Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature
Response of two garlic cultivars (Allium sativum L.) to inorganic and organic fertilization
Zaki, H.E.M.*1; Toney, H.S.H.2 and Abd Elraouf, R.M.3
1
Abstract: Humic acids (HAs) are the result of organic matter decomposition and are beneficial to plant growth and
development. The integration of organic fertilizers appears to be suitable application for saving chemical fertilizers
and reducing environmental pollution. In this study, two field experiments were conducted during two winter
seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 to investigate the effect of 16 treatments which were; two common garlic
cultivars in Egyptian market Balady and Sids-40, two levels of inorganic fertilizers (100% and 50% of
recommended dose) and one level of each compound of the following organic fertilizers; humic acid, fulvic acid and
compost on garlic vegetative growth characteristics, yield and its components. Application of organic fertilizers
showed superior effect for increasing garlic growth and productivity. Treatments of compost and 50% or 100% of
RD inorganic fertilizers improved the plant height and shoot fresh weight. While, application of HAs; humic acid,
fulvic acid combined with 100% of RD inorganic fertilizers increased the number of leaves and the shoot dry
weight, respectively. The obtained results reflected generally that Balady cv. surpassed the Sids-40 cv. in plant
height and high longevity traits, when the high total yield was observed in Sids-40 cv. plants. The highest values of
total yield, neck diameter and bulb diameter were detected with garlic plants of Sids-40 cv. treated with 100%
RD+humic acid. For the bulbing ratio, application of 50% RD+humic acid gave the highest mean. However, the
lowest loss of weight of bulbs was found when garlic plants were treated with 100% RD+fulvic acid. High
accumulation of nitrate and nitrite was observed in extracts of both cultivars when treated with 100% RD (control)
while, treatments with compost + 50% RD decreased the contents of nitrate and nitrite.
[Zaki, H.E.M.; Toney, H.S.H. and Abd Elraouf R.M. Response of two garlic cultivars (Allium sativum L.) to
inorganic
and
organic
fertilization.
Nat
Sci
2014;12(10):52-60].
(ISSN:
1545-0740).
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature. 6
Keywords: Garlic (Allium sativum L.), humic acids (HAs), compost, yield and yield components, chemical analysis.
of various crops including vegetables (Hayes and
Wilson, 1997; Padem et al., 1997; Atiyeh et al., 2002;
Zandonadi et al., 2007). Several mechanisms, one of
which was their positive effects on nutrient uptake of
vegetable crops (Akinremi et al., 2000; Cimrin and
Yilmaz, 2005; Zandonadi et al., 2007), have been
suggested to account for this stimulatory effects of
HAs. It has also been demonstrated that HAs could
serve as growth regulators to control hormone levels,
enhance plant growth and increase stress tolerance,
improve soil physical properties and complex metal
ions (Stevenson, 1982; Serenella et al., 2002). HAs
have a lower stability constant than synthetic chalets
for metals, thus enhancing metal activity in solution
(Mackowiak et al., 2001).
Compost as an organic substance can be used as
a soil amendment to enhance the physical
characteristics and productivity of soil. The positive
effects of compost on plant growth and health are
manifold. The influence of compost on plant
development is by improving soil structure and
elevating soil humus content as well as by supplying
macro and micronutrients (Zebrath et al., 1999).
Garlic yield and its components are varied with
1. Introduction:
Garlic (Allium sativum L.), a member of the
onion family, has been cultivated for thousands of
years and is widely used for culinary and medicinal
purposes (Hahn, 1996). Popularity of this crop has
recently increased, in part because of the many health
benefits attributed to garlic consumption. In Egyptian
market, garlic is one of the most highest-value cash
crops. Garlic has multifarious use in local
consumption, food, processing and exportation.
Value of this crop in Egypt, reaches about 2.889
million dollars, representing 0.14% of the total value
of Egyptian agricultural exports in the period of
2007-2009 (Eleshmawiy et al., 2010).
Nowadays, there is a lot of awareness has been
offered in order to reduce pollution in sustainable
agricultural practices. One of the ways to decrease
soil pollution is the use of organic compounds.
Adding organic fertilizers is very important because
they contain many nutrients which affect the growth
and development parameters of plant (Kloos, 1986).
Humic acids (HAs) constituting 65-75% of organic
matter in soils are the subjects of studies in various
areas of agriculture. HAs increase growth and yields
52
http://www.sciencepub.net
53
http://www.sciencepub.net
Table 1. Vegetative growth characteristics of garlic plants as affected by cultivars, inorganic and organic
fertilizers during two seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
Plant height (cm)
No. of
Shoot fresh
Shoot dry weight(g)
Garlic cultivars and
leaves/plant
weight(g)
treatments
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
Garlic cultivars (A)
Sids-40
70.27a
54.63b 6.417a 8.583a 35.46a 37.08a
23. 46a
27.29a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Balady
72.91
72.96
6.238
9.500
35.21
35.33
23. 00a
23.58a
Treatments (B)
50% RD
71.52ab 61.33cd 6.250ab 8.833b 29.00d 27.17d
18.67e
19.00e
ab
b
ab
b
bc
cd
d
100% RD (control)
72.42
66.00
6.167
9.167 33.50
33.33
21.67
22.00de
b
de
ab
b
bc
bc
cd
50% RD+humic acid
68.28
59.83
6.483
9.167 34.17
35.83
22.83
25.00bcd
ab
b
a
a
a
a
ab
100% RD+humic acid
73.90
66.33
6.767
10.17
38.50
42.50
26.00
29.17ab
ab
b
ab
b
cd
cd
d
50% RD+fulvic acid
72.43
66.17
6.350
9.167 32.17
30.00
22.17
23.67cde
b
e
ab
c
a
ab
a
100% RD+fulvic acid
67.05
57.33
6.167
7.833
39.33
41.67
26.83
30.50a
50% RD+compost
77.72a
69.50a 6.100b 8.833b 36.50ab 35.83bc
23.17cd
25.83abcd
100% RD+compost
69.42 ab 63.83bc 6.333ab 9.167b 39.50a 43.33a
24.50bc
28.33abc
L.S.D. (A)
16.24
6.373 0.5284 1.468
1.729
6.572
1.996
4.306
L.S.D. (B)
9.054
2.950 0.5696 0.558
3.669
6.585
2.112
4.931
Values with the same letter(s) in the same factor in each season are not significantly different at 0.05.
RD = Recommended Dose
54
http://www.sciencepub.net
Table 2. Interaction effects among two garlic cultivars, inorganic and organic fertilizer treatments on
vegetative growth characteristics during two seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
Garlic cultivars and
Plant height (cm)
No. of
Shoot fresh weight(g)
Shoot dry
treatments
leaves/plant
weight(g)
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
Sids-40 cv. x treatments
50% RD
67.93bcd 50.33hi 6.033bc 7.667hi
25.67g
23.33f
16.33h
13.67e
abcd
fg
abc
fgh
def
cde
fg
100% RD (control)
70.13
55.33
6.233
8.333
33.00
33.33
21.67
19.00de
cd
i
a
bcd
b-f
bcd
defg
50% RD+humic acid
66.33
48.00
6.967
9.667
34.33
36.67
22.67
24.67a-d
bcd
gh
ab
bcd
a
a
ab
100% RD+humic acid
68.47
53.33
6.833
9.667
40.33
46.67
27.00
28.00abc
abcd
efg
abc
def
c-f
cde
defg
50% RD+fulvic acid
71.23
57.33
6.533
9.000
33.33
33.33
22.33
22.00cd
abcd
gh
abc
fgh
a
ab
a
100% RD+fulvic acid
70.20
53.67
6.500
8.333
40.33
45.00
27.33
30.33a
abcd
ef
bc
ghi
a-d
bcd
defg
50% RD+compost
73.47
59.33
6.033
8.000
38.00
36.67
22.33
23.33bcd
abcd
e
abc
ghi
ab
abc
b-f
100% RD+compost
74.40
59.67
6.200
8.000
38.67
41.67
24.33
27.67abc
Balady cv. x treatments
50% RD
72.90abcd 72.33c 6.267abc 10.00abc
32.33ef
31.00 def
21.00g
24.33a-d
abc
ab
abc
abc
b-f
cde
fg
100% RD (control)
76.90
76.67
6.300
10.00
34.00
33.33
21.67
25.00a-d
abcd
cd
bc
efg
b-f
cde
defg
50% RD+humic acid
70.23
71.67
6.000
8.667
34.00
35.00
23.00
25.33a-d
ab
a
abc
a
a-e
a-d
a-d
100% RD+humic acid
79.33
79.33
6.700
10.67
36.67
38.33
25.00
30.33a
abcd
bc
abc
cde
f
ef
efg
50% RD+fulvic acid
73.63
75.00
6.167
9.333
31.00
26.67
22.00
25.33a-d
d
e
c
i
abc
a-d
abc
100% RD+fulvic acid
63.90
61.00
5.833
7.333
38.33
38.33
26.33
30.67a
a
a
abc
bcd
b-f
cde
c-f
50% RD+compost
81.97
79.67
6.167
9.667
35.00
35.00
24.00
28.33abc
cd
d
abc
ab
a
ab
a-e
100% RD+compost
64.43
68.00
6.467
10.33
40.33
45.00
24.67
29.00ab
L.S.D. (AB)
12.80
4.171
0.9161 0.7898
5.189
9.313
2.987
6.973
Values with the same letter(s) in the same factor in each season are not significantly different at 0.05.
RD = Recommended Dose
b)
55
http://www.sciencepub.net
Table 3. Garlic yield and its components as affected by cultivars, inorganic and organic fertilizers during
two seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
Total yield
Neck diameter
Bulb diameter
Bulbing ratio %
Garlic cultivars and
(ton/fed.)
(mm)
(mm)
treatments
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
Garlic cultivars (A)
Sids-40
7.711a
7.731a
1.345a
1.377a
6.662a
6.108a
20.13a
23.33a
b
b
a
b
a
b
a
Balady
5.349
5.233
1.104
1.096
5.852
5.604
19.05
19.70b
Treatments (B)
50% RD
4.138e
3.707e
1.292a
1.267abc
6.175a
5.433c
21.04a
23.40b
d
d
a
bc
a
b
a
100% RD (control)
5.297
5.143
1.192
1.058
6.265
5.883
19.20
18.30c
c
d
a
abc
a
c
a
50% RD+humic acid
6.268
5.922
1.255
1.350
6.278
5.350
20.07
26.60ab
100% RD+humic acid
7.980a
8.435a
1.350a
1.517ab
6.523a
6.333a
20.59a
23.61b
b
c
a
bc
a
b
a
50% RD+fulvic acid
7.105
7.177
1.095
1.100
6.195
6.017
17.37
18.32c
a
ab
a
c
a
b
a
100% RD+fulvic acid
8.088
8.315
1.147
0.9833
6.270
5.900
19.50
16.55c
50% RD+compost
6.018cd
5.680d
1.373a
1.583a
6.260a
6.017b
21.27a
27.83c
ab
bc
a
c
a
b
a
100% RD+compost
7.345
7.475
1.093
1.033
6.093
5.917
17.67
17.51c
L.S.D. (A)
0.8765
0.9998
0.3808
0.1361
0.9921
0.1242 3.748
2.509
L.S.D. (B)
0.7664
0.8536
0.3260
0.4731
0.7386
0.3129 4.471
3.489
Values with the same letter(s) in the same factor in each season are not significantly different at 0.05.
RD = Recommended Dose
Table 4. Interaction effects among two garlic cultivars, inorganic and organic fertilizer treatments on garlic yield and its
components during two seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
Garlic cultivars and
Total yield (ton/fed.) Neck diameter (mm)
Bulb diameter (mm)
Bulbing ratio %
treatments
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2011/
2012/
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
Sids-40 cv. x treatments
50% RD
4.590 fg
4.183gh
1.333abc
1.033c
6.540a-d
5.467de
20.35ab
23.18c-f
de
de
bc
cd
abc
b
b
100% RD (control)
6.100
6.340
1.100
0.7500
6.633
6.167
16.59
12.18hi
c
cd
a
ab
a-d
f
a
50% RD+humic acid
7.420
7.300
1.453
1.700
6.260
4.667
23.33
36.63a
100% RD+humic acid
10.12a
10.41a
1.510a
1.900a
7.013a
6.900a
21.18ab
27.59bc
50% RD+fulvic acid
8.710b
8.613b
1.287abc
1.233a-d
6.713ab
6.733a
19.16ab
18.34fg
ab
a
ab
a-d
abc
bc
ab
100% RD+fulvic acid
9.427
10.05
1.400
1.300
6.560
6.033
21.29
21.54def
50% RD+compost
6.727cd
6.460 de
1.473a
1.867a
7.013a
6.833a
20.80ab
30.63b
b
bc
abc
cd
abc
b
ab
100% RD+compost
8.590
8.490
1.203
1.000
6.567
6.067
18.33
16.50gh
Balady cv. x treatments
50% RD
3.687g
3.230h
1.250abc
1.267a-d
5.810bcd
5.400de
21.73ab
23.62cde
100% RD (control)
4.493fg
3.947gh
1.283abc
1.367abc
5.897bcd
5.600cde
21.82ab
24.42cde
ef
fg
abc
cd
a-d
bc
b
50% RD+humic acid
5.117
4.54
1.057
1.000
6.297
6.033
16.81
16.58gh
de
de
abc
bcd
a-d
bcd
ab
100% RD+humic acid
5.837
6.460
1.190
1.133
6.033
5.767
19.99
19.62efg
50% RD+fulvic acid
5.500ef
5.740ef
0.9033c
0.9667cd
5.677bcd
5.300e
15.58b
18.29fg
cd
de
c
d
a-d
bcd
ab
100% RD+fulvic acid
6.750
6.580
0.8933
0.6667
5.980
5.767
17.71
11.55i
ef
fg
abc
a-d
d
e
ab
50% RD+compost
5.310
4.900
1.273
1.300
5.507
5.200
21.75
25.02cd
de
de
bc
bcd
cd
bcd
b
100% RD+compost
6.100
6.460
0.9833
1.067
5.620
5.767
17.00
18.51fg
L.S.D. (AB)
1.084
1.207
0.4611
0.669
1.044
0.4425
6.322
4.934
Values with the same letter(s) in the same factor in each season are not significantly different at 0.05.
RD = Recommended Dose
56
http://www.sciencepub.net
Table 5. Garlic bulb loss weight as affected by cultivars, inorganic and organic fertilizers during two seasons
of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
Garlic cultivars and
Bulb Fresh weight (g)
Bulb weight after curing (g)
Loss of total weight%
treatments
2011/2012 2012/2013 2011/2012
2011/2012
2012/2013
2012/2013
Garlic cultivars (A)
Sids-40
107.3a
107.7a
20.13a
22.15a
36.30a
35.37a
b
b
a
a
b
Balady
74.54
72.92
19.05
19.98
32.53
32.41b
Treatments (B)
50% RD
57.67e
51.67e
21.04a
15.64c
40.01a
35.91ab
d
d
a
b
ab
100% RD (control)
73.83
71.67
19.20
18.46
35.96
38.04a
c
d
a
b
b
50% RD+humic acid
87.33
82.50
20.07
20.62
34.09
32.99c
a
a
a
a
b
100% RD+humic acid
111.2
117.5
20.59
25.57
32.27
30.74cd
b
c
a
b
b
50% RD+fulvic acid
99.00
100.0
17.37
19.44
31.46
33.41bc
a
ab
a
a
b
100% RD+fulvic acid
112.3
115.8
19.50
24.22
31.10
29.77d
cd
d
a
b
ab
50% RD+compost
83.83
79.17
21.27
20.69
36.16
36.89a
ab
bc
a
a
b
100% RD+compost
102.3
104.2
17.67
23.89
34.27
33.40bc
L.S.D. (A)
11.83
13.92
3.748
2.641
2.023
2.755
L.S.D. (B)
10.73
11.87
4.471
2.714
5.659
2.854
Values with the same letter(s) in the same factor in each season are not significantly different at 0.05.
RD = Recommended Dose
Concerning adding the organic fertilizers to the
two garlic cultivars, the results listed in Table 6
showed that significant effect on bulb fresh weight,
bulb dry weight and bulb weight loss % in both
seasons. The highest values of bulb fresh and dry
weight were obtained when Sids-40 garlic cv. plants
were treated with humic acid +100% RD or humic
acid+50% RD. The increment of both fresh and dry
bulb weight of garlic plants by humic acid may be
due to the function of HAs on improving the soil
fertility and increasing the availability of several
nutrients and consequently increased bulb weight.
The lowest loss in weight of garlic bulbs was found
when Sids-40 plants were treated with 100%
RD+fulvic acid in both seasons. However, the highest
57
http://www.sciencepub.net
Table 6. Interaction effects among two garlic cultivars, inorganic and organic fertilizer treatments on garlic
bulb loss weight during two seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.
Garlic cultivars and
Bulb Fresh weight (g)
Bulb weight after curing (g)
Loss of total weight%
treatments
2011/2012 2012/2013
2011/2012
2011/2012 2012/2013 2012/2013
Sids-40 cv. x treatments
50% RD
64.00fg
58.33gh
20.35ab
16.11e
41.10a
35.57bcd
de
de
b
e
a
100% RD (control)
85.00
88.33
16.59
18.29d
41.39
41.56a
c
cd
a
cd
a-e
50% RD+humic acid
103.3
101.7
23.33
21.11
33.63
35.01cd
a
a
ab
a
ab
100% RD+humic acid
141.0
145.0
21.18
27.59
38.76
32.14def
b
b
ab
cd
a-d
50% RD+fulvic acid
121.3
120.0
19.16
20.32
34.14
34.75cde
ab
a
ab
a
b-e
100% RD+fulvic acid
130.7
140.0
21.29
27.43
32.39
31.60d-g
cd
de
ab
cd
a-d
50% RD+compost
93.67
90.00
20.80
21.13
34.75
39.16ab
bc
ab
ab
a-d
100% RD+compost
119.7b
118.3
18.33
25.24
34.24
33.20c-f
Balady cv. x treatments
50% RD
51.33g
45.00h
21.73ab
15.17e
38.92ab
36.26bc
fg
gh
ab
e
cde
100% RD (control)
62.67
55.00
21.82
18.63d
30.53
34.51cde
ef
fg
b
cd
a-d
50% RD+humic acid
71.33
63.33
16.81
20.13
34.54
30.97efg
de
de
ab
bc
e
100% RD+humic acid
81.33
90.00
19.99
23.55
25.77
29.35fg
ef
ef
b
e
de
50% RD+fulvic acid
76.67
80.00
15.58
18.56d
28.78
32.07def
cd
de
ab
cd
cde
100% RD+fulvic acid
94.00
91.67
17.71
21.01
29.81
27.94g
ef
fg
ab
cd
abc
50% RD+compost
74.00
68.33
21.75
20.26
37.56
34.61cde
de
de
b
bc
a-d
100% RD+compost
85.00
90.00
17.00
22.54
34.31
33.60cde
L.S.D. (AB)
15.18
16.78
6.322
3.839
8.004
4.037
Values with the same letter(s) in the same factor in each season are not significantly different at 0.05.
RD = Recommended Dose
Chemical analysis
Contents of Nitrate (NO3-1) and Nitrite (NO2-1)
Interaction of nitrate and nitrite contents of the
two garlic cultivars and organic and inorganic
treatments is presented in (Fig.1). Nitrate
concentration (mg/kg) measured in garlic extracts
ranged from 26.88 to 43.20 mg/kg of fresh weight
(Fig. 1 A and A`). The highest level (43.20 mg/kg) of
nitrates was observed in extracts of Sids-40 cv.
treated with 100% RD (control) and the lowest value
was recorded on the same cultivar when treated with
50% RD+compost. The results are in good agreement
with those reported by (Van-Der-Schee, 1998) who
mentioned that the average of nitrate content in plants
is 35 mg/kg. MAFF (1987) reported that nitrate
contents in vegetable crops vary enormously, ranging
from 1 to 1000 mg/kg of fresh weight. According to
this classification garlic belongs to division I; crops
containing low nitrate concentration (>250 mg/kg) of
58
http://www.sciencepub.net
Season 2011/2012
Season 2012/2013
(A)
(A`)
a
LSD = 0.6627
ee
h
i h
f f
j h
k
LSD = 0.5890
de
j h
ge
kh
(B)
gf
i
m
(B`)
LSD = 0.07480
abc
ab
bcd
abc
cd
bcd
de
abc
e
bcd
ab
ab
LSD = 0.5289
b
de ef
ef
g
Fig.1 Interaction effects among two garlic cultivars (Sids-40 and Balady), inorganic
and organic fertilizers on contents of nitrate (NO3-1) and nitrite (NO2-1) of garlic cloves
during two seasons of 2011/2012 (A and A`) and 2012/2013 (B and B`), respectively.
Season 2011/2012
Season 2012/2013
(A)
(A`)
LSD = 1.284
d
f
a
e
e
h
a
e
LSD = 1.466
ef
i
g
i
a
fg
bc
h
k
ab
g
j
l
Fig.2 Interaction effects among two garlic cultivars (Sids-40 and Balady), inorganic
and organic fertilizers on Functional Oil Compounds (FOCs) of garlic cloves during
two seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 (A and A`), respectively.
Conclusion
The results clearly show that organic fertilizers
especially humic acid can result in an increase and
improvement of the garlic bulbs yield and quality.
Garlic Sids-40 cv. shows great performance on total
bulb yield comparing with Balady cv. The best
interaction is treated garlic plant with 100%
RD+humic acid for increasing bulb fresh weight and
total yield. Treatment with 100% RD+fulvic
increases the longevity of garlic and decreasing
weigh loss of bulbs after curing.
References:
1.
2.
3.
Corresponding author:
Zaki, H.E.M.
Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture,
4.
59
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
http://www.sciencepub.net
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
9/3/2014
60