in leaves, both for spring and for wintergrowing cycle. The reason of this phenomenon is unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The yield and quality of lettuce depended on the cultivation season and nitrogen fer-tilization.

2. The 140 mg N dm-3 concentration in nutrient solution resulted in the yield increaseand a higher nitrates accumulation in lettuce in comparing to 105 mg N dm-3 fertiliz-taion.

3. Under more favorable light conditions lettuce plants gained a higher mass of headsand showed a higher content of vitamin C and a reduced amount of nitrates.

43

4. Aminoplant positively affected the yield of lettuce plants. At winter cycle it increaseddry matter in lettuce head by 10.8% and 5.2% respectively, when applied in 0.4% and0.2% concentrations.

5. Plants treated with Asahi formulation produced a higher dry matter content.6. Plants treated with Asahi formulation showed a lower nitrates content than untreated.7. The influence of Asahi on intensity of green colour of leaves varied in both growing

cycles. Aminoplant application resulted only in slight tendency increasing greennessof leaves.

REFERENCES

Bassioni N., Allan N., Abaido Y. 1980: Effect of nitrogen fertilization on season of growth on nitrate contentof spinach plants (Spinacea oleracea L.). Z. Pflanzenernahrung Boden, 143, 6, 652-658.

Czeczko R., Mikos-Bielak M. 2004: Efekty stosowania biostymulatora Asahi w uprawie ró¿nych gatun-ków warzyw. Ann. UMCS, Sec. E., 59, 3, 1073-1079.

Dapoigny L., De Tourdonnet S., Roger-Estrade J., Jeuffroy M.-H., Fleury A. 2000: Effect of nitrogen ongrowth and nitrate accumulation in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), under various conditions of radiation andtemperature. Agronomie, 20: 843-855.

Durman P., Custic M. 1990: Effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield and nitrate content of greenhouselettuce. Agronomski Glasnik, 52,6, 361-368.

Escobar-Gutierrez A.J., Burns I.G., Lee A., Edmondson R.N. 2002: Screening lettuce cultivars for lownitrate content during summer and winter production. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol., 77, 2, 232-237.

Gonella M., Serio F., Conversa G., Santamaria P. 2004: Production and nitrate content in lambs lettucegrown in floating system. Acta Hortic., 644, 61-67.

Jarosz Z., Dzida K. 2006: Wp³yw nawo¿enia azotowo-potasowego na plonowanie i sk³ad chemicznysa³aty. Acta Agrophysica, 7, 3, 591-597.

Kositorna J. 2004: Zastosowanie biostymulatora Asahi SL jako �rodka chroni¹cego burak cukrowy przedstresem wywo³anym przez herbicydy. Gazeta Cukrownicza, 2-3, 58-63.

Kowalska I., Sady W., Szczura A. 2006: Wp³yw formy azotu nawozowego, dokarmiania dolistnego imiejsca uprawy na plonowanie i jako�æ sa³aty. Acta Agrophysica, 7, 3, 619-631.

Lichtenthaler H.K., Wellburn A.R. 1983: Determination of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b ofleaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem. Soc. Trans., 603, 591-592.

Lisiewska Z., Kmiecik W. 1991: Azotany i azotyny w warzywach. Post. Nauk Roln., 3, 11-24.Maini P. 2000: The experience of the first biostimulant, based on amino acids and peptides: a short retro-

spective revive on the laboratory researches and the practical results. Fertilitas Agrorum 1, 1, 29-43.Micha³ojæ Z. 2000: Wp³yw nawo¿enia azotem i potasem oraz termin uprawy na plonowanie i sk³ad

chemiczny sa³aty, rzodkiewki oraz szpinaku. Rozpr. hab. AR Lublin, 238, 1-74.Nadolny M., Rogo�iñska J. 1985: Effect of Siapton on garlic crop and protein and vitamin C content. Akad.

Tech.-Roln. w Bydgoszczy, 21, 43-50.Paterson C.D., Rahn C.R. 1996: The nitrogen contribution of lettuce crop residues in intensive vegetable

rotations. Acta Hortic., 428, 105-114.Politycka B., Golcz A. 2004: Content of chloroplast pigments and anthocyanins in the leaves of Ocimum

basilicum L. depending on nitrogen doses. Folia Hortic. Ann., 16, 1, 23-29.

44

DOES THE NANO-GRO® BIOSTIMULATOR INCREASE

TOLERANCE OF TYTUS F1 CUCUMBER PLANTS IN

EARLY GROWTH PHASE TO ULTRAVIOLET-B RADIATION?

El¿bieta SkórskaUniversity of Agriculture of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland

INTRODUCTION

A biostimulator has generally been defined as �a material, other than a mineral nu-trient, that when applied in a small quantity improves plant growth� or �metabolic enhan-cer� [Schmidt, Zhang 1997, Sowmya 2003]. As the name suggests, they stimulate growth,but they do much more. Stress tolerance is perhaps the most important benefit of biosti-mulators. Such compounds impart stress tolerance partly by stimulating root growth andpartly by promoting antioxidant activity. Numerous biostimulant products have been de-veloped in recent years, and many of them are claimed to improve quality of turfgrasses,rooting and stress tolerance [Karnok 2000, Ervin 2003, Sowmya 2003, Kauffman, Wat-schke 2004]. In addition, research is beginning to show that repeat applications prior thestressful condition seems to maximize product effectiveness, while application followingexposure to stress are not as effective. The paramount impact that biostimulators haveon turfgrass stressed by drought [Zhang, Schmidt 2000], salinity [Nabati et al. 1994], heat[Zhang et al. 2003, Kauffman et al. 2007], cold [Munshaw at al. 2006], high UV radiationintensity [Schmidt, Zhang 1999, 2001], herbicides [Kositorna 2004]. It is associated withthe stimulation of endogenous antioxidant development that protects the plant during theformation of excess free radicals. Although biostimulants can be synthetic, naturally oc-curring organic materials are excellent sources of biostimulators. For example, humicacid and seaweed extract are two commonly used turf biostimulant sources [Liu, Cooper2002, Böhme et al. 2008]. Seaweed contains various hormones, vitamins, amino acids,mineral nutrients and other components. Thus, it may affect plants in several ways [Zhang,Ervin 2004]. However, its stimulating influence, particularly for turfgrasses growing un-der environmental stresses, has been attributed to its hormonal activity. Biostimulatorsare more and more often use in modern horticulture [Böhme et al. 2005, 2008, Czeczko,Mikos-Bielak 2004, Tahsin, Kolev 2005]. Some biostimulators are actually at the market,and Asahi SL is most known and often applied [www.asahi.pl, Górnik, Grzesik 2002,S³owiñski 2004]. Asahi SL is a biostimulator which promotes plant growth and limits theeffects of different environmental stresses such as low temperatures, the effect of usingplant protection products as well as fertilizers, drought, hailstorm etc. Phenolic compo-unds constitute the active substance of Asahi SL. They participate in many basic metabo-lic processes that occur in a plant, causing better development of a plant and making itsreaction to stress more energetic.

45

One of new available specimen named as a biostimulator is Nano-Gro® which is afully organic product for treatment of seeds before sowing in order to improve plantproductivity and protect them from unfavorable weather conditions. According to recom-mendation of the distributor [www.agrarius.eu], Nano-Gro® can activate compensationmechanisms when a plant experiences stress conditions (high or low temperature, dro-ught, flood, UV etc.). The aim of this study was to check whether this biostimulator mightincrease the tolerance of young cucumber plants to UV-B radiation. In particular theeffect of application of Nano-Gro® on photosystem II, gas exchange, morphometric ana-lysis and content of flavonoids in the leaves in cucumber plant leaves exposed to ultravio-let-B radiation (two values of biological effective dose) was tested. Ultraviolet-B radia-tion as an abiotic stress factor often negatively affects growth, development and physio-logical reactions of many cultivated plants, particularly cucumber, which belongs to su-sceptible species. The enhanced intensity of UV-B can cause adverse changes in theanatomy and biochemistry of plants, can hinder the processes of photosynthesis, slow thegrowth, decrease the biomass, and as a consequence, reduce the yield of cultivated plants[Bornman, Teramura 1993, Caldwell et al. 1995, Skórska 2000]. Plants are capable todevelop various protective mechanisms, of which the most important consist in enhancedsynthesis of flavonoids in epidermis, the compounds which absorb radiation in this range,thus protecting the inside of leaf [Caldwell et al. 1994]. These compounds have alsoantioxidant features, which can deactivate reactive oxygen species.


PLANT MATERIAL AND APPLICATION OF BIOSTIMULATOR

Two experiments were done on the plants of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. cv TitusF1) exposed to different doses of UV-B radiation. Initially, seeds were divided on twoparts. One part was soaked in the distilled water and put into Petri dishes. The secondpart was treated by the solution of Nano-Gro® (Fe, Co, Al, Mg, Mn, Ni and Ag sulphatesin nano concentration, sugar cleaned by ethanol) according to the instruction of the pro-ducer (soaked for 10-15 seconds and dried), then soaked in distilled water in the Petridishes. After three days of germination, the seedlings were put into eight pots (three plant ineach pot) filled with sand with the Hoagland solution (KNO3

. 304 mg . dm-3,MgSO4

. 7 H2O . 124 mg . dm-3, NH4H2 PO4 .12 mg . dm-3, Ca(NO3)2· 4 H2O . 471 mg . dm-3,

0.001% ferric citrate, microelements). The pots were placed on the rotary stages in twospecial chambers described precisely by Skórska [2000] in the controlled conditions of light(PPFD 120 mmol m-2 . s-1, UV-A 3 W . m-2, mercury lamp LRF 250 W; photoperiod12 h/12 h, day/night, respectively), temperature (20oC/17oC day/nigh) and air humidity (50%)for two weeks. The Hoagland solution was added every two days. In the phase of thesecond-three leaf, one half plants were treated with Nano-Gro® solution in the pots (in-stead of the Hoagland solution), and the second one � with distilled water.

46

��

UV-B IRRADIATION OF PLANTS

Two experiments with differing dose ofUV-B radiation were done. The source ofUV-B was a lamp type VL-115 M(Vilber Lourmat, France), emitting in the ran-ge of 280 to 320 nm with the maximum emis-sion at wavelength of 311 nm (Fig. 1). In thefirst experiment, one part of the plants (mar-ked as +UV-B) during growth was exposedto UV-B radiation (1.1 W · m-2, 2 h . d-1,UV-BBE = 3.0 kJ . m-2 . d-1) for 7 days, and ano-ther one served as an untreated control(without UV-B, marked as �UV-B). In thesecond experiment the plants were exposed for7 days to lower dose of UV-B radiation(0.65 W · m-2, 2 h . d-1, UV-BBE = 1.8 kJ . m-2 . d-1),and other conditions were the same. Dailybiologically effective dose of ultraviolet-B ra-diation (UV-BBE) was calculated accordingto model of Caldwell [1977]. The intensity ofirradiation was measured using a radiometerIL 1403 with a calibrated detector SEL240-UVB1 (International Light, Inc., USA). Emission spectrum of the applied UV-Blamp was recorded using the spectroradiometer H 2000 (Ocean Optics, USA).

All measurements were done on the second leaves, beginning from the non-destructivemethods on intact plants, i.e. gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence measurements.

LEAF GAS EXCHANGE

Net photosynthesis rate (pN, expressed in mmol CO2 m-2 s-1) and transpiration rate (E,

mmol H2O m-2 s-1) were measured using an open circuit portable TPS-2 gas-exchangesystem with portable PLC camera (PP Systems, UK). The pot with the studied plantswas placed near the gas analyser and one intact leaf was put into PLC universal leafchamber, illuminated by red-white LEDs (150 mmol m-2 s-1) and after 5 minutes the re-sults were read on the screen. Measurements were done on 6 independent plants.

PHOTOCHEMICAL EFFICIENCY OF PHOTOSYSTEM II

Chlorophyll fluorescence was measured by means of PAM-210 fluorometer (WalzGmbH, Germany). Before measurements the plants were dark-adapted ca. 15 minutes.The leaf was placed on the head (on the adaxial surface down, towards the head) andcovered by magnetic clip. Weak measuring beam (0.04 mmol . m-2 . s-1, 650 nm), pulsesaturating light (3200 mmol . m-2 . s-1, 665 nm) and actinic light (120 mmol . m-2 . s-1, 665 nm)were used for measurements. The fluorescence signal was recorded for three minutes.

FIGURE 1. EMISSION SPECTRUM (NOR-MALIZED TO MAXIMUM AT 311 NM) OF THELAMP VL-115 M (VILBER LOURMAT,FRANCE) AS A UV-B SOURCE USING IN THEEXPERIMENTSSOURSE: OWN CALCULATION.Rysunek 1. Widmo emisyjne (znormalizowanewzglêdem maksimum przy 311 nm) lampy VL-115 bêd¹cej �ród³em UV-B w opisywanychdo�wiadczeniach�ród³o: obliczenia w³asne.

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0SP

EC

TR

IAL

IR

RA

DIA

NC

Ew

idm

o em

isyj

ne

WAVELENGHT [nm]D³ugo�æ fali

47

Following parameters were estimated: Fo, Fv/Fm, Fv/Fo, Yield � photochemical rate ofPS II, vitality index Rfd = (Fm � Fs)/Fs, where Fo, Fm, Fs, Fv denote respectively intensityof the initial, maximum, stationary variable fluorescence (Fv = Fm � Fo), qP andqN � coefficients of photochemical and nonphotochemical quenching, according to gene-rally accepted denotations [Van Kooten, Snel 1990] and Lichtenthaler et al. [1986]. Me-asurements were done on 6 independent plants.

ASSESSMENT OF MORPHOMETRIC FEATURES

Area of the leaf from 6 independent plants was measured by means of a Winfoliasystem (Regent Instruments Inc., Canada) connected with A4 scanner. As a coefficientof leaf thickness, the specific leaf mass (SLM) was assumed, i.e. the leaf dry mass perleaf area unit (g m-2).

ASSAY OF ULTRAVIOLET-ABSORBING COMPOUNDS (FLAVONOIDS)

The content of UV-absorbing pigments was measured spectrophotometrically in theleaf extracts. To obtain such extract, 13 mm disk cut off from one leaf was placed in5 cm3 of the solution of etanol:water:acetic acid (79:20:1) and heated at 600C for 30 min,according to Caldwell et al. [1994]. Absorption spectra in the range of 280 to 380 nmwere done using spectrophotometer Specord M42 (Zeiss, Germany). On the basis of thespectra the content of ultraviolet-absorbing compounds (mainly flavonoids) was determi-ned at 305 nm calculated per 1 g of leaf dry mass basis (A305· g

-1). Dry mass of the diskswas determined using a precision scale WPS 36 (Radwag, Poland) after leaf disk dryingin 1050C to obtain constant mass.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA

The results are presented as means from 4-6 replications (independent plants). All datawere analysed using Statistica 8.0 software (Statsoft, USA-PL) by means of two-wayANOVA. Multiple range Newman-Keuls test at significance level of p < 0.05 was used toseparate homogenous groups of the means, which were marked by the different letters.


The tested cucumber plants were negatively affected by the application of higherdose of UV-B radiation in the first experiment (Tab. 1). The leaves of plants exposed toUV-B were smaller by 46 % than the leaves of the control plants. Moreover, a waxcuticle layer which covered the leaves of the plants +UV-B was observed and sucheffect was not visible in the control plants. No visible difference between leaves in theplants treated with Nano-Gro® and untreated ones was noted, but leaf area was slightdecrease, more particularly in the UV-B irradiated plants.

Intensity of net photosynthesis was slightly decreased in the plants treated with Nano-Gro® and more, by 49% compared to the control, in those exposed to UV-B radiation.Transpiration rate was lower only in the plants exposed to UV-B untreated with biostimu

48

lator. Leaf chlorophyll fluorescence Fv/Fm ratio of the plants exposed to UV-B radia-tion was decreased by 10%, while Fv/Fo value was decreased by 41% compared to thecontrol. Both parameters did not change in the plants treated by Nano-Gro®. Intensity ofinitial fluorescence Fo clearly increased in the UV-B irradiated plants. Values of photo-chemical efficacy of photosystem II, yield, as well as the coefficient of photochemicalquenching, qP, did not differ in all variant of this experiment. Non photochemical quen-ching, qN, was decreased by 25% in the leaves of the irradiated plants without biostimu-lator. Interaction of the light phase reactions with enzymatic dark process was also affec-ted, which is indicated by the decrease of the value of Rfd by 32%. Specific leaf mass ofthe plants treated with Nano-Gro® was slight increased (by 23%), indicating increase ofleaf thickness, but this effect was not statistically significant.

Nano-Gro® caused changes in the absorption spectra of leaf extract in ultravioletrange (Fig. 2). Absorbance was higher in the plants exposed to UV-B compared to thecontrol ones. Content of ultraviolet-absorbing compounds in these plants was also higherby 27%, but statistically insignificantly, what was caused by great variability.

In the experiment 2, where biologically effective dose of ultraviolet-B radiation waslower by 40% than in the experiment 1, all measured features in the plants exposed or notexposed to UV-B did not differ (Tab. 2). Some of them, e.g. Fv/Fo, Fv/Fm, Yield, leaf areawere slightly reduced, but not significantly. Net photosynthesis rate in the plants treatedwith Nano-Gro® was higher by 73% in comparison with the control, and even in those

®ORG-ONANHTIWDETAERTRODETAERTNUSTNALPEHTFOSERUTAEFSEULAV.1ELBATB-VU()B-VU+(B-VUOTDESOPXERO)B-VU-(DESOPXETON EB Jk0.3= . m .2- d 1- , TNEMIREPXE 1

®orG-onaNmerotalumytsoibhcynawotkarti)alortnok(hcynawotkarteinnil�orhcecic�otraW.1alebaTB-VU()B-VU+(B-VUhcynawoineimorpanzaro)B-VU-(B-VUuina³aizdhcynaddopein EB Jk0.3= . m 2- . d 1- ,

1einezcdaiw�od

ERUTAEFahceC

LORTNOCalortnoK

®orG-onaNHTIW®orG-onaNz

B-VU� B-VU+ B-VU� B-VU+pN [m OClom 2 m 2- s 1- ] a6.8 c4.4 b5.7 c8.4

[E m Hlom 2 mO 2- s 1- ] a7.3 b2.2 ba3.3 ba0.3

Fo c541 a922 c921 b981

Fv F/ m a818.0 b437.0 a118.0 a908.0

Fv F/ o a44.4 b16.2 a83.4 a59.3

dleiY a66.0 a95.0 a56.0 a36.0

Pq a68.0 a98.0 a58.0 a78.0

Nq a42.0 b81.0 a62.0 a13.0

dfR a17.2 b68.1 a19.2 a76.2

AERAFAELmc[aic�ilainhczreiwoP 2]

a7.46 b8.43 ba3.84 b3.53

mg[MLS 2- ] a31 a41 a61 a21

A[TNETNOCSDIONOVALF 503 g 1- ]WDwódionowalfæ�otrawaZ

a832 a622 a303 a503

REFFIDTONOD)ERUTAEFENOROF(RETTELEMASEHTYBDETONEDSNAEMEHT�cba)50.0<P(YLTNACIFINGIS

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS.)50,0<p(eintotsiêis¹in¿órein)yhcecjendejald(¹retil¹mas¹katenozcanzoeinder��cba


49

FIGURE 2. ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF ETHANOL CUCUMBER LEAF EXTRACT IN THE ULTRAVIOLETRADIATION RANGE; LEAVES FROM THE PLANTS EXPOSED TO UV-BBE = 3.0 kJ-2 . m-2 . d-1 (EXPERIMENT1), UNTREATED (ON THE LEFT) AND TREATED BY NANO-GRO® (RIGHT)SOURcE: OWN STUDYRysunek 2. Widma absorpcji etanolowych ekstraktów li�ci ogórka w zakresie promieniowania ultrafioletowe-go; li�cie pobrane z ro�lin poddanych napromieniowaniu UV-BBE = 3,0 kJ . m-2 . d-1 (do�wiadczenie 1), nietrakto-wane (lewy) i traktowane Nano-Gro® (prawy)�ród³o: badania w³asne.

��

�89�% �89�%

��

�89�% �89�%

HTIWDETAERTRO)LORTNOC(DETAERTNUSTNALPEHTFOSERUTAEFSEULAV.2ELBATORG-ONAN ® B-VU.)B-VU+(B-VUOTDESOPXERO)B-VU-(DESOPXETON EB Jk8.1= . m 2- . d 1- ,

2TNEMIREPXE®orG-onaNmerotalumytsoibhcynawotkartzaro)alortnok(hcynawotkarteinnil�orhcecic�otraW.2alebaT

uina³aizdhcynaddopein B-VU ( B-VU� hcynawoineimorpani) B-VU()B-VU+(B-VU EB k8,1= J . m 2- . d 1- ,2einezcdaiw�od

ERUTAEFahceC

LORTNOCalortnoK

®orG-onaNHTIW®orG-onaNz

B-VU� B-VU+ B-VU� B-VU+pN [m OClom 2 m 2- s 1- ] b8.4 b6.4 a3.8 ba6.6

[E m Hlom 2 mO 2- s 1- ] b2.1 b3.1 a0.3 a8.2

Fo a971 a451 a061 a751

Fv F/ m a197.0 a677.0 a197.0 a987.0

Fv F/ o a76.3 a74.3 a96.3 a47.3

dleiY a76.0 a46.0 a96.0 a46.0

Pq a78.0 a09.0 a19.0 a78.0

Nq ba22.0 a62.0 b41.0 a52.0

dfR a04.2 a56.2 a56.2 a84.2

AERAFAELmc[aic�ilainhczreiwoP 2]

a2.94 a0.54 a7.15 a0.24

g[MLS .m 2- ] a01 a11 a31 a11

A[TNETNOCSDIONOVALF 503 g 1- ]WDwódionowalfæ�otrawaZ

a753 a323 a123 a453

REFFIDTONOD)ERUTAEFENOROF(RETTELEMASEHTYBDETONEDSNAEMEHT�ba)50.0<P(YLTNACIFINGIS

WO:ECRUOS .YDUTSN)50,0<p(eintotsiêis¹in¿órein)yhcecjendejald(¹retil¹mas¹katenozcanzoeinder��cba


WAVELENGHT/D³ugo�æ fali [nm] WAVELENGHT/D³ugo�æ fali [nm]

ABSORBANce/Absorbancja ABSORBANce/Absorbancja/WITH Nano-Gro®

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

50

FIGURE 3. ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF ETHANOL CUCUMBER LEAF EXTRACT IN THE ULTRAVIOLETRADIATION RANGE; LEAVES FROM THE PLANTS EXPOSED TO UV-BBE = 1.8 kJ-2 . m-2 . d-1 (EXPERIMENT2). untreated (on the left) and treated by Nano-Gro® (right)SOURSE: OWN study.Rysunek 3. Widma absorpcji etanolowych ekstraktów li�ci ogórka w zakresie promieniowania ultrafioletowe-go; li�cie pobrane z ro�lin poddanych napromieniowaniu o dawce UV-BBE = 1,8 kJ . m-2 . d-1 (do�wiadczenie 2),nietraktowane (lewy) i traktowane biostymulatorem Nano-Gro® (prawy)�ród³o: badania w³asne.

��

�89�% �89�%

��

�89�% �89�%

exposed to UV-B was increased to 137%. More visible effect was found in a case oftranspiration rate, which was higher almost 2.5 times than in the leaves of the control plants.

Absorption spectra of all leaf extracts in the ultraviolet range was very similar (Fig. 3),therefore content of flavonoids did not differ in the investigated variants.

The obtained results indicate negative direct effect of UV-B radiation applied in hi-gher biologically effective dose, 3.0 kJ . m-2 . d-1, on most investigated features. The inhi-bition of photosynthesis in the irradiated plants, as well as in the donor side of photosys-tem II and intensity of CO2 assimilation was noted. Decrease of Fv/Fo value is associatedwith a disruption of photosynthesis process in the donor part of the photosystem II, espe-cially in the water-splitting system [Schreiber et al. 1994]. This effect is commonly obse-rved in the susceptible plants exposed to UV-B radiation [Skórska 1999]. Interaction ofthe light phase reactions with enzymatic dark process was also affected by UV-B, whichis indicated by the decrease of the Rfd value [Lichtenhaller et al. 1986]. UV-B irradiationdid not change the value of the photochemical coefficient qP, denoting the proportion ofexcitons captures by open traps and being converted to chemical energy in the photosys-tem II reaction centre [Krause, Weis 1991]. The decrease of nonphotochemical coeffi-cient, qN, is caused by reduction of the proton gradient across the thylakoid membranesdue to an increase of the ATP consumption in the Calvin cycle [Krause, Weis 1984].

Nano-Gro® attenuated some negative effects caused by UV-B radiation, particularlyin photosystem II. Transpiration rate was also in the irradiated plants treated with thebiostimulator was the same as in the control plants. Unfortunately, at higher UV-B doseNano-Gro® did not influence on net photosynthesis rate and the leaf area. So decrease ofleaf area can be considered as a protective reaction of the plants rather than the destruc-tion symptom; similar effect was also observed in other species [Caldwell et al. 1994,Skórska 2000].

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

WAVELENGHT/D³ugo�æ fali [nm] WAVELENGHT/D³ugo�æ fali [nm]

ABSORBANce/Absorbancja ABSORBANce/Absorbancja/WITH Nano-Gro®

51

The SLM parameter, proportional to leaf thickness, slightly increased, but not signifi-cantly, in the plants treated with the biostimulator. It is an additional protective reaction ofthe tolerant species against harmful UV-B. Similar effect of UV-B on leaf thickness wasobserved in rape [Cen, Bornman 1993] and bean plants [Skórska 2000].

Higher, but not significant statistically content of flavonoids in the leaves of the plantstreated by the biostimulator induced to perform the next experiment with lower levelstress. Unfortunately, lower dose of UV-B radiation (1.8 kJ m-2 d-1) did not cause signifi-cant changes in the studied plants. However, content of flavonoids in the plants washigher in the first experiment. Such compounds neutralise damages caused not only byultraviolet-B radiation but also by other stress factors because they have antioxidantproperties [Caldwell et al. 1995].

Phenols, compounds showing also antioxidant properties are main ingredients in theknown biostimulator, Asahi SL [S³owiñski 2004]. When applied exogenously, Asahi streng-thens the plant�s cell walls and it increases synthesis of phenols. These compounds pro-tect cells and their enzymatic systems, elevating plant�s resistance to temperature andwater stresses, mechanical injuries and disease infections. They also increase the rate ofplant�s adaptation to variable environmental conditions. Moreover, phenols play an impor-tant role in nitrogen metabolism in a plant and cytoplasm transport helping to increase theplant productivity [Górnik, Grzesik 2002]. Asahi caused the increase of phenol compoundcontent in tomato fruits and potato tubers [Czeczko, Mikos-Bielak 2004].

In other studies on ultraviolet radiation, foliar application of biostimulators includedhumic acids significantly reduced the injury of UV radiation to the bentgrass and impro-ved turfgrass quality [Schmidt, Zhang 1999, 2001].

To summarise the presented results, it can be stated that the cucumber plants expo-sed to higher UV-B dose and treated with Nano-Gro® revealed less susceptibility of theprimary photochemical reactions in photosystem II than the plants not treated with thisbiostimulator. Unfortunately, this specimen did not ameliorate negative effects caused byUV-B radiation, e.g. leaf area or net photosynthesis of those plants did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The applied ultraviolet-B radiation can negatively affect young cucumber plants ma-inly in higher dose (3.0 kJ m-2 d-1) influencing photosynthesis reactions.

2. Nano-Gro® counteracted damages caused by high intensity of UV-B in photosystem II,but did not influence leaf area and intensity of CO2 assimilation in those plants.

3. Lower dose of UV-B radiation (1.8 kJ m-2 d-1) did not cause significant changes inthe studied plants, and those treated with Nano-Gro® had higher net photosynthesisand transpiration rate.

52

REFERENCES

[http://www.agrarius.eu][http://www.asahi.pl/en/]Böhme M., Schevtschenko J., Pinker I. 2005: Effect of biostimulators on growth of vegetables in hydroponical

systems. Acta Hortic., 697, 337-344.Böhme M., Schevchenko J., Herfort S., Pinker I. 2008: Cucumber grown in sheepwool slabs treated with

biostimulator compared to other organic and mineral substrates. Acta Hortic., 779, 299-306.Bornman J.F., Teramura A.H. 1993: Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on terrestrial plants. [In:] Environmental UV

Photobiology (ed. A.R.Young et al.). Plenum Press, New York. 14, 427-477.Caldwell M.M. 1977. The effects of solar UV-B radiation (280-315 nm) on higher plants: implications of stratosphe-

ric ozone reduction. [In:] Research Photobiology (ed. A. Castelani) Plenum Publ. Co., 597-607.Caldwell M.M., Flint S.D., Searles P.S. 1994: Spectral balance and UV-B sensitivity of soybean: a field experi-

ment. Plant Cell Environ., 17, 267-276.Caldwell M.M., Teramura A.H., Tevini M., Bornman J.F., Björn L.O., Kulandaivelu G. 1995: Effects

of increased solar ultraviolet radiation on terrestial plants. Ambio � J. Hum. Environ., 24, 3, 166-173.Cen Y.P., Bornman J.F. 1993: The effect of exposure to enhanced UV-B radiation on the penetration of

monochromatic and polychromatic UV-B radiation in leaves of Brassica napus. Physiol. Plant. 87, 249-255.

Czeczko R., Mikos-Bielak M. 2004: Effects of Asahi bio-stimulator application in the cultivation ofdifferent vegetable species. Ann. UMCS, E 59, 3, 1073-1079.

Ervin E.H. 2003: What does research indicate about Primo and biostimulants. TurfNews, 27, 1, 72-74.Górnik K., Grzesik M. 2002: Effect of Asahi SL on China aster `Aleksandra` seed yield, germination and some

metabolic events. Acta Physiol. Plant., 24, 4, 379-383.Karnok K.J. 2000: Promises, promises: Can biostimulants deliver? Golf Course Management, 68, 8, 67-71.Kauffman G.L. III; Watschke T.L. 2004: Macro-Sorb Foliar© affects the heat tolerance of perennial ryegrass.

TurfNews, 28, 4, 96-99.Kauffman G.L., Kneivel D.P., Watschke T.L. 2007: Effects of a biostimulant on the heat tolerance associated with

photosynthetic capacity, membrane thermostability and polyphenol production of perennial ryegrass. CropSci., 47, 1, 261- 267.

Kositorna J. 2004: The usage of Asahi SL biostimulator in a process of protecting sugarbeet from stress caused byherbicides. Gazeta Cukrownicza, 112, 2/3, 58, 60-63.

Krause G..H., Weis E. 1984: Chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool in plant physiology. II. Interpretation of fluorescencesignals. Photosynth. Res., 5, 139-157.

Krause G..H., Weis E. 1991: Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. PlantMol. Biol., 42, 313-349.

Lichtenthaler H.K., Buschmann C., Rinderle U., Schmuck G. 1986: Application of chlorophyll fluorescence inecophysiology. Rad. Environ. Biophys., 25, 297-308.

Liu C., Cooper 2002: Humic acid application does not improve salt tolerance of hydroponically grown creepingbentgrass. J. Amer. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 127, 219-223.

Munshaw G.C., Ervin E. H., Shang C., Askew S.D., Zhang X., Lemus R.W. 2006: Influence of late-season iron,nitrogen and seaweed extract on fall color retention and cold tolerance of four Bermudagrass cultivars. Crop Sci.,46, 273-283.

Nabati D.A., Schmidt R.E., Parish D.J. 1994: Alleviation of salinity stress in Kentucky bluegrass by plant growthregulators and iron. Crop Sci., 43, 198-202.

Schmidt R.E., Zhang X. 1997: Influence of seaweed on growth and stress tolerance of grasses. [In:] M.J. Williams(ed.) Proc. Am. Forage Grassl. Council., Fort Worth. TX, 158-162.

Schmidt R.E., Zhang X. 1999: Inhibition of UV influence on turfgrass performance. Ann. Meeting Abstr., 91, 127.Schmidt R.E., Zhang X. 2001: Alleviation of photochemical activity decline of turfgrasses exposed to soil moisture

stress or UV radiation. Intl. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J., 9, 1, 340-346.Schreiber U., Bilger W., Neubauer C. 1994: Chlorophyll fluorescence as a nonintrusive indicator for rapid

assessment of in vivo photosynthesis. Ecophysiology of Photosynthesis (ed. Schulze E.D., Caldwell M.M.).Ecol. Stud., 100, 49-70.

Skórska E. 1999: Effect of chill on chlorophyll fluorescence of cucumber leaves of plants subjected to UV-Birradiation. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln., 469, 1, 137-144.

53

Skórska E. 2000: Reactions of some plants to UV-B radiation. Akademia Rolnicza w Szczecinie. Rozprawy 192, 1-100.

S³owiñski A. 2004: Biostimulators in modern plant production. Ochrona Ro�lin, 49, 2, 16-17.Sowmya M. 2003: Do biostimulants really work? TurfNews, 27, 1, 71-72.Tahsin N., Kolev T. 2005: Investigation on the effect of some plant growth regulators on sunflower (Helianthus

annuus L.). J. Cent. Eur. Agric., 6, 4, 583-586.Van Kooten O., Snel J.F.H. 1990: The use of chlorophyll fluorescence nomenclature in plant stress physiology.

Photosynth. Res., 25, 147-150.Zhang X., Schmidt R.E. 2000: Hormone-containing products� impact on antioxidant status of tall fescue and

creeping bentgrass subjected to drought. Crop Sci., 40, 1344-1348.Zhang X., Ervin E.H., Schmidt R.E. 2003: Plant growth regulators can enhance the recovery of Kentucky bluegrass

sod from heat injury. Crop Sci., 43, 952-956.Zhang X., Ervin E.H. 2004: Cytokinin-containing seaweed and humic acid extracts associated with creeping

bentgrass leaf cytokinins and drought resistance. Crop Sci., 44, 1737-1745.

54

EFFECTIVENESS OF NATURAL PRODUCTS

IN PROTECTION OF CUCUMBER GROWN UNDER CO-

VER AGAINST POWDERY MILDEW

Agnieszka Ostrowska, Barbara Dyki, Józef RobakResearch Institute of Vegetable Crops, Skierniewice, Poland

INTRODUCTION

Powdery mildew has been noted as a serious cucurbit disease at least since 1800. It ispresently worldwide distributed where temperatures are relatively high and moisture oc-curs as heavy dews rather than as dashing rains [Sherf, Macnab 1986]. This is probably themost common, conspicuous, widespread and easily recognizable plant disease which utilizeits host nutrients, reduces photosynthesis, increases respiration and transpiration, impairsgrowth and reduces yields, sometimes by as much as 20 to 40%. Fungi causing powderymildew are obligate parasites; they cannot be cultured on artificial nutrient media [Agrios2004]. Powdery mildew is caused by two fungi species as: Erysiphe cichoracearum andSphaerotheca fulginea, which are harmful threat to cucumber grown under covers in theworld, including Poland. Spawn of fungi develops on plants� surface and creates abundantfloury coating with sporulating of the oidium type [Kryczyñski 2002]. In recent years therehas been an increase interest in using natural products in plant protection against variousplant pathogens. Application of such products can, to considerable degree, contribute tolimitation of use of synthetic fungicides [Tomalak, Zaremba 2004].

The aim of our experiments was to evaluate the effectiveness of plant extracts orbiostimulators in reducing the development of two fungi: Erysiphe cichoracearum andSphaerotheca fulginea causing powdery mildew on cucumbers.


In 2006 and 2007 the experiments included plants of Iwa F1 cucumber cultivar: (a)grown in pots in the climatic cabins, and (b) under cover (greenhouse) in the spring andautumn cycle, at the Research Institute of Vegetable Crops in Skierniewice.(a) The cucumber seeds were sown on 24.10.2006 to pots (O14 cm) filled with peat sub-

strate. They were kept in climatic chambers free from powdery mildew until the stageof two main leaves. The experiments were set up in a randomised block design, withthree replications of one plant in each combination. Two preventive sprayings usingtested products were carried out at the beginnings of the trial. Afterwards uninfectedplants were inoculated with spores of E. cichoracearum and S. fulginea pathogens byshaking off conidia from heavily sporulating leaves. The next spraying was executedwhen first disease symptoms on cucumber leaves occured. Cucumbers were led onone shoot to flowering stage.

55

(b) The greenhouse experiment was carried out in the spring and autumn cycle of cu-cumber production; seeds were sown in pots ( 9 cm) and kept in climatic chambersfree from powdery mildew. Later cucumber seedlings were grown on windowsillsfilled with peat substrate. In the spring cycle they were transplanted on: 15.05.2007(15 105 BBCH � at the stage of five main leaves); and in the autumn cycle on:27.07.2007 (15 105 BBCH � at the stage of five main leaves). Four replications withfour plants in each combination of planted plot 1 m2 were used. Plants were led onone shoot. In both experiments two preventive sprayings were applied, and thenuninfected plants were inoculated with spores of E. cichoracearum and S. fulgineaby shaking off conidia from heavily sporulating leaves. Next sprayings were appliedevery 6th or 10th day, when first disease symptoms on leaves appear. During spray-ing time the pressure of air in reservoir of sprayer was 3 bars.

The following natural products were applied in the experiment: grapefruit extract (Grevit200 SL), orange oil (Prev-AM 060 SL) and Physpe 6 and Physpe 7, two biostimulatorsbased on an algae extract.

The development of powdery mildew symptoms was evaluated by using a 0-7 ratingscale: 0 � no disease, 7 � all leaves covered with powdery mildew [Sobolewski, Robak2004]. The Newman � Keuls test was used to estimate the significance of differencesbetween the means (a = 0.05) and Abbott method for calculating efficacy of examinedproducts [Puntener 1981]. The leaves showing disease symptoms after two days from thefirst intervention spraying were prepared to analyze with the use of scanning electronmicroscope. The fragments of leaves (10 x 10 mm) were fixed with CrAF (chromic acid,acetic acid, formalin) agent, dehydrated in ethanol and CO2 critical point dried and thencoated with gold-palladium by sputtering [Hayat 1976]. Microscopic analyses of pathogenstructure were performed with the use of scanning electron microscope Jeol JSM � S1.


In the pot experiment powdery mildew occurred on the average level. The highesteffectiveness equal to 69-80%, in cucumbers protection against E. cichoracearum andS. fulginea, showed the natural product Prev-AM 060 SL used in 0.4% concentration.Biostimulator Physpe 7 showed lower effectiveness on level of 45-47%, however, theeffectiveness of biostimulator Physpe 6 was more diverse and unstable, equal to 16 to48% (Tab. 1). The observations of the influence of applied products on development ofroot system disclosed that the largest root mass was produced by plants treated by Prev-AM 060 SL (Tab. 2).

On cucumbers grown under cover in spring and autumn cycle, powdery mildew ap-peared on average to high level. In cucumbers protection against powdery mildew natu-ral product Prev-AM 060 SL in concentrations of 0.4 and 0.6% showed high effective-ness from 95 to 99%. The biostymulator Physpe 7 in concentration 0.2% revealed highereffectiveness in protection against E. cichoracearum and S. fulginea in relation to thenatural product Grevit 200 SL used in concentration 0.1%, both in spring and in autumncycle (Tab. 3 and 4). The use of natural products increased the cucumber yield from 5 to10% in comparison to untreated control (Tab. 3 and 4).

56

YREDWOPTSNIAGASTCUDORPLARUTANFOYCNEICIFFE.1ELBAT WEDLIM)AENIGLUF.S/MURAECAROHCIC.E( .TNEMIREPXETOPNINWORGREBMUCUCNO

6002ECIWEINREIKSmeikainzc¹mdezrpakrógoeinorhcowhcynlarutanwókdor�ic�onzcetuksjenzcigoloibanecO.1alebaT

mywizdwarp aenigluf.S/muraecarohcic.E( 6002eciweinreikS.mywonozawuinezcdaiw�odw)

STNEMTAERTikdor�enadaB

TCUDORP-NECNOC

NOITARTeine¿êtSutkudorp

]%[

EVITCAECNATSBUS

ajcnatsbuSanwytka

EGATNECREPAERAFAELFO

DETSEFNIjeno¿arop%

inhczreiwop6002.21.4

-IFFE*YCNEIC-zcetukS

æ�on]%[


DETSEFNIjeno¿arop%

inhczreiwop6002.21.21

-IFFE*YCNEIC-zcetukS

æ�on]%[

LS060MA-verP

6epsyhP

7epsyhP

LORTNOCalortnoK

4.0

2.0

2.0

--

LIOEGNAROyzcñaramopjelO

TCARTXEEAGLAglazg¹icyW


--

c7.4

b2.21

b5.21

a5.32

08

84

74

--

d7.31

b6.63

c1.42

a7.34

96

61

54

--

TONERARETTELEMASEHTYBDEWOLLOFNMULOCNISEULAV,50,0=PSLUEK-NAMWENTSET)50.0RIN(TNEREFFIDYLTNACIFINGIS

DOHTEM'TTOBBAYBDETALUCLACTCUDORPFOYCACIFFE*.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS

yzrpeintotsiêis¹in¿órein¹retil¹mas¹tenozcanzoewobzcilic�otraW a 50,0=a'ttobbAurozw¹comopazanozcilboæ�onzcetukS*


]g[SMARGNISSAMTOORREBMUCUCNOSTCUDORPDEIDUTSFOECNEULFNI.2ELBAT6002ECIWEINREIKS.TNEMIREPXETOPNI

uinezcdaiw�odw]g[hcamargwakrógoinezrokêsamannil�orynorhcowókdor�hcynadabwy³pW.2alebaT6002eciweinreikS.mywonozaw


TCUDORPNOITARTNECNOCutkudorpeine¿êtS

]%[

ECNATSBUSEVITCAanwytkaajcnatsbuS

FOSSAMTOOR)EGAREVA(REBMUCOC

wókrógoinezrokasaM6002.21.91)ainder�(

LS060MA-verP

6epsyhP

7epsyhP

LORTNOCalortnoK

4.0

2.0

2.0

��

LIOEGNAROyzcñaramopjelOTCARTXEEAGLA

glazg¹icyWTCARTXEEAGLA

glazg¹icyW��

96

61

54

��

50,0=PSLUEK-NAMWENTSETNWO:ECRUOS .YDUTS


On plants collected from the control plots (Phot. 1 and 2) the fungi developed newconidia generations with germinated and developed mycelium infecting new epidermiscells of leaves. The outer fungus hyphae and conidia did not show any visible destructionon leaf surface of the control plants. After use tested products, especially Prev-AM 060SL, many plasmolysis hyphae and deformed conidia, which did not germinate, were obse-rved (Phot. 3 and 4).

57

WEDLIMYREDWOPTSNIAGASTCUDORPLARUTANFOYCNEICIFFE.3ELBAT)AENIGLUF.S/MURAECAROHCIC.E( GNIRPSNIESUOHNEERGNINWORGREBMUCUCNO

7002ECIWEINREIKS.ELCYCimano³sodopeiwarpuwakrógoeinorhcowhcynlarutanwókdor�ic�onzcetuksjenzcigoloibanecO.3alebaT

mywizdwarpmeikainzc¹mdezrp aenigluf.S/muraecarohcic.E( 7002eciweinreikS.jennesoiwywarpuulkycw)


TCUDORP-NECNOC


]%[

EVITCAECNATSBUS

ajcnatsbuSanwytka


DETSEFNIinhczreiwopjeno¿arop%

6002.21.4

-TEKRAMDLEIYELBAywoldnahnolP

gk[ . m2]

*YCNEICIFFEæ�onzcetukS

]%[

ELCYCGNIRPSNIECNEIREPXEjennesoiwywarpuulkycweinezcdaiw�oD

60.4 60.51 60.4 60.51LS060MA-verP

7epsyhP

LS002tiverG

LORTNOCalortnoK

6.0

2.0

1.0

--




--

d1.0

c0.3

c9.3

a6.41

e4.0

c5.71

c1.81

a7.35

2.3

3.3

4.3

4.3

99

97

37

-

99

76

66

-

TONERARETTELEMASEHTYBDEWOLLOFNMULOCNISEULAV,50,0=PSLUEK-NAMWENTSET)50.0=DSLTNEREFFIDYLTNACIFINGIS



.ensa³wainezcilbo:o³dór�

WEDLIMYREDWOPTSNIAGASTCUDORPLARUTANFOYCNEICIFFE.4ELBAT)AENIGLUF.S/MURAECAROHCIC.E( NMUTUANIESUOHNEERGNINWORGREBMUCUCNO

7002ECWIEINREIKS.ELCYCimano³sodopeiwarpuwakrógoeinorhcowhcynlarutanwókdor�ic�onzcetuksjenzcigoloibanecO.4alebaT

mywizdwarpmeikainzc¹mdezrp aenigluf.S/muraecarohcic.E( 7002eciweinreikS.jenneisejywarpuulkycw)


TCUDORP-NECNOC


]%[

EVITCAECNATSBUS

ajcnatsbuSanwytka


DETSEFNIinhczreiwopjeno¿arop%

6002.21.4

-TEKRAMDLEIYELBAywoldnahnolP

gk[ . m2]

*YCNEICIFFEæ�onzcetukS

]%[

ELCYCGNIRPSNIECNEIREPXEjennesoiwywarpuulkycweinezcdaiw�oD

80.71 80.13 80.71 80.13LS060MA-verP

7epsyhP

LS002tiverG

LORTNOCalortnoK

4.0

2.0

1.0

--




--

e5.1

e3.6

c9.3

a9.07

f3.0

d6.2

b4.4

a2.6

1.2

1.2

2.2

0.2

89

19

84

-

59

85

92

-

TONERARETTELEMASEHTYBDEWOLLOFNMULOCNISEULAV,50,0=PSLUEK-NAMWENTSET)50.0=DSL(TNEREFFIDYLTNACIFINGIS




58

Photography 1 and 2. Conidia and hyphae of fungi: S. fulginea/E.cichoracearum on control cucumberleaves (magnification: Phot. 1: x 200 & Phot. 2: 600 x 3). Author of Phots: B. Dyki.Fotografia 1 i 2. Konidia i strzêpki grzybni S.fulginea/E.cichoracearum na li�ciu kontrolnym (powiêkszenie:fot. 1: x 200 i fot. 2.: 600 x 3) Autor fotografii: B. Dyki.

PhotOGRAPHY 3 and 4. Deformation and plasmolysis of conidia and hyphae fragments of S.fulginea/E. cichoracearum on cucumber leaves after spraying Prev�AM 060 SL (0,4%) (magnification x600). Author of Phots: B. Dyki.Fotografia 3 i 4. Deformacja i plazmoliza konidiów i fragmentów grzybni Sphaerotheca fulginea/Erisyphecichoracearum na li�ciach ogórka po opryskiwaniu Prev-AM 060 SL (0,4%) (powiêkszenie x 600). Autorfotografii: B. Dyki.

1 2

3 4

59

The results presented in this work show that application of the studied natural pro-ducts reduced powdery mildew infestation on cucumber plants. Particularly high effi-ciency against pathogens showed Prev-AM 060 SL in doses 0.4 and 0.6 %. Less effi-ciency was showed by Physpe 7 in concentration 0.2%, but it still better in comparison toGrevit 200 SL in concentration 0.1%. The product Physpe 6 showed more diverse andunstable efficacy.

The present new approach in cultivation of agriculture and horticulture plants is ba-sed on the reduction of synthetic chemical pesticides usage due to economic and environ-ment arguments [Piêta, Patkowska, Pastucha 2004]. Many research works showed thatnatural products are very effective against different pathogens, such as: Phythophthorainfestans, Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato [Sobolewski, Robak 2004, Sobolewski,Ostrowska, Robak 2007], Alternaria spp., Peronospora destructor, Pseudoperono-sphora cubensis [Robak, Ostrowska 2004], Erwinia amylovora [Krupiñski, Sobiczewski2001], Botrytis cinerea, Phytophthora cryptogea, Fusarium oxysporum [Orlikowski,Skrzypczak 2003], Colletotrichum gloeosporioides [Jeske 2006] and Venturia ina-equalis [Masny, Sobiczewski, Bielenin 2004].

The results of our experiments confirmed that application of: Prev-AM 060 SL, Phy-spe 7 and Grevit 200 SL can, to sufficient degree, reduce plant infestation by powderymildew in the cucumber production under covers.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Among tested natural products the highest effectiveness in protection against powderymildew in cucumber production under cover was showed by Prev-AM 060 SL.

2. The microscopic observations showed degeneration of conidia and spawn of fungiErysiphe cichoracearum and Sphaerotheca fulginea on the leaf surface of cu-cumbe plants treated with Prev-AM 060 SL.

REFERENCES

Agrios G. N. 2004: Plant Pathology. 5th ed. University of Florida, USA, 448-452.Hayat M.A. (ed). 1976: Principles and techniques of scanning electron microscopy. Vol. 5. Van Nostrand

Reinhold Co., New York.Jeske M. 2006: Biologiczna ochrona ³ubinu przed Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz. Prog. Plant Prot./

Post. Ochr. Ro�l. 46, 556-559.Krupiñski G., Sobiczewski P. 2001. Wp³yw ekstraktów ro�linnych na wzrost Erwinia amylovora (Burrill)

Winslow et al. Acta Agrobotanica, vol. 54(2), 81-91.Kryczyñski S. 2002: Podstawy fitopatologii. Fundacja �Rozwój SGGW�, Warszawa, 107-110.Masny S., Sobiczewski P., Bielenin A. 2004. Efektywno�æ preparatów proekologicznych w zwalczaniu

parcha i m¹czniaka jab³oni. Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Ro�l., 44, 937-941.Orlikowski L. B., Skrzypczak C. 2003. Grapefruit extract as biocontrol agent of soil-borne and leaf

pathogens. Biull.Pol. Acad. Sci., Biol. Sci., vol. 51 (2): 79-85.Piêta D., Patkowska E., Pastucha A. 2004. Oddzia³ywanie biopreparatów na wzrost i rozwój niektórych

grzybów chorobotwórczych dla ro�lin motylkowatych. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus, 3 (2), 171-177.Puntener W. (ed.). 1981: Podrêcznik do�wiadczalnictwa polowego w ochronie ro�lin. Wyd. Instytut Ochro-

ny Ro�lin, Poznañ, 39-41.Robak J., Ostrowska A. 2004. Integrowana ochrona ogórka, kapusty pekiñskiej i cebuli przed chorobami.

Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Ro�l., 44 (1), 322-330.

60

Sherf A., Macnab A.A. 1986: Vegetable diseases and their control. 2nd (ed. A Wiley). J. Wiley & Sons I.N.G.Interscience Publication, 324-327, Canada.

Sobolewski J., Robak J. 2004: Mo¿liwo�ci kompleksowej ochrony pomidora z wykorzystaniem nowychfungicydów i �rodków pochodzenia organicznego. Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Ro�l., 44, 1105-1107.

Sobolewski J., Ostrowska A., Robak J. 2007. Kompleksowa ochrona pomidora przed zaraz¹ ziemniaka ibakteryjn¹ cêtkowato�ci¹ z uwzglêdnieniem �rodków konwencjonalnych i organicznych. Prog. PlantProt./Post. Ochr. Ro�l., 47 (4),302-305.

Tomalak M., Zaremba M. 2004: Dostêpno�æ �rodków ochrony ro�lin dla rolnictwa ekologicznego i zasadyich rejestracji w Polsce. Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Ro�l., 44 (1), 462-472.

61

EFFECT OF 5-AMINOLEVULINIC ACID (ALA) FROM

PENTAKEEP® FERTILIZERS ON YIELD AND QUALITY

OF VEGETABLES GROWN IN THE FIELD AND UNDER

COVERS

Irena Babik, Józef Babik, Jacek Dy�koResearch Institute of Vegetable Crops, Skierniewice, Poland

INTRODUCTION

Pentakeep® products belong to the group of new functional liquid fertilizers. Theyare the first fertilizers containing 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA). ALA is a precursor oftetrapyrrole compounds such as chlorophyll in plants and heme and vitamin B12 in humanand animals. More 5-aminolevulinic acid available for plants resulted in more chlorophylland increased rate of photosynthetic process [Hotta et al. 1997]. These results suggestthat ALA can enhance agricultural productivity.

One of the effects of fertilizers containing ALA observed in a number of experi-ments, was an increase of the yield. The increase was not always the same. In experi-ments conducted in Hungary on tomato culture, the average increase in the total yieldamounted to 12%, in comparison to the control, and in the case of sweet pepper, thedifferences in the yield were small and insignificant [Murányi 2006]. The beneficial influ-ence on the yield was observed in the greenhouse cultivation of tomato and cucumber,but in the case of tomato, foliar application was more beneficial, where as in cucumber itwas in the form of fertigation [Babik, Babik 2007, Babik et al. 2007]. In the greenhouseculture of sweet pepper treated by ALA the yield increase was higher by up to 9% and bya 16% higher uptake of nitrogen [Iwai et al. 2005]. It was also observed that foliarapplication of ALA influenced the dry matter content, which in the case of rice, enhancedcold resistance [Hotta et al. 1998]. Another effect of ALA was a decrease in the uptakeof Na+ by plants, which resulted in a higher tolerance to salinity of soil. Seedlings ofcotton were able to withstand salinity of 1.5% NaCl [Watanabe et al. 2000].

The aim of the research was to determine the effect of Pentakeep fertilizers conta-ining bio-stimulator ALA (5-aminolevulinic acid) on the plant development, quantity andquality of yield of vegetables grown in the field and under cover.


Research carried out in the years 2006 and 2007 included following experiments: (a)on white cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata) cultivars: medium early ChopinF1 (2006) and medium late Landini F1 (2007) , and (b) tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum

62

NINWORGPORCOTAMOTDNAEGABBACNISERUSAEMNOITAVITLUCFOSMRET.1ELBATDLEIFEHT

arodimopiytsupakeiwarpujewolopwhcywowarpuwógeibazynimreT.1alebaT

NOITACIFICEPSeineinlógezczsyW

SRAEYataL

EGABBACatsupaK

OTAMOTrodimoP

GNIWOSweiS

60027002

91 LIRPA .teiwk/61 /LIRPA .teiwk

13 HCRAM .ram/11 /LIRPA .teiwk

DLEIFEHTNIGNITNALPulopweinezdaS

60027002

42 /YAM jam71 YAM jam/

4 /YAM jamM81 /YA jam

V-PEEKATNEPFONOITACILPPARAILOFV-peekatnePwózowaneinawosotsentsiloD

6002

7002

62,81 /LUJ .pil52,81,11,2 /GUA .preis

62,91,21 /NUJ .wrezc02,31,3 /LUJ .pil

92,22,41,8,1 J .wrezc/NU7 LUJ .pil/

62,91,21 /NUJ .wrezc02,31,3 /LUJ .pil

V-PEEKATNEPFONOITACILPPADEYALEDV-peekatnePainawosotsnimretynoin�ópO

7002 13,02,31,3 /LUJ .pil31,6 /GUA .preis

�

TSEVRAHróibZ

60027002

51-41 /TPES sezrw .12-02 /GUA .preis

/TPES6-LUJ91 .zrw-.pil/TPES81-GUA7 .zrw-.preis

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

Mill.) cultivars Lubañ (2006) and Koneser F1 (2007) grown under field conditions,and (c) the greenhouse experiments on tomato cv Blitz F1 and cucumber (Cucumis sati-vus) cv Milenium F1.

The fertilizers used in the experiments contained the bio-stimulator ALA (5-aminole-vulinic acid), and differed in the content of macro and micro-elements:� Pentakeep-V-9.5% N, 5.7% MgO, 0.3% Mn, 0.45% B with micro-elements Fe, Zn,

S, Cu and Mo,� Pentakeep-S � 8% N, 5% P, 3% K, 3% MgO with micro-elements B, Cu, Fe, Mn,

Mo and Zn,� Pentakeep-G � 6% N, 10% P, 5% K, 2.5% MgO with micro-elements B and Mn.

FIELD EXPERIMENTS � WHITE CABBAGE AND TOMATO

The experiments were set on sandy loam soil with a humus content of 1.3 % and pH6.5. The field was fertilized with mineral fertilizers to the standard levels of nutrients for thecultivated species (according to the soil analysis): 80 mg P, 200mg K per 1 litre of soil inspring before planting. For both species, preplant fertilization of 80 kg N/ha was used andtop dressed fertilization � 50 kg.ha-1 � for tomato, 100 kg N.ha-1 � for cabbage. Seedlingsfrom pots produced in multi-cell trays were used for planting both tomato and cabbage.

The growing medium was peat substrate Potgrond H (Kronen-Klasmann). In thefinal phase of production the seedlings were treated with a solution of multi-componentfertilizer. Cabbage was planted at the density of 33 thousand per hectare and tomato 28thousand per hectare. During the cultivation the vegetables were regularly watered, espe-cially during dry weather, in accordance with the needs of the species. In the 2006 rese-arch project Pentakeep-V was used in the form of foliar application for two vegetablespecies. Pentakeep-V in the dose 0.5 kg.ha-1 was applied 6 times during the cultivationperiod, in one-week intervals between treatments. The spraying of cabbage started 7-8weeks after planting, and on tomato crop 4 weeks after planting. In the research 2007 3types of Pentakeep fertilizers (Pantakeep-V, Pantakeep-S, Pantakeep-G) were used on

63

the field of white cabbage and tomato. In both species, Pentakeep-V and Pentakeep-Swere applied in the dose of 0.5 kg.ha-1, Pentakeep-G � 2.5 kg.ha-1. The timing of cultiva-tion measures conducted in the field experiments are presented in table 1.

The cabbage was collected in a single harvest, picking all the heads at one time. First,the fresh matter of whole heads was weighted and then the level of the marketable yieldwas determined. In the case of medium early cabbage, the marketable yield includedheads of weight >1.0 kg, and for medium late cabbage � heads of weight > 2.0 kg. Themarketable yield was divided into 4 fractions according to the head size and then theirshare in the total yield was assessed. During the cabbage growth in the field, the chloro-phyll content in leaves was assessed, expressed as a chlorophyll index. In the harvestedcrop, two parameters were assessed: the content of dry matter and mineral ingredients inmarketable heads. The tomatoes were picked 7-8 times as the crop ripened. The marke-table yield included fruit of a diameter > 3.5 cm. For the marketable yield the brix (totalsoluble solids) content was measured by means of refractrometry.

GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENTS � TOMATO AND CUCUMBERIN SOILLESS CULTURE

The experiments were carried out in plastic greenhouses equipped with a computeri-zed system of controlling the microclimate. Tomatoes were grown in Grodan slabs andcucumbers in organic medium prepared from straw pressed into slabs and covered bywhite foil sheets. Tomato cv Blitz F1 was planted at a density of 2.8 plants.m-2, andcucumber cv Milenium F1 at a density of 2-1 plants.m-2. The solution of fertilizers wassupplied in the form of fertigation in a closed system without recirculation. The pH of thesolution used for daily fertigation was about 5.5, and EC of the solution oscillated around2.7-3.2 mS.cm-1. In one liter of solution for tomato there was 200-220 mg N, 50-60 mg P280-300 mg K, 60-80 mg Mg, 190-220 mg Ca and microelements 2.5 mg Fe, 0.8 mg Mn,0.33 mg Zn, 0.33 mg B, 0.15 mg Cu, 0.05 mg Mo. One liter of solution for cucumbercontained: 250-300 mg N, 50-55 mg P, 300-310 mg K, 60 mg Mg, 150-180 mg Ca, 2.0 mgFe, 0.8 mg Mn, 0.27 mg Zn, 0.13 mg B,0.13 mg Cu, 0.04 mg Mo. In both cultures Penta-keep-V in the 0,05% concentration was used as foliar application and fertigation. In foliartreatments 250 ml of solution per plant was used, for fertigation 700 ml of solution perplant. In the case of cucumber the amount of solution was higher � 400 ml per plant infoliar treatments and 1000 ml for fertigation. Fruit picking took place twice a week � inboth cultures. Tomatoes were picked up in the period between 20 June-4 October, andcucumbers between 28 April-28 July.

The parameters analyzed for growth assessment were following: area of the leaves,flowering and fruit setting and the level of plant nutrition. Measurements of the leaf areawere taken from tomato plants in the flowering period of the 3rd and 6th cluster. In cucum-ber culture, measurements were performed on leaves taken from 5 consecutive nodesgrowing above 1m from the soil level. Plant yields were evaluated on the basis of thelevel of the total, the marketable and early yield, and the dynamics of yielding. The mar-ketable yield make up ripe, healthy fruits, of good shape and smoothness, in the diameterof > 3.5 cm and in the case of cucumber, only healthy, shapely and straight fruits. The

64

REDNUNWORGREBMUCUCDNAOTAMOTNISERUSAEMNOITAVITLUCFOSMRET.2ELBATREVOC

akrógoiarodimopeiwarpujewoinralkzswhcywowarpuwógeibazynimreT.2alebaT

NOITACIFICEPSeineinlógezczsyW

OTAMOTrodimoP

REBMUCUCkerógO

GNIWOSweiS

42 .BEF.tul42

82 .RBEF.tul82

ESUOHNEERGEHTNIGNITNALPinralkzsweinezdaS

41 RPA41 .teiwk

.RPA33 .teiwk

V-PEEKATNEPFONOITAGITREFDNANOITACILPPARAILOFijcagytrefwieintsilodV-peekatnePeinawosotS

42 RPA ,51,8,1,92dna22 YAM

51,8,1,.teiwk42jam92i22i

42 ,RPA61,8,1 YAM

,.teiwk42jam61,8,1

EEWASEMIT3REBMUCUC,KEEWASEMIT2OTAMOT�TSEVRAH Kuindogytwyzar3kerógo,uindogytwyzar2�rodimop�yroibZ

02 NUJ 4� TCO ..�ap40�.zcyts02

82 �RPA 82 .LUJ.pil82�.tul82

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

basic cultivation measurements performed in experiments are given in the table 2. Theanalysis of mineral content in the plant matter were performed in accordance with com-monly used methods. All experiments were set in 4 replications in a single-factorial de-sign. Collected data was statistically evaluated by analysis of variance for a mono-facto-rial system, and differences between the means were assessed with the use of Newman� Keul test.

RESULTS

FIELD CROPS � WHITE CABBAGE AND TOMATO

Yield and crop quality. The experiment confirmed that Pentakeep fertilizers enri-ched in ALA (5 � aminolevulinic acid) had a positive influence on the development andyields of field vegetables (tomato and cabbage) in comparison to the conventional mineralfertilization used in doses corresponding with the needs of cabbage and tomato. Howe-ver, not all differences regarding the weight of plants and the level of the yield could bestatistically proven.

The use of Pentakeep-V in both years of research significantly increased the weightof plants, the marketable yield and the average head weight in comparison to the controlplants which received a standard fertilization (Tab. 3).The increase in plant matter oscil-lated between 8.1% in 2006 to 9.7% in 2007, an increase in the marketable yield variedfrom 8.6% to 9.7% and an average head weight from 8.6% to 8.9%. The terms oftreatment (starting treatments 4 or 8 weeks after planting) did not play any role, becausethe efficiency of treatments was similar. For Pentakeep-G and Pentakeep-S (2007) theincrease obtained amounted to 5.5-6.6% for the weight of plants, 6.8-7.5% for marketa-ble yield and 6.7% for average head weight (Fig. 1).

There were also significant changes in the structure of head qualities in comparisonto the control plots. In both cultivars the use of Pentakeep-V increased the share of largeheads (> 2 kg for cv Chopin F1, > 4 kg cv Landini F1) and decreased the share of mediumsized heads (respectively 1.0- 2.0 kg for Chopin F1 and 3.0-5.0 kg for Landini F1). The

65

Figure 1. Increase of marketa-ble yield and head weight ofcabbage cv Landini F1 influencedby Pentakeep® fertilizers foliartreatments .SOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 1. Wzrost plonu handlo-wego i masy g³ówki kapusty odm.Landini F1 jako efekt dolistnegostosowania nawozów Pentakeep®

�ród³o: badnia w³asne.

PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.3ELBAT ® .EGABBACFODLEIYEHTNOSREZILITREFECIWEINREIKS 7002-6002

peekatnePwózowanwy³pW.3alebaT ® 7002-6002eciweinreikS.ytsupakeinawonolpan

STCEJBOytkeibO

TNALPTHGIEW

nil�orasaMt[ . ah 1- ]

ELBATEKRAMDLEIY

ywoldnahnolPt[ . ah 1- ]

DAEHTHGIEW

ikwó³gasaM]gk[

FNIPOHCRAVITLUCYLRAEMUIDEM�6002 1FnipohCnaimdoansezcwoinder� 1

LORTNOC)KPN(alortnoK

5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- GNITNALPRETFASKEEW8,5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- uinezdasop.gyt8,

b0.311

a2.221

b5.96

a5.57

b43.2

a45.2

FINIDNALRAVITLUCETALMUIDEM�7002 1FinidnaL.mdoan�ópoinder� 1


5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- GNITNALPRETFASKEEW8,5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , uinezdasop.gyt85.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- GNITNALPRETFASKEEW4,5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , uinezdasop.gyt45.0S-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- GNITNALPRETFASKEEW4,5.0S-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , uinezdasop.gyt45.2G-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- GNITNALPRETFASKEEW4,5.2G-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , uinezdasop.gyt4

b3.661

a3.181

a3.081

a2.771

a5.571

b6.231

a8.441

a4.541

a6.241

a6.141

b5.4

a9.4

a9.4

a8.4

a8.4

EREFFIDYLTNACIFINGISERASRETTELSUOIRAVHTIWDEKRAMSNAEM:SNOITANLAPXE.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS

.einzcytsytatsêis¹in¿órimaretilimyn¿órenozcanzoic�otraw:ainein�ajbO:o³dór� dab an .ensa³wai

fraction of small heads was eliminated from the total yield. A similar relationship wasfound for Pentakeep-S and Pentakeep-G, but the changes in the structure of the yieldwere by a few percent lower than in the case of Pentakeep-V (Tab. 4).There is no datain literature regarding the effect of ALA on the yield of cabbage vegetables. In experi-ments carried out on spinach, Sady and Smoleñ [2007] did not observed positive effectsof ALA contained in Pentakeep-V.

Pentakeep fertilizers increased the total yield, marketable yield and early yield of bothtomato cultivars. The differences obtained in 2006 on the total yield and the marketableyield as a result of applying Pentakeep-V were significant, but could not be proven for the

>�@

��

��

��

��

��

��

0DUNHWDEOH�\LHOG��SORQ�KDQGORZ\�� W�KD��

+HDG�ZHLJKW��PDVD�JáyZHN�� NJ

CONTROL P-V 0.5 kg.ha-1 P-S 0.5 kg.ha-1 P-G 0.5 kg.ha-1 P-V 0.5 kg.ha-1

kontrola NPK ROSETTE STAGE HEAD FORM/

stadium rozety formowanie g³ówek

MARKETABLE YIELD/plon handlowy 100% = 132.6 t.ha-1

HEAD WEIGHT/masa g³ówek 100% = 4.5 t.ha-1

66

PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.4ELBAT ® .EGABBACFOERAHSDLEIYNOSREZILITREFECIWEINREIKS 7002-6002

peekatnePwózowanwy³pW.4alebaT ® 7002-6002eciweinreikS.ytsupakunolpêrutkurtsan

STCEJBOytkeibO

OTGNIDROCCA,SDAEHFOERAHSDLEIYELBATEKRAMNI,THGIEWRIEHT

EGABBACFOejckarfanhcynoleizdop,kewó³g³aizdU

mywoldnaheinolpw,ysamhciodeinwosotsytsupak ]%[

FNIPOHCRAVITLUCYLRAEMUIDEM�6002 1FnipohC.mdoansezcwoinder� 1

THGIEWDAEH]gk[kewó³gasaM

0.1< 0.2-0.1 0.3-0.2 0.3>


5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , GNITNALPRETFASKEEW85.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- uinezdasop.gyt8,

2.1

�

1.33

9.11

9.15

9.66

8.31

2.12

FINIDNALRAVITLUCETALMUIDEM�7002 1FinidnaLanaimdoan�ópoinder� 1

THGIEWDAEH]gk[kewó³gasaM

0.3-0.2 0.4-0.3 0.6-0.4 0.6>


5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , GNITNALPRETFASKEEW85.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- uinezdasop.gyt8,5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , GNITNALPRETFASKEEW45.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , uinezdasop.gyt45.0S-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , GNITNALPRETFASKEEW45.0S-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- uinezdasop.gyt4,5.2G-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- , GNITNALPRETFASKEEW45.2G-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- uinezdasop.gyt4,

6.5

�

�

�

�

5.21

0.7

5.5

1.11

8.11

5.08

5.98

9.88

4.58

7.48

7.0

5.3

6.5

2.4

9.4

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS:o³dór� ainadab .ensa³w

PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.5ELBAT ® .OTAMOTDLEIFFODLEIYNOSREZILITREFECIWEINREIKS 7002-6002

peekatnePwózowanwy³pW.5alebaT ® 7002-6002eciweinreikS.hcywotnurgwórodimopnolpan

STCEJBOytkeibO

NIDLEIY t. ah 1- STIURFTHGIEW

]g[LATOT ELBATEKRAM YLRAE

NABULRAVITLUCYLRAE�6002ñabuLanaimdoansezcW

NOITAGITREFDRADNATS�LORTNOC KPNKPNewodradnatseine¿owan�alortnoK

V-PEEKATNEP gk5.0 . ah 1- 6x DRADNATSKPN,V-PEEKATNEP gk5.0 . ah 1- ewodradnatsKPN,x6

b5.78

a2.39

b9.67

a2.28

6.71

5.91

9.57

9.77

RESENOKRAVITLUCYLRAE�7002 F1FresenoKanaimdoansezcW 1

NOITAGITREFDRADNATS�LORTNOC KPNKPNewodradnatseine¿owan�alortnoK

5.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- dradnatsKPN,x65.0V-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- ewodradnatsKPN,x65.0S-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- dradnatsKPN,x65.0S-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- ewodradnatsKPN,x65.2G-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- dradnatsKPN,x65.2G-PEEKATNEP gk . ah 1- ewodradnatsKPN,x6

8.141

9.541

5.941

3.741

b4.88

a7.89

a3.201

a0.001

c9.32

cb1.62

b6.92

ba9.62

0.88

0.09

0.98

0.49

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS:o³dór� adab .ensa³wain

67

Figure 2. Increase of marketable and early yield oftomato cv Koneser F1 influenced by foliar treat-ments of Pentakeep® fertilizersSOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 2. Wzrost plonu handlowego i wczesnegopomidora odm. Koneser F1 jako efekt dolistnegostosowania nawozów Pentakeep®

�ród³o: badania w³asne.

Figure 3. Field tomato diseased fruits in % of totalyieldSOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 3. Udzia³ chorych owoców pomidora polowegow plonie ogólnym [%]�ród³o: badania w³asne.

>�@

�

��

��

��

��

��

0$5.(7$%/(�<,(/'�3ORQ�KDQGORZ\�� W�KD��($5/<�<,(/'�3ORQ�ZF]HVQ\��

>�@

�

�

��

��

��

��

7RPDWR�GLVHDVHG�IUXLWV�LQ��RI�WRWDOL OG

early yield. In 2007, for each type ofPentakeep fertilizer, the differenceswere insignificant for the total yield,but they were statistically significantfor the marketable yield in compari-son to the control object. The diffe-rences in the early yield were signifi-cant in the case of Pentakeep-S andPentakeep-G, whereas for Pentake-ep-V, as in the previous year, thesame could not be proven statistical-ly (Tab.5). The increase in the mar-ketable yield under the influence ofPentakeep-V oscillated between6.9% in 2006 and 11.7% in 2007. Ahigher increase was obtained in 2007for Pentakeep-S and Pentakeep-G andamounted to 15.7% and 13.1% respec-tively.

The increase in the early yield asa result of Pentakeep application wasat a similar level in both years � 9.2-10.8%, whereas the application ofPentakeep-S and Pentakeep-G resul-ted in a higher increase of the earlyyield � 23.8% and 12.6% respectively(Fig. 2). The increase in the total yieldof tomato by 12% was obtained byMurányi [ 2007] after foliar applica-tion of Pentakeep-V in the dose of 400ml/ha. In experiments conducted inSlovakia, Pentakeep-V applied in thedose ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 l/ha increased the yield of tomato in the range of between15.7% to 25.7%, and in the case of the large fruited tomato, from 9.7% to 17.9% [Slam-ka et al. 2007]. Similar results were obtained by Lozek et al. [2007] for sweet pepper (ayield increase from 15.4% to 25.3%). The use of Pentakeep fertilizers had a positiveeffect on the quality of fruit � it decreased the number of diseased fruit in the total yieldfrom 37% in the control object to 18% in the object fertilized with Pentakeep-S. Relative-ly, the highest number of diseased fruits (28%) was found for Pentakeep-G (Fig. 3).Pentekeep fertilizers positively influenced the content of total soluble solids in tomatofruit. This is an important characteristic of fruit for processing, determining the efficiencyand quality of concentrate production. The highest content of total soluble solids wasobserved for Pentakeep-S and Pentakeep-G (4.8%), and the lowest for Pentakeep-V(4.6%). In the control object the content of total soluble solids was 4.4% (Fig. 4). The

MARKETABLE YIELD/plon handlowy100% = 88.4 t.ha-1

EARLY YIELD/plon wczesny 100% = 23.9 t.ha-1

CONTROL P-V 0.5 kg.ha-1 P-S 0.5 kg.ha-1 P-G 0.5 kg.ha-1

kontrola NPK


kontrola NPK

TOMATO DISEASED FRUITS [% TOTAL YIELD]

owoce pomidora pora¿one [% plonu ogólnego]

68

,1'(;�ZVND QLN

��

��

��

��

��

CONTROL P-V P-S P-G P-V*

kontrola NPK 0.5 kg.ha-1 0.5 kg.ha-1 0.5 kg.ha-1 0.5 kg.ha-1

Figure 5. The influence of Pentakeep® fertilizerson chlorophyll index of cabbage leaves. * delayedtreatmentSOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 5. Wp³yw nawozów Pentakeep® na warto�æwska�nika chlorofilu w li�ciach kapusty.* Opó�nione stosowanie�ród³o: badania w³asne.

PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.6ELBAT ® DNATNETNOCRETTAMYRDNOSREZILITRFSDAEHEGABBACFONOITISOPMOCLARENIM

peekatnePwózowanwy³pW.6alebaT ® ytsupakhcakwó³gwhcynlarenimwókinda³ksiysamjehcusæ�otrawazan

STCEJBOytkeibO

% M.D ..m.s%

ON 3 gm . gk 1- M.FON 3 gm . gk 1- .m.�

% RETTAMYRDFOysamjehcus%

P K aC gMKPNDRADNATS�LORTNOC

owodradnatsKPN�alortnoKV-PEEKATNEP gk5.0 . ah - *1 DRADNATSKPNV-PEEKATNEP gk5.0 . ah - owodradnatsKPN*1S-PEEKATNEP gk5.0 . ah 1- DRADNATSKPNS-PEEKATNEP gk5.0 . ah 1- owodradnatsKPNG-PEEKATNEP gk5,0 . ah 1- DRADNATSKPNG-PEEKATNEP gk5,0 . ah 1- owodradnatsKPN

.0V-PEEKATNEP gk5 . ah 1- ** DRADNATSKPN

.0V-PEEKATNEP gk5 . ah 1- owodradnatsKPN**

29.7

58.7

78.7

40.8

68.7

887

017

546

296

996

22.0

12.0

02.0

12.0

12.0

86.2

26.2

75.2

06.2

76.2

56.0

66.0

76.0

76.0

07.0

02.0

91.0

71.0

12.0

12.0

FOEGATSMORFSEMIT6DEILPPA**,SDRAWNOETTESORFOEGATSMORFSEMIT6DEILPPA*SDRAWNONOITAMROFDAEH

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS* ikwó³gainawomrofyzafdoyzar6ynawosots**,ytezoryzafdoyzar6ynawosots� .ensa³wainadab:o³dór

Figure 4. The influence of Pentakeep® fertilizers onbrix content in tomato fruitsRysunek 4. Wp³yw nawozów Pentakeep® na zawarto�æekstraktu w owocach pomidoraSOURCE: OWN STUDY.�ród³o: badania w³asne.


kontrola NPK

increase of total soluble solids content underthe influence of fertilizers containing ALAwas 9% and 5%, respectively. A positiveeffect of Pentakeep fertilizer on total solu-ble solids content in tomato (increased by10%) was also detected by Slamka et al.[2007], and by Lozek et al. [2007] in sweetpepper. Pentakeep-V also increased thesoluble solids content in blueberry, apple andpear fruits [Kurlus et al. 2007]. Foliar appli-cation of Pentakeep-V was found to incre-ase vitamin C content in tomato fruits [Slamkaet al. 2007]. In research conducted on car-rot, a positive effect of foliar application withthis fertilizer on carotenoid and sugar con-tent in the roots was also proven [Sady,Smoleñ 2007].

Chlorophyll content and mineralcomposition of plant tissue. The use ofPentakeep fertilizers increased the chlo-rophyll content in cabbage leaves. The in-crease was higher after the application ofPentakeep-S and Pentakeep-V in the ear-ly developmental phase of cabbage plants,(rosette phase) and the lowest when Pen-takeep-V was used late in the vegetationseason (the head formation phase) (Fig. 5).In experiments conducted by Hotta et al.

5.1

4.8

4.5

4.2

%

69

>NJ�P

��@

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

)2/,$5�75($70(17�RSU\VN

)(57,*$7,21�SRGOHZDQLH

&21752/�NRQWUROD

PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.7ELBAT ® DNATNETNOCRETTAMYRDNOSREZILITRFSEVAELOTAMOTDLEIFFONOITISOPMOCLARENIM

peekatnePwózowanwy³pW.7alebaT ® hcaic�ilwhcynlarenimwókinda³ksiysamjehcusæ�otrawazanhcywolopwórodimop

STCEJBOytkeibO

% .M.D.m.s%

% RETTAMYRDFOysamjehcus%

ON-N 3 P K aC gMDRADNATS�LORTNOC KPN

owodradnatsKPN�alortnoKPEEKATNEP gk5.0V- . ah 1- KPN DRADNATS

owodradnatsKPNPEEKATNEP gk5.0S- . ah 1- KPN DRADNATS

owodradnatsKPNPEEKATNEP gk5,0G- . ah 1- KPN DRADNATS

owodradnatsKPN

8.31

9.21

9.21

7.21

240.0

970.0

370.0

960.0

12.0

52.0

42.0

32.0

53.3

48.3

90.4

70.4

08.2

36.2

84.2

03.2

12.0

52.0

42.0

32.0

.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS:o³dór� adab .ensa³wain

[1997] on horseradish seedlings, it was concluded that the increase of chlorophyll contentin the leaves was stimulated by ALA, but the increase of photosynthesis only occurredwhen ALA was applied together with mineral nutrients. The mineral composition of cab-bage heads did not change much after foliar application of Pentakeep fertilizers, exceptfor a decrease in nitrate content in the marketable yield of cabbage after the use ofPentakeep (especially Pentakeep�S). The content of other minerals (P, K ,Ca, Mg,) didnot change much (Tab. 6). In experiments on spinach, the foliar application, together witha complete mineral fertilization, caused an increase in the nitrate content in leaves [Sady,Smoleñ 2007]. A more visible differentiation of mineral content under the influence ofPentakeep fertilizers was observed in tomato leaves in the period before fructification.The dry matter content decreased in leaves, but the content of minerals (N �NO3 ,P, K,Mg) increased except for calcium (Tab.7). In experiments carried out on cherry trees,the content of calcium, potassium phosphorous and magnesium, increased in the leavestreated with foliar Pentakeep-V [Kurlus et al. 2007].

Figure 6. The influence of Pentakeep-V onearly yield of greenhouse tomato cv Blitz F1SOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 6. Wp³yw nawozu Pentakeep-V nawysoko�æ plonu wczesnego pomidora szklarniowegoodm. Blitz F1�ród³o: badania w³asne.

GREENHOUSE CROPS� TOMATO AND CUCUMBER

Yield and fruit quality. Foliar appli-cation of Pentakeep-V increased theyields of greenhouse tomato. However, thedifferences obtained were not proven sta-tistically.

The total yield and marketable yield ofplants treated with foliar Pentakeep-V wasabout 6% higher in comparison to the con-trol (Tab. 8). Pentakeep-V applied in fer-tigation speeded up the yielding of plantsand resulted in a higher yield in the first 5weeks of yielding � compared with the con-trol and with foliar application. The diffe-

70

>NJ�P

��@

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

)2/,$5�75($70(17�QDZR HQLH�GROLVWQH)(57,*$7,21�SRGOHZDQLH&21752/�NRQWUROD

NOTNEMTERTV-PEEKATNEPFOTCEFFE.9ELBATFZTILBVCOTAMOTFOTHGIEWTIURFEGAREVA 1 ]g[

êsam¹inder�anV-peekatnePainawosotswy³pW.9alebaTFztilB.mdoarodimopucowo 1 ]g[

STCEJBOytkeibO

SSALCTIURFróbyW

EKRAM -ELBAT

ewoldnaHIA)mc6>(

IB)mc0.6-5.4(

DETAERTTON�LORTNOCenawotkartein�alortnoK

�%50.0V-P RAILOFeintsiloD

�%50.0V-P NOITAGITREFajcagytreF

991

302

512

38

87

48

291

891

602

YCNACIFINGISON.YDUTSNWO:ECRUOS

cin¿óric�ontotsikarB.ensa³wainadab:o³dór�

Figure 7. Effect of Pentakeep-V onthe yield of greenhouse cucumberUNTILl half of vegetation periodSOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 7. Wp³yw stosowania Pentake-ep-V na plonowanie ogórka szklarniowe-go do po³owy sezonu wegetacyjnego�ród³o: badania w³asne.

rences were not statistically signi-ficant (Fig. 6). Pentakeep-V bothin spraying and fertigation, contri-buted to the improvement of the fru-it quality through the increase of the-ir average weight in comparison tothe control. The highest averageweight of marketable fruit and 1stclass fruit (diameter >6 cm) was ob-tained from the objects for whichPentakeep-V was applied as ferti-gation (Tab. 9).

The application of Pentakeep-V influenced the cucumber yield,but only until the middle of harve-sting. In the second half of harve-sting, the cucumber yield from ob-jects treated with the fertilizer andthe control object, kept at the samelevel. The main differences in themarketable yield of cucumber, oc-curred in the period between 2-5weeks of harvest (Fig. 7). In thisperiod the beneficial effect of Pe-takeep-V in the form of fertigationbecame visible. The difference inyield in comparison to the controlobject, was as high as 10%, but itcould not be proven statistically.Foliar application of Pentakeep-Vdid not have any effect on cucum-ber yield (Tab. 10). Perhaps thelow efficiency of foliar treatmentarosed from the difficulty of ferti-

NOTNEMTERTV-PEEKATNEPFOTCEFFE.8ELBATZTILBVCOTAMOTESUOHNEERGFODLEIY F1

einawonolpanV-upeekatnePainawosotswy³pW.8alebaTFztilBynaimdoarodimop 1

STCEJBOytkeibO

DLEIYnolP gk[ .m 2- ]

YLRAEynsezcW

EKRAM -ELBAT

ywoldnaH

LATOTynlógO

DETAERTTON�LORTNOCenawotkartein�alortnoK

�%50.0V-P RAILOFeintsilod�%50.0V-P

�%50.0V-P NOITAGITREFajcagytref�%50.0V-P

3.31

5.31

9.31

4.34

9.54

7.24

8.44

9.74

2.44



71

>FP�@

�

��

��

��

��

��

&21752/�±�127

75($7('�NRQWUROD�±�QLH

WUDNWRZDQD

3�9��±

)2/,$5�GROLVWQLH

3�9��±

)(57,*$7,21�IHUW\JDFMD

�UG�&/867(5��JURQR �WK�&/867(5��JURQR

V-PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.01ELBATESUOHNEERGFODLEIYEHTNOREZILITREF

6002ECIWEINREIKS.REBMUCUCanV-peekatnePuzowanainawosotswy³pW.01alebaT

6002eciweinreikS.ogewoinralkzsakrógoeinawonolp

FOMROFNOITACILPPA

ainawosotsamroF

DLEIYLATOTynlógonolP

-BATEKRAMDLEIYEL

ywoldnahnolP

YLRAEDLEIY

ynsezcwnolP

gk .m 2-

LORTNOCalortnoK

V-P RAILOFeintsilodV-P

V-P NOITAGITREFajcagytrefV-P

9.73

9.43

4.73

7.63

5.33

0.63

0.31

9.21

4.41



lizer uptake by the leaves in highhumidity conditions under green-house conditions. The measure-ments of fruit did not reveal anyinfluence of Pentakeep-V onmorphological characteristics ofcucumber fruit.

Similar results were obtainedin the Dutch experiments car-ried out on sweet pepper culti-vated on rockwool, in which theaddition of fertilizer containingALA to the fertigation solution(500-800 ml.ha-1) increased theyield by 4.3-9.0%, depending onthe location [Iwai et al. 2005].

Plant development andmineral composition of planttissue. Tomato plants sprayedor fertigated with Pentakeep-V, developed larger leaves thanthe control plants. In the earlydevelopment stages (the settingof the third cluster � 9th May),Pentakeep-V applied in fertiga-tion had a significantly largerinfluence on foliage develop-ment than the one applied inspraying, whereas in the late sta-ges (the setting of the 6th cluster� 22nd May) foliar treatmentwas more effective, but the dif-ferences were not statistically significant (Fig. 8). Foliar treatments, as well as fertiga-tion, contributed to an increase in the number of flower clusters in comparison to thecontrol. On the plants treated with Pentakeep-V, there were 14 clusters and on the con-trol plants there were 13. The use of Pentakeep-V also increased the number of fruit setsin the cluster � 6.3 pieces in the treated objects and 5.7 in the control objects. Foliarapplication proved to be especially effective for flower development and fruit setting onthe first three clusters (Tab. 11).

The mineral content of tomato plants in all objects reflected the standard levels.However, the application of Pentakeep-V, especially in foliar spray, contributed to a bet-ter uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and magnesium. Nitrogen uptake was increased by10% compared with the control when used in the form of fertigation, and by 37% whenused in the form of foliar application (Tab. 12). Pentakeep-V containing ALA used in the

Figure 8. The influence of Pentakeep-V treatment on leafarea of tomato plants cv Blitz F1SOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 8. Wp³yw stosowania Pentakeepu-V na wielko�æpowierzchni li�ci pomidora odmiany Blitz F1�ród³o: badania w³asne.

3RD 6TH

72

>FP�@

��

��

��

��

��

)(57,*$7,21�IHUW\JDFMD )2/,$5

75($70(17�QDZ R HQLH

GROLVWQH

&21752/�NRQWUROD

Figure 9. The influence of Pentakeep-V on leafarea of greenhouse cucumbers ( no significantdifferences)SOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 9. Wp³yw stosowania Pentakeep-V nawielko�æ powierzchni li�ci ogórka szklarniowego(ró¿nice nieistotne)�ród³o: badania w³asne.

SFV��Z LWK�3/$17�V]W��QD�UR OLQ

��

��

��

��

��

)(57,*$7�IHUW\JDFMD )2/,$5

75($70(17�QDZR HQLH

GROLVWQH

&RQWURO�.RQWUROD

form of fertigation, brought about a better development of cucumber foliage. However,the differences were insignificant. Foliar application of Pentakeep-V slightly restricteddevelopment of the leaf blade (Fig. 9). The beneficial effect of this fertilizer was foundwith regard to the number of fruit sets. Pentakeep-V in fertigation caused the formationof 1 fruit set per plant more, compared with the control. Foliar application had a muchlower effect (Fig. 10). The use of Pentakeep-V in fertigation and foliar application, con-tributed to a better uptake of nitrates and a consecutive increase of this mineral in cucum-ber leaves in the early period of the harvest. In relation to the control, this increase wasequal to 8%. The phosphorous and potassium content in cucumber leaves were higherthan in the control but only in the fertigation treatment. Foliar application decreased thecontent of these minerals in leaves to a lower level than in the control object (Tab. 13).

FOTNEMPOLEVEDSTIURFDNASREWOLFNOV-PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.11ELBATSTNALPOTAMOTESUOHNEERG

ogewoinralkzsarodimophcanil�oranwócowoiwótaiwkjówzoranV-peekatnePwy³pW.11alebaT

STCEJBOytkeibO

REBMUNREWOLFFOSRETSULCTNALPREPnorgabzciL

einil�oran

REBMUNSTESTIURFFORETSULCREPwókz¹iwazabzciL

einorgw

REBMUNSREWOLFFO

EVITUCESNOCREPSRETSULCwótaiwkabzciL

hcanorghcynjelokw

1 2 3DETAERTTON�LORTNOC

anawotkartein�alortnoKEEKATNEP �%50.0V-P RAILOF

eintsiloDEEKATNEP �%50.0V-P NOITAGITREF

ajcagytreF

31

41

41

7.5

3.6

8.5

3.7

8.7

8.6

8.8

3.9

3.7

5.9

0.01

0.8



Figure 10. The influence of Pentakeep-V onnumber of fruit sets per cucumber plantSOURCE: OWN STUDY.Rysunek 10. Wp³yw stosowania Pentakeep-V naliczbê zawi¹zków owoców na ro�linie ogórka�ród³o: badania w³asne.

9.6

9.2

8.8

8.4

8.0

73

FOECNEULFNIEHT.31ELBAT,NEGORTINNOREZILITREFV-PEEKATNEPTNETNOCMUISSATOPDNASUROHPSOHP.REBMUCUCESUOHNEERGFOSEVAELNI

6002ECIWEINREIKSuzowanainawosotswy³pW.31alebaT

iurofsof,utozaæ�otrawazanV-peekatneP6002eciweinreikS.akrógohcaic�ilwusatop

NOITACILPPAFOMROFainawosotsamroF

fo% RETTAMYRDysamjehcus%

ON-N 3 P KV-P RAILOF

eintsiloDV-P NOITAGITREF

ajcagytreFLORTNOC

alortnoK

08.0

08.0

47.0

34.0

64.0

44.0

53.4

85.4

25.4



Iwai et al.[2005] in their experiments conducted earlier on the soilless culture ofsweet pepper, observed a 15% increase in the uptake of nitrates from fertigation solution,as a result of adding a fertilizer containing ALA to the medium. They partly associated anincrease in sweet pepper yield with an increased uptake of N-NO3 with better rootingand vigor of plants and also with an intense formation of lateral shoots caused by ALA.

CONCLUSIONS

All Pentakeep fertilizers (V, S, G) containing ALA (5-aminolevulinic acid), had apositive effect on development and yield of such vegetables as cabbage and tomatogrown under field conditions. Their application increased the marketable yield of whitecabbage and tomato, they speeded up yields and the harvest of tomato and improved thestructure of yield of cabbage through a higher share of large heads in the total yield. Thechlorophyll content was also higher in cabbage leaves. The total soluble solid content oftomato fruit increased, which is an important characteristic of fruit designated for proces-sing. The decreased share of diseased tomato fruit indicates the positive effect of theproducts on plant health.

In greenhouse cultivation, Pentakeep-V used as foliar application and as fertigationproved useful for vegetable fertilization, because it increased yield, improved fruit settingand the earliness of the crop. It had a positive effect on the marketable yield of tomatothrough an increase of the average weight of fruit.

In greenhouse culture, the most effective method for the total yield increase of toma-to, was foliar application, but in the case of cucumber culture, fertigation. The use ofPentakeep-V in fertigation was the most effective for crop earliness of both species.

Pentakeep fertilizers had a positive effect on the uptake of nutrients from soil ormedia and, as a result, had a positive effect on the level of plant nutrition, but did notincrease the level of undesirable minerals (e.g nitrates in cabbage).

V-PEEKATNEPFOECNEULFNIEHT.21ELBATNITNETNOCSLARENIMNOREZILITREF

FZTILBVCSTNALPOTAMOT 1.6002ECIWEINREIKS

V-peekatnePuzowanainawosotswy³pW.21alebaThcanil�orwhcynlarenimwókinda³ksæ�otrawazan

FztilB.mdoarodimop 1 6002eciweinreikS.

FOMROFNOITACILPPA

amroFainawosots

% M.Dm.s%

ON-N 3 P K gM aC

V-P RAILOFeintsiloD

V-P NOITAGITREFajcagytreFLORTNOC

alortnoK

04.0

23.0

92.0

47.0

86.0

46.0

80.4

59.3

60.4

44.0

34.0

24.0

76.0

27.0

17.0



74

REFERENCES

Babik I., Dy�ko J., Babik J. 2007: Effect of Pentakeep-V on the yield and quality of greenhouse tomatogrown in rockwool. Proceedings. Pentakeep International Scientific Workshop 2006 in Budapest. CO-SMO OIL Co., Ltd. p. 238-241.

Babik I., Babik J. 2007: Effect of Pentakeep-V on the yield and quality of greenhouse cucumber grown inorganic media. Proceedings. Pentakeep International Scientific Workshop 2006 in Budapest. COSMOOIL Co., Ltd. p. 241-245.

Hotta Y., Tanaka T., Takaoka H., Takeuchi Y., Konnai M. 1997: New physiological effects of 5-amino-levulinic acid in plants: The Increase of photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, and plant growth. Biosci.Biotech. Biochem., 61(12), 2025-2028.

Hotta Y., Tanaka T., Bingshan L., Takeuchi Y, Konnai M. 1998: Improvement of cold resistance in riceseedlings by 5-aminolevulinic acid. J. Pesticide Sci., 23, 29-33.

Iwai K., Saito A., Leeuwen J., Tanaka T., Takeuchi Y. 2005: A new functional fertilizer containing 5-aminolevulinic acid promoted hydroponically-grown vegetables in the Netherlands. Proc, IS on SoillessCult. and Hydroponics. Acta Hortic., 697, 351-355.

Kurlus R., £ysiak G., Krzymiñska A. 2007: The efectivness of Pentakeep-V fertilizer containing 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) under Poland conditions. Proceedings. Pentakeep International ScientificWorkshop 2006 in Budapest. COSMO OIL Co., Ltd. p., 76-165.

Lozek O., Slamka P., Varga L. 2007: Influence of Pentaqkeep-V fertilizer containing 5-aminolevulinic acidand mineral nutrients on the yield and quality parameters of green pepper (Capsicum annuum) fruits.Proceedings. Pentakeep International Scientific Workshop 2006 in Budapest. p. 40-47

Murányi M. 2007: Pentakeep-V: An exceptional plant conditioner. Proceedings. Pentakeep InternationalScientific Workshop 2006 in Budapest. COSMO OIL Co., Ltd. p. 4-39.

Sady W., Smoleñ S. 2007: The influence of Pentakeep V the content of nitrates in carrot and spinach.Proceedings. Pentakeep International Scientific Workshop 2006 in Budapest. COSMO OIL Co., Ltd.,p. 166-197.

Slamka P., Lozek O., Varga L. 2007: Effect of 5-aminolevulinic acid and mineral nutrition (applied throughPentakeep-V) on the yields and quality of tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum). Proceedings. Pentake-ep International Scientific Workshop 2006 in Budapest. COSMO OIL Co. Ltd. p. 48-74.

Watanabe K., Tanaka T., Hotta Y., Kuramochi H., Takeuchi Y. 2000: Improving salt tolerance of cottonseedlings with 5-aminolevulinic acid. Plant Growth Regulation, 32, 99-103.

75

REAKCJA CEBULI I MARCHWI NA BIOSTYMULATOR ASAHI SLSTOSOWANY Z HERBICYDAMI

Adam Dobrzañski, Zbigniew Anyszka, Jerzy Pa³czyñska

STRESZCZENIE

Celem 4-letnich do�wiadczeñ z cebul¹ i 3-letnich z marchwi¹ by³o okre�lenie reakcji tych gatunków orazchwastów na biostymulator Asahi SL, stosowany w mieszaninie z oksyfluorofenem (cebula) i linuronem(marchew) lub oddzielnie, po wcze�niejszym u¿yciu herbicydów.

W cebuli oksyfluorofen w mieszaninie z Asahi SL, lub Asahi SL stosowany 2-3 dni po ka¿dorazowymzastosowaniu herbicydu, bardzo skutecznie zwalcza³ chwasty w ka¿dej dawce i sposobie u¿ycia. Linuron wmarchwi charakteryzowa³ siê równie¿ wysok¹ skuteczno�ci¹ chwastobójcz¹, gdy by³ u¿yty sam lub zbiostymulatorem Asahi SL. �rednie ogólne zniszczenie chwastów po zastosowania zastosowaniu linuronu iAsahi SL wynosi³o ponad 90%. Po u¿yciu Asahi SL z oksyfluorofenem lub linuronem nie obserwowanoponownego odrastania chwastów.

Asahi SL, niezale¿nie od sposobu stosowania, nie wp³ywa³ na fitotoksyczno�æ herbicydów dla oby-dwu gatunków ro�lin warzywnych. Reakcja cebuli i marchwi na badane �rodki by³a g³ównie wynikiemskutecznego zniszczenia chwastów, a nie stymuluj¹cego dzia³ania Asahi SL. Konkurencja ze strony chwa-stów by³a bowiem podstawowym czynnikiem determinuj¹cym wzrost i plonowanie ro�lin uprawnych,jakkolwiek zaznaczy³a siê tendencja do nieco wy¿szego plonowania ro�lin po zastosowaniu Asahi SL.Biostymulator korzystnie wp³ywa³ na strukturê plonu cebuli, zwiêkszaj¹c udzia³ cebul du¿ych o �rednicypowy¿ej 6 cm. W marchwi Asahi SL stosowany ³¹cznie z linuronem nie wp³ywa³ znacz¹co na wysoko�æ ijako�æ plonu korzeni.

ADRES DO KORESPONDENCJI:

prof. dr hab. Adam DobrzañskiInstytut Warzywnictwa, Pracownia Herbologiiul. Konstytucji 3 Maja 1/3 96-100 Skierniewicetel. (0 46) 833 42 71e-mail: [email protected]

76

WP£YW BIOSTYMULATORA GOËMAR GOTEO NA PLONOWANIEI JAKO�Æ DWÓCH ODMIAN KAPUSTY PEKIÑSKIEJ

Marek Gajewski, Katarzyna Gos, Justyna Bobruk

STRESZCZENIE

Celem do�wiadczenia by³a ocena oddzia³ywania preparatu Goëmar Goteo na plon i jako�æ kapustypekiñskiej, uprawianej w warunkach klimatycznych Polski centralnej. W latach 2006-2007 przedmiotembadañ by³y dwie odmiany kapusty � Kasumi F1 i Bilko F1, uprawiane w okresach wiosenno-letnim ijesiennym. Preparat Goëmar Goteo stosowano doglebowo w stê¿eniu 0,1%, dwukrotnie w fazie produkcjirozsady, a 2006 r. tak¿e czterokrotnie po wysadzeniu jej na miejsce sta³e. Rozsadê sadzono w rozstawie60×40 cm. Bezpo�rednio po zbiorze oznaczano: plon ogólny, plon handlowy, masê ogóln¹ i handlow¹g³ówek, such¹ masê, zawarto�æ ekstraktu, azotanów i witaminy C oraz barwê li�ci w systemie CIE Lab.Cechy sensoryczne badano metod¹ ilo�ciowej analizy opisowej (QDA). Przeprowadzono równie¿ testpo¿ad¹lno�ci konsumenckiej smaku kapusty. Zastosowanie Goëmar Goteo wp³ynê³o na zwiêkszenie plonuogólnego i handlowego u obu odmian, zw³aszcza w przypadku uprawy jesiennej. W uprawie wiosenno-letniej jedynie wp³yw na plon ogólny okaza³ siê istotny. Równie¿ �rednia ca³kowita masa g³ówki oraz masag³ówki handlowej by³a u obu odmian wy¿sza po zastosowaniu Goëmar Goteo. Zaznaczy³ siê pozytywnywp³yw Goëmar Goteo na zawarto�æ witaminy C u obu odmian w terminie jesiennym i na such¹ masê uodmiany Bilko. Zastosowanie preparatu nie wp³ynê³o w sposób jednoznaczny na zawarto�æ ekstraktu orazazotanów w g³ówkach kapusty. Nieco wy¿sz¹ zawarto�æ azotanów stwierdzono po traktowaniu kapustyGoëmar Goteo w uprawie jesiennej. W wyniku zastosowania Goëmar Goteo barwa li�ci kapusty by³abardziej zielona (ni¿sza warto�æ parametru �a�). Nie stwierdzono istotnych ró¿nic w ocenie ogólnej jako�cisensorycznej kapusty oraz po¿¹dalno�ci konsumenckiej smaku miêdzy kombinacjami traktowanymi i nie-traktowanymi Goteo ani miêdzy odmianami kapusty.


dr hab. Marek GajewskiSzko³a G³ówna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w WarszawieKatedra Ro�lin Warzywnych i Leczniczychul. Nowoursynowska 166, 02-787 Warszawatel. (0 22) 593 22 50e-mail: [email protected]

77

WP£YW BIOSTYMULATORÓW NA PLON I JAKO�Æ SA£ATY LISTKO-WEJ I KRUCHEJ W UPRAWIE POLOWEJ

Mariola £yszkowska, Janina Gajc-Wolska, Katarzyna Kubi�

STRESZCZENIE

W roku 2007 na polu do�wiadczalnym Katedry Ro�lin Warzywnych i Leczniczych SGGW w Wilano-wie przeprowadzono do�wiadczenia na nowych odmianach sa³aty listkowej (Kitare, Versai) i kruchej (Ar-gentinas) z u¿yciem preparatów stymuluj¹cych wzrost ro�lin. Do�wiadczenia przeprowadzono w 3 okre-sach: (1) od koñca marca do po³owy czerwca, (2) od koñca czerwca do pocz¹tku wrze�nia, (3) od koñca lipcado po³owy pa�dziernika. Ro�liny sadzono na polu w rozstawie 40 × 40 cm, w trzech powtórzeniach po 10ro�lin. Porównywano nastêpnie efekt traktowania ro�lin biostymulatorami. Zastosowano nastêpuj¹ce kom-binacje do�wiadczalne: (1) kontrola, (2) dwukrotne podlewanie rozsady preparatem Goteo (2 tygodnie posiewie i tydzieñ przed sadzeniem), (3) dwukrotne opryskiwanie preparatem Aminoplant (tydzieñ i 3 tygo-dnie po sadzeniu ro�lin), (4) kombinacja ³¹cz¹ca zabiegi stosowane w kombinacjach (2) i (3). Po zbiorze,okre�lano �redni¹ masê g³ówki/rozety sa³aty, zawarto�æ suchej masy, cukrów ogó³em oraz koncentracjêazotanów w li�ciach. Wyniki wykaza³y istotne zró¿nicowanie w zale¿no�ci od stosowanego preparatu i ododmiany. Najwy¿szym plonem ogólnym i handlowym charakteryzowa³a siê kombinacja kontrolna i zAminoplantem w porównaniu do kombinacji z Goteo. Masa g³ówki w kombinacji kontrolnej i Goteo +Aminoplant by³a wy¿sza ni¿ w kombinacji z Goteo. Najwy¿sz¹ zawarto�æ suchej masy uzyskano wkombinacji kontrolnej i kombinacji z Aminoplantem w porównaniu do kombinacji z Goteo i Goteo +Aminoplant. Najwy¿sz¹ zawarto�ci¹ cukrów ogó³em charakteryzowa³a siê odmiana sa³aty kruchej Argenti-nas oraz kombinacja, w której sa³aty traktowano preparatem Aminoplant w porównaniu do kombinacjikontrolnej. Stwierdzono nieznaczny wzrost zawarto�ci azotanów u sa³aty listkowej Versai i Kitare oraz wkombinacji kontrolnej i z preparatem Goteo + Aminoplant.

ADRES DO KONTAKTU:

dr hab. Janina Gajc-WolskaSzko³a G³ówna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w WarszawieKatedra Ro�lin Warzywnych i Leczniczychul. Nowoursynowska 15902-776 Warszawatel. (22) 593 22 49e-mail: [email protected]

78

WP£YW PREPARATÓW AMINOPLANT I ASAHI NA PLON I JAKO�ÆSA£ATY W UPRAWIE NA WE£NIE MINERALNEJ

Katarzyna Kowalczyk, Teresa Zielony, Marek Gajewski

STRESZCZENIE

W uprawie sa³aty pod os³onami w technologiach hydroponicznych du¿ym problemem jest jako�æplonu. W do�wiadczeniu badano wp³yw biostymulatorów wzrostu ro�lin i nawo¿enia azotem na plon ijako�æ sa³aty. Sa³atê odmiany Brigade uprawiano na balotach we³ny mineralnej w dwóch cyklach, zimowymi wiosennym, w latach 2005-2007. Ro�liny w okresie intensywnego wzrostu raz na tydzieñ opryskiwanopreparatami Aminoplant, Asahi lub Aminoplant plus Asahi. Preparat Aminoplant stosowano w stê¿eniach0,2 i 0,4%, a Asahi 0,1%. Po³owê ro�lin nawo¿ono po¿ywk¹ zawieraj¹c¹ 105 mg N-NO3 dm-3, a drug¹ czê�æpo¿ywk¹ o 140 mg N-NO3 dm-3. Pozosta³e sk³adniki w obu po¿ywkach by³y jednakowe. Badano plonsa³aty, zawarto�æ suchej masy, barwê li�ci oraz zawarto�æ wybranych sk³adników chemicznych. Stwierdzo-no dodatni wp³yw opryskiwañ preparatem Aminoplant, szczególnie w stê¿eniu 0,4%, na �redni¹ masêg³ówki sa³aty i zawarto�æ suchej masy. Odnotowano tak¿e pozytywny wp³yw traktowania ro�lin prepara-tem Asahi na zawarto�æ suchej masy w li�ciach sa³aty. Plon i jako�æ sa³aty zale¿a³y od nawo¿enia azotem iterminu uprawy. Przy wy¿szym nawo¿eniu azotem, tj. 140 mg N dm-3, ro�liny tworzy³y wiêksze g³ówki(177 g) i o wy¿szej zawarto�ci suchej masy (4,56%) ani¿eli przy nawo¿eniu azotem na poziomie 105 mg Ndm3, gdzie �rednia masa 1 g³ówki wynios³a 158 g, a zawarto�æ suchej masy 4,4%. W terminie wiosennym�rednia masa g³ówki sa³aty wynosi³a 204 g, a w zimowym 131 g. Zawarto�æ suchej masy w obu terminachby³a zbli¿ona.


dr Katarzyna KowalczykSzko³a G³ówna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w WarszawieKatedra Ro�lin Warzywnych i Leczniczychul. Nowoursynowska 15902-787 Warszawatel. (0 22) 593 22 38e-mail: [email protected]

79

CZY BIOSTYMULATOR NANO-GRO® ZWIÊKSZA TOLERANCJÊRO�LIN OGÓRKA ODMIANY TYTUS F1 WE WCZESNEJ FAZIEWZROSTU NA PROMIENIOWANIE UV-B?

El¿bieta Skórska

STRESZCZENIE

W pracy przedstawiono wyniki badañ nad wp³ywem promieniowania UV-B o dwóch warto�ciachdawki biologicznie efektywnej (3,0 i 1,8 kJ m-2 d-1) na ro�liny ogórka (Cucumis sativus L. cv. Tytus F1)rosn¹ce w kontrolowanych warunkach �wiat³a i temperatury (PPFD 120 mmol m-2 s-1, 20oC). Czê�æ ro�linpotraktowano biostymulatorem Nano-Gro® zgodnie z instrukcj¹ producenta. Zastosowane promieniowanieUV-B tylko w wy¿szej dawce 3,0 kJ m-2 d-1 negatywnie wp³ynê³o na badane ro�liny w fazie trzeciego li�cia,zw³aszcza na reakcje fotosyntezy. Li�cie ro�lin napromieniowanych UV-B, zarówno nietraktowane jak itraktowane biostymulatorem Nano-Gro® by³y mniejsze w porównaniu z ro�linami kontrolnymi (bez UV-B).Nano-Gro® z³agodzi³ uszkodzenia fotosystemu II wywo³ane dzia³aniem promieniowania UV-B o wysokiejintensywno�ci, ale nie uchroni³ przed zmniejszeniem powierzchni li�ci oraz natê¿enia asymilacji CO2 w tychro�linach. Ni¿sza dawka promieniowania UV-B (1,8 kJ m-2 d-1) nie spowodowa³a istotnych zmian w bada-nych ro�linach, a te traktowane Nano-Gro® mia³y wy¿sze natê¿enie fotosyntezy netto i transpiracji li�ci.


dr hab. El¿bieta Skórska, prof. nadzw.Akademia Rolnicza w SzczecinieZak³ad Fizykiul. Papie¿a Paw³a VI 371-459 Szczecintel. (0 91) 42 50 392e-mail: [email protected]

80

SKUTECZNO�Æ �RODKÓW POCHODZENIA NATURALNEGOW OCHRONIE OGÓRKA PRZED M¥CZNIAKIEM PRAWDZIWYMW UPRAWIE PO OS£ONAMI

Agnieszka Ostrowska, Barbara Dyki, Józef Robak

STRESZCZENIE

Badano skuteczno�æ �rodków naturalnych i biostymulatorów na m¹czniaka prawdziwego dyniowa-tych wywo³ywanego przez Erysiphe cichoracearum i Sphaerotheca fulginea. Ro�liny ogórka odmiany Iwaopryskiwano profilaktycznie oraz po wyst¹pieniu objawów chorobowych. Oceniano stopieñ pora¿eniaro�lin oraz wp³yw zastosowanych ekstraktów i biostymulatorów na grzybniê patogenu w celu okre�leniamechanizmu ich dzia³ania. W latach 2006 i 2007 przeprowadzono jedno do�wiadczenie wazonowe i dwado�wiadczenia pod os³onami. Zastosowane �rodki ogranicza³y pora¿enie ro�lin przez E. cichoracearum i S.fulginea. Najwy¿sz¹ skuteczno�ci¹ odznacza³ siê �rodek naturalny Prev-AM 060 SL. Obserwacje mikrosko-powe li�ci ro�lin traktowanych badanymi �rodkami, wykaza³y zamieranie grzybni i zarodników grzybów E.cichoracearum i S. fulginea. Na powierzchni li�ci nieopryskiwanych (kontrolnych) patogeny rozwija³y siêbez zak³óceñ.

ADRES DO KONTAKTU:

mgr in¿. Agnieszka OstrowskaInstytut Warzywnictwa w SkierniewicachPracownia Fitopatologiiul. Konstytucji 3 Maja 1/396-100 Skierniewicetel. (0 46) 833 22 11 (wew. 246)e-mail: [email protected]

81

WP£YW KWASU 5-AMINO LEWULINOWEGO (ALA) ZAWARTEGOW NAWOZACH PENTAKEEP® NA PLON I JAKO�Æ WARZYW UPRA-WIANYCH W POLU I POD OS£ONAMI

Irena Babik, Józef Babik, Jacek Dy�ko

STRESZCZENIE

Nawozy Pentakeep (V, S i G), zawieraj¹ce biostymulator ALA (kwas 5-amino lewulinowy) stosowanew polowej uprawie kapusty i pomidora w dawce 0,5 kg.ha-1, w 6 zabiegach dolistnych, wykonywanych wokresie intensywnego wzrostu i tworzenia czê�ci u¿ytkowej zwiêksza³y plon handlowy kapusty od 8 do10%, a pomidora od 7 do 15%. Wp³ywa³y te¿ korzystnie na strukturê plonu kapusty, zwiêkszaj¹c udzia³g³ówek du¿ych w plonie ogólnym oraz przyspiesza³y plonowanie pomidora, zwiêkszaj¹c plon wczesny od10 do 24% w stosunku do kontroli, która otrzyma³a tylko standardowe nawo¿enie mineralne. Pod wp³ywemALA obni¿eniu uleg³a zawarto�æ azotanów w g³ówkach kapusty, natomiast w owocach pomidora wzros³azawarto�æ ekstraktu. W bezglebowej uprawie pomidora i ogórka szklarniowego Pentakeep V stosowany wstê¿eniu 0,05%, sze�ciokrotnie w postaci zabiegów dolistnych i w formie fertygacji do strefy korzeniowejro�lin, poprawia³ wi¹zanie owoców i wczesno�æ plonowania, zwiêkszaj¹c plon wczesny pomidora o 5%, aogórka o 10%. Zwiêkszenie �redniej masy owocu pomidora w klasie ekstra, korzystnie wp³ynê³o na struk-turê plonu handlowego. Dla wczesno�ci plonowania obydwu gatunków szczególnie efektywne by³o stoso-waniu nawozu Pentakeep V w formie fertygacji, natomiast dla plonu ogólnego pomidora korzystniejsze by³yzabiegi dolistne. Nawóz Pentakeep zwiêksza³ pobieranie sk³adników pokarmowych z gleby w polu lubpod³o¿y w szklarniach, ale nie podnosi³ zawarto�ci sk³adników niepo¿¹danych, np. azotanów w g³ówkachkapusty.


dr Irena Babik, dr Józef Babik, dr Jacek Dy�koInstytut Warzywnictwa w Skierniewicachul. Konstytucji 3 Maja 1/3 96-100 Skierniewicetel. (0 46) 833 28 75e-mail: [email protected]

vegetable crops - asahi sl – biostymulatorasahisl.pl/bio/vegetable crops.pdf · the series of...

Documents