Açıkta domates yetiştiriciliğinde yapraktan uygulanan humik asitin bitkinin beslenme durumu, verimi ve kalitesi üzerine etkileri

Abstract

Bu çalışmada yapraktan uygulanan humik asitin domates bitkisinin beslenme durumu, verimi ve kalitesi üzerine etkilerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Humik asit domates bitkilerine yapraktan farklı dozlarda (kontrol, % 0.15, % 0.30, % 0.45) uygulanmıştır. Çalışma tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre dört tekrarlamalı olarak kurulmuştur. Humik asit uygulamaları dikimden 45 gün sonra, 15 gün aralıkla dört defa tekrarlanmıştır. Yapraktan uygulanan humik asit domates bitkisinin N, K, Ca, Mg, Mn ve Cu alımını kontrole göre önemli ölçüde artırmıştır. Genel olarak en önemli artışlar % 0.30 dozuyla sağlanırken, % 0.45 dozundaki artışlar diğer uygulama dozlarına oranla daha düşük bulunmuştur. Yapılan uygulamaların domates verimi üzerine etkili olmadığı saptanmıştır. Suda çözünebilir kuru madde miktarı yapraktan humik asit uygulamalarına bağlı olarak artmıştır. Çalışma sonuçları % 0.30 humik asit uygulama dozunun, domatesin beslenme durumu ve kalitesi açısından en etkili doz olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

• Domates
• Humik asit
• Beslenme durumu
• Verim
• Kalite

The influence of foliar humic acid applications on nutrition status, yield and quality in open tomato growing

Abstract

The objective of the study was to find the influence of foliar humic acid applications on plant nutrient status, yield and quality of tomato. Tomato plants were treated with foliar humic acid applications at various concentrations (control, 0.15 %, 0.30 %, 0.45 %). The experiment was conducted according to completely randomized block design with 4 replicates. Forty five days after planting humic acid was sprayed four times at 15-day intervals. Foliar humic acid applications led to higher leaf N, K, Ca, Mg, Mn and Cu uptake than the control. Generally, the highest increase was obtained with 0.30 % dose, the increases at the 0.45 % dose was found lower than the other doses. Foliar humic acid application did not affect yield. Total soluble solid content was increased depending on application doses. The study shows that 0.30 % was found the most effective dose, aspect of plant nutrition status and fruit quality.

Keywords

• Tomato
• Humic acid
• Nutrition status
• Yield
• Quality

References

1. Alak HC, Müftüoğlu NM (2014) Humik Asit Uygulamalarının Alınabilir Potasyum Üzerine Etkisi. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fak. Dergisi 2(2):61-66.
2. Atiyeh RM, Edwards CA, Metzger JD, Lee S, Arancon NQ (2002) The Influence of Humic Acids Derived from Earthworm-Processed Organic Wastes on Plant Growth. Bioresource Technology 84:7-14.
3. Black CA (1957) Soil-Plant Relationships. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
4. Black CA (1965) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Amer. Society of Agronomy Inc., Publisher Madisson, Wilconsin, U.S.AA. 1372-1376.
5. Bohme M, Thi Lua H (1997) Influence of Mineral and Organic Treatments in The Rhizosphere on the Growth of Tomato Plants. Acta Horticulturae 450:161-168.
6. Bouyoucos GJ (1955) A Recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of the soils. Agronomy Journal 4(9):434.
7. Carvajal M, Martinezsanchez F, Alcaraz CF (1995) Improvement of Fruit Colour Quality of Paprika Combined Treatments of Humic Acids. Acta Alimentaria 24(4):321-329.
8. Cemeroğlu B (1992) Meyve ve Sebze İşleme Endüstrisinde Temel Analiz Metodları. Biltav Yayınları, Ankara.

9. Chen Y, Aviad T (1990) Effect of Humic Substances on Plant Growth. In: Humic Substances in Soil and Crop Sciences: Selected Reading, MacCarthy, P., C.E.Clapp, R.L.Malcolm and P.R. Bloom (Eds). Soil Science Society American., Madison, WI., pp.161-187.
10. Çelik H, Katkat VA, Aşık BB, Turan MA (2011) Effect of Foliar-Applied Humic Acid to Dry Weight and Mineral Nutrient Uptake of Maize under Calcareous Soil Conditions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42:29-38.
11. Doğan E, Demir K (2004) Sera koşullarında hümik asit katkılı katı ortam kültürüyle yetiştirilen domatesin gelişim, verim ve meyve özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. V.Sebze Tarımı Sempozyumu, Çanakkale, s.218-224.
12. Dursun A, Güvenç İ, Turan M (1999) Macro and Micro Nutrient Contents of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and eggplant (Solanum melongena var. Esculentum) Seedlings and Their Effects on Seedling Growth in Relation to Humic Acid Application. Improved Crop Quality by Nutrient Management Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences 86:229-232.
13. El-Nemr MA, El-Desuki M, El-Bassiony MA, Fawzy ZF (2012) Response of Growth and Yield of Cucumber Plants (Cucumis Sativus L.) to Different Foliar Applications of Humic Acid and Bio-Stimulators. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 6(3):630-637.
14. Evliya H (1964) Kültür Bitkilerinin Beslenmesi. Ankara Üni. Ziraat Fak. Yayınları, Sayı:10.
15. Eyheraguibel B, Sivestre J, Morard P (2008) Effects of humic substances derived from organic waste enhancement on the growth and mineral nutrition of maize. Bioresource Technology 99(10):4206-4212.
16. Fagbenro JA, Agboola AA (1993) Effect of Different Levels of Humic Acid on the Growth and Nutrient Uptake of Teak Seedlings. Journal of Plant Nutrition 16:1465-1483.
17. Fernandez RE, Benlock M, Barranco D, Duenas A, Ganan JAG (1996) Response of Olive Trees to Foliar Application of Humic Substances Extracted from Leonardite. Scientia Horticulturae 66:191-200.
18. Geraldson CM, Klacan GR, Lorenz OA (1973) Plant Analysis as an Aid in Fertilizing Vegetable Crops, Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. Soil Science of America Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
19. Grossl PR, Inskeep WP (1991) Precipitation of Dicalcium Phosphate Dihydrate in the Presence of Organic Acids. Soil Science Society of American Journal 55:670-675.
20. Hewitt JD, Dinar M, Stevens MA (1982) Sink Strenght of Fruits of Two Tomato Genotypes Differing in Total Fruit Solids Content. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 107:896-900.
21. Jackson ML (1967) Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.
22. Kacar B, Kovancı İ (1982) Bitki, Toprak ve Gübrelerde Kimyasal Fosfor Analizleri ve Değerlendirilmesi. Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Yayınları, No:354, İzmir.
23. Kacar B (1995) Bitki ve Toprağın Kimyasal Analizleri: III.Toprak Analizleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Eğitim Araştırma ve Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları, Yayın No:3 s.705, Ankara.
24. Kacar B, İnal A (2008) Bitki Analizleri. Nobel Yayın No:1241.
25. Karakurt Y, Ünlü H, Ünlü H, Padem H (2009) The Influence of Foliar and Soil Fertilization of Humic Acid on Yield and Quality of Pepper. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil&Plant Science 59:233-237.
26. Katkat VA, Çelik H, Turan MA, Aşık BB (2009) Effects of Soil and Foliar Applications of Humic Substances on Dry Weight and Mineral Nutrients Uptake of Wheat under Calcareous Soil Conditions. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 3(2):1266-1273.
27. Kellog CE (1952) Our Garden Soils. The Macmillian Company. New York. p.232.
28. Keskin G (2010) Türkiye’de Domates Salça Sanayi ve İç Piyasada Fiyat Değişimleri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 20(3):214-221.
29. Lindsay WL, Norwell WA (1978) Development of a DTPA Soil Test for Zinc, Iron, Manganese and Copper. Soil Sci. Amer. Jour., 43(3):421-428.
30. Lopez Camelo AF, Gomez PA (2004) Comparison of color indexes for tomato ripening. Horticultura Brasileira 22:534-537.
31. Loue A (1968) Diagnostic Petiolaire de Prospection. Edutes Sur la Nutrition et al Fertilisation Potassiques de la Vigne. Societe Commerciale des Potasses d´Alsace Servives Agromiques, 31-41.
32. Nikbakht A, Mohsen K, Babalar M, Ping XY, Ancheng L, Nemat-allah E (2008) Effect of Humic Acid on Plant Growth, Nutrient Uptake, and Postharvest Life of Gerbera. Journal of Plant Nutrition 31(12):2155-2167.
33. Olsen SR, Sommers EL (1982) Phosporus Soluble in Sodium Bicarbonate, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Edit: A.L. Page, P.H. Miller, D.R. Keeney, 404-430.
34. Özgümüş A, Kaplan M (1992) Bitki Yetiştirme Ortamı Olarak Perlitin Önemi ve Topraksız Kültürde Perlitten Yararlanma Olanakları. Türkiye I.Tarımda Perlit Sempozyumu, s.49-57, İzmir.
35. Padem H, Öcal A (1999) Effect of Humic Acid Applications on Yield and Some Characteristics of Processing Tomato. Acta Horticulturae 487:159-163.
36. Pizer NH (1967) Some Advisory Aspect. Soil Potassium and Magnesium. Tech. Bull. No.14:184.
37. Sharif M, Khattak RA, Sarir MS (2002) Effect of Different Levels of Lignitic Coal Derived Humic Acid on Growth of Maize Plants. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 33:3567-3580.
38. Soil Survey Staff (1951) Soil Survey Manual U.S. Department Agriculture Handbook, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, No.18.
39. Thun R, Hermann R, Knickman E (1955) Die Untersuchung Von Boden. Neuman Verlag, Radelbeul und Berlin, p.48.
40. Türkmen O, Dursun A, Turan M, Erdinç C (2004) Calcium and Humic Acid Affect Seed Germination, Growth, and Nutrient Content of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) Seedlings Under Saline Soil Conditions. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B- Soil&Plant Science 54(3):168-174.
41. Vural H, Özzambak E, Eser B, Eşiyok B, Yoltaş T, Duman I (1993) Üstün Verim ve Teknolojik Özelliklere Sahip Sanayi Domatesi Çeşitlerinin Belirlenmesi. Sanayi Domatesi Üretimini Geliştirme Projesi. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Doğruluk Matbaacılık San. Tic. ve Ltd. Şti., 1-18, İzmir.
42. Yıldırım E (2007) Foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid affect productivity and quality of tomato. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil Plant Science 57:182-186.
43. Zandonadi DB, Canellas LP, Facanha AR (2007) Indolacetic Acid and Humic Acids Induce Latertal Root Development Through a Concerted Plasmalemma and Tonoplast H+ Pumps Activation. Planta 225:1583-1595.