Next Article in Journal
Suitability of Slovakian Landscapes for Vegetable Growing
Previous Article in Journal
Exogenous Application of Applied Microbial Agents to Alleviate Salt Stress on ‘Pinot Noir’ Grapes and Improve Fruit Yield and Quality
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Nitrogen Fertilisation and Inoculation on Soybean Nodulation, Nitrogen Status, and Yield in a Central European Climate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/agriculture15181961
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Silicon as a Tool to Manage Diaphorina citri and Relation Soil and Leaf Chemistry in Tahiti Lime

by
Ana Maria Restrepo-García
1,*,
Alejandro Hurtado-Salazar
2 and
Alberto Soto-Giraldo
3
1
Research Center, Asociación Colombiana de Estudios Vegetales, Carrera 15A No. 124-22, Bogotá 110110, Colombia
2
Department of Agricultural Production, Research Center for Bioprospecting, Universidad de Caldas, Calle 65 No. 26-10, Manizales 170004, Colombia
3
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad de Caldas, Calle 65 No. 26-10, Manizales 170004, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(18), 1961; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15181961
Submission received: 17 August 2025 / Revised: 3 September 2025 / Accepted: 5 September 2025 / Published: 17 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies to Enhance Nutrient Use Efficiency and Crop Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Silicon (Si) is gaining recognition as a sustainable alternative to reduce insecticide use in the management of the Asian citrus psyllid and huanglongbing (HLB). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two silicon sources and three application methods on Diaphorina citri incidence, soil chemical properties, and foliar nutrient uptake in a Tahiti lime orchard. Using a randomized block design, treatments were applied six times over three months. Foliar and combined applications of diatomaceous earth reduced vegetative flushing and decreased natural psyllid incidence by up to 75% in the first 30 days. While silicon did not affect oviposition in induced infestations, it disrupted the nymph-to-adult transition. Silicon also improved soil conditions, increasing pH, organic matter, and the availability of phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. In leaf tissue, higher levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, iron, and silicon (0.28–0.50%) were observed. Fruit quality improved with silicon, showing greater fresh weight (134 g) and juice content (44.7%) compared to the control (95.33 g and 28.5%). The results suggest that silicon’s effectiveness depends more on its availability and application method than its source. Incorporating silicon, especially diatomaceous earth, into fertilization programs supports pest control, enhances soil and plant nutrition, and improves fruit quality.

1. Introduction

The Asian psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Liviidae), threatens citrus crops both by promoting sooty mold through nymph feeding, reducing photosynthesis [1,2], and by efficiently transmitting Candidatus Liberibacter spp., the bacterium causing Huanglongbing (HLB). The insect acquires the pathogen within 15–30 min, becomes fully infectious within hours, and remains so for life, with nymphs carrying the highest bacterial loads [3,4]. HLB can reduce yields by 30–100%, depending on disease stage, environment, variety, and tree age [1], with annual economic losses estimated between USD 1–15 billion [5,6].
The defense of citrus against vectors has largely relied on chemical insecticides, particularly neonicotinoids and pyrethroids, due to their effectiveness in reducing vector populations and preventing the spread of the disease [7]. However, the intensive use of these compounds has led to negative consequences, such as the development of resistance in the insect to multiple chemical groups [8,9,10], impacts on beneficial organisms, and environmental risks [11,12]. These consequences have driven the need to implement more sustainable strategies for the agroecosystem [13], aimed not only at reducing insecticide use but also at stimulating the natural defenses of plants. Among such strategies, silicon (Si) has demonstrated notable potential as an agroecological tool.
Silicon, absorbed as orthosilicic acid (H4SiO4), acts as a beneficial element by strengthening physical defenses, inducing the activity of defense-related proteins, and modulating gene expression [14,15]. Although historically considered non-essential, there is now ample evidence that its absorption contributes to the alleviation of biotic and abiotic stress [16], the stimulation of plant growth [17], the improvement of nutrient availability and assimilation [18], and even to the remediation processes of degraded soils [19].
Si supplementation not only activates induced defense mechanisms but also reinforces the plant’s natural barriers; thus, several studies have documented that Si consistently reduces the damage caused by phytophagous insects [20,21]. This effect is attributed to tissue hardening; silicon forms bonds with polyuronides of the cell wall, stimulates lignin synthesis, and creates amorphous silica deposits called phytoliths, which provide rigidity to various plant tissues, creating a physical barrier that hinders herbivory and pathogen penetration [14,22,23]. The combination of tissue strengthening and physiological stimulation partly explains the decrease in oviposition and feeding of several insects following Si application [15].
In the D. citri–HLB pathosystem, it has been documented that Si supplementation can reduce vector oviposition by up to 60% and attenuate the expression of HLB symptoms when applied foliarly [22]. In this context, this study evaluated the effect of two silicon sources and three application methods on the incidence of D. citri, the chemical properties of the soil, and foliar nutrient uptake in a Tahiti lime orchard.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location and Plant Material

This experiment was conducted from May to December 2024 in a commercial orchard of four-year-old Tahiti lime (Citrus latifolia Tanaka) trees, grafted onto Swingle citrumelo CPB-4475 rootstock. The trees were established at a planting density of 6 m × 4 m, corresponding to approximately 416 trees per hectare. The orchard was located at the Montelindo Experimental Farm of the Universidad de Caldas (latitude 5.075097, longitude −75.672948), a site that was free of HLB at the beginning of the trial.

2.2. Experimental Design

A randomized block design with a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement was used: two silicon sources applied in three modalities (foliar, soil, and foliar + soil). A control (no application) was added to these treatments, for a total of seven treatments, each with three replications and four branches evaluated per replicate. The sources were applied according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The organic source was diatomaceous earth with 55.5% SiO2, prepared at 2% w/v for both foliar spray and soil application. The inorganic source consisted of a mineral-derived soluble silicate (25.7% total SiO2; 21.5% available silicon), dosed at 2 mL∙L−1 for foliar treatments and 5 mL∙L−1 for soil treatments (Table 1). Soil applications were performed as a drench, distributing 1 L of the solution around the tree’s drip line, while foliar applications were carried out using a backpack sprayer (28–30 psi) with a hollow cone nozzle, spraying approximately 300 mL per tree.

2.3. Variables Evaluated

Before the first application, the four selected branches on each tree were pruned to synchronize shoot flushing and were identified with plastic tags. The first dose was applied immediately after pruning according to the corresponding modality; subsequent applications were performed every 15 days for three months, totaling six applications per treatment. Fifteen days later, as the first tender shoots began to emerge, shoot development was recorded, and natural infestation by D. citri was evaluated using a 30× magnifying loupe (Shenzhen Handsome Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, GD, China). Every 15 days, before each new application, branches were inspected, and the presence or absence of eggs, nymphs, or adults was recorded (without counting individuals).
Fifteen days after the sixth application, 10 to 15 mature leaves were collected per replicate from the mid-canopy. The samples were wrapped in absorbent paper and transferred to paper bags inside duly labeled Ziploc bags for foliar analysis. On the same date, soil subsamples (0–30 cm depth) were taken with an auger from four points within the drip line. These were homogenized in a clean bucket, and 1 kg of the composite sample was reserved in a Ziploc bag identified by treatment for soil chemical analysis.
The physicochemical characterization of the soil was conducted by evaluating the following parameters: texture, using the Bouyoucos hydrometer method; pH, measured with a potentiometer (Xylem Inc., SI-Analytics, Mainz, RP, Germany) in a soil-to-water suspension at a 1:2 ratio; organic matter, determined through wet oxidation and colorimetric quantification [23]; total nitrogen, using the Kjeldahl method [24]; available phosphorus and silicon, extracted using the Bray II method and quantified colorimetrically [25]; exchangeable cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium), extracted with 1 N ammonium acetate at pH 7 and analyzed with atomic absorption spectrometry [26]; micronutrients (iron, copper, manganese, and zinc), extracted with EDTA and analyzed using atomic absorption [27]; sulfur, determined with turbidimetric extraction with monocalcium phosphate; and boron, quantified with colorimetric extraction using monobasic calcium phosphate and Azometine-H [28]. Both the foliar and soil samples were sent to the Plant Nutrition Laboratory of Natural Control S.A. for processing.
To evaluate the accumulation of Si in foliar tissue, a histological analysis was performed. For this, one young, mature leaf was selected per treatment, and a fragment of approximately 0.7 cm × 1.5 cm was cut from the middle section of the leaf blade. Each sample was fixed in a 2 mL cryovial tube with FAA solution (formaldehyde-acetic acid-70% ethanol). The vials were sent to the Animal Histology Laboratory of the Universidad de Caldas, where the samples were embedded in paraffin, sectioned at 10 µm, and stained with safranin/fast-green, following the standard method described [29]. For the evaluation of fruit quality characteristics, three representative fruits were collected per treatment; on these, fruit weight, peel weight, and juice yield were measured. These analyses were conducted at the BioPGR Research Center of the same university.
To evaluate the direct effect of silicon on the incidence of D. citri, an induced infestation was carried out 15 days after the final application. On each tree, four shoots measuring 5–7 cm were marked at the cardinal points. Five adult psyllids (three females and two males) were introduced into each shoot, originating from a controlled breeding program on the same experimental farm. The shoots were then covered with muslin bags for 24 h. After removing the insects with an entomological aspirator, the presence or absence of egg clutches was recorded, and readings were taken at 7 and 17 days to confirm hatching and nymphal development.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained were tested for the assumption of normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homogeneity of variances (Levene’s test). Growth and fruit quality variables were analyzed using analysis of variance one-way (ANOVA) with a significance level of 0.05 and a mean comparison using Duncan’s test (α = 0.05). Meanwhile, soil and foliar nutrient contents were analyzed using Pearson’s linear correlation (p < 0.05). These analyses were performed using SPSS® software, Version 20.

3. Results

3.1. Bud of Tahiti Lime Plants and Exposure to Controlled and Natural Infestation by D. citri

Shoot emergence showed significant differences among treatments at the first evaluation 15 days after pruning (DAP); (F = 6.51; p < 0.001). The control treatment recorded the highest number of shoots per branch (2.17 ± 0.11), whereas all silicon-treated groups showed lower shoot emergence (≤0.92 shoots per branch) (Figure 1A). This effect was diminished by 30 DAP, at which point the differences among treatments were less pronounced (F = 2.41; p = 0.035). By 75 DAP, the cumulative shoot emergence was lower in the silicon treatments, but the differences were not statistically significant (F = 1.310; p = 0.263), suggesting compensatory growth. The application of silicon in all treatments delayed vegetative development, although it did not prevent shoot emergence from approaching that of the control by the end of the cycle. In terms of cumulative emergence, the soil-applied inorganic silicon exhibited delayed regrowth starting from 45 DAP, reaching 2.33 shoots per branch at 75 DAP compared to 2.58 in the control. Conversely, the combined-applied inorganic silicon had the lowest cumulative value for shoot emergence (1.75 per branch).
These growth dynamics were directly reflected in the natural incidence of the vector. At 15 DAP, the treatments with the highest shoot emergence—the control and the soil-applied organic silicon—showed the highest probabilities of infestation, at 17% and 25%, respectively. Infestation peaks occurred at 30 DAP, with the vector present in all treatments; the soil-applied organic silicon had the highest incidence (50%), followed by the control (42%). Treatments with diatomaceous earth showed a high initial incidence, followed by a marked reduction from 45 DAP onwards. In contrast, the soil-applied inorganic silicon, which exhibited delayed regrowth, showed an infestation peak of 58% at 60 DAP, which highlights the influence of the application method on the dynamics of susceptibility (Figure 1B).
The induced infestation confirmed the direct effect of silicon on the insect’s development. Although all treatments allowed for initial oviposition, significant differences in survival were observed 17 days after infestation (DAI) (F = 3.276; p = 0.032). The treatments with soil-applied organic silicon and foliar-applied inorganic silicon showed no vector incidence, whereas the control maintained 96 ± 3% of shoots with the presence of adults (Figure 1C). These two treatments were, therefore, the most effective in interfering with the development of D. citri by preventing the emergence of nymphs and adult’s post-oviposition. This suggests that silicon, depending on its source and application route, may act as a physical barrier that impedes the vector’s post-hatching development.

3.2. Deposition of Silicon on the Foliar Surface of Tahiti Lime Leaves

Histological observations revealed Si deposits in the adaxial sub-epidermal region of leaves from the treatments where the element was applied (Figure 2A,B). These findings support the potential of Si to be structurally integrated into the foliar tissue, which could contribute to its function as a physical barrier against insect attack.

3.3. The Relationship Between Soil and Leaf Nutrient Content and Silicon Utilization

In the organic silicon treatments, highly significant positive correlations were observed between the soil silicon content and several micronutrients, such as iron (Fe) (r = 0.998), copper (Cu) (r = 0.993), and boron (B) (r = 0.996), as well as significant positive correlations with nitrogen (N, NO3−) (r = 0.986) and Zn (r = 0.975), as shown in Table 2.
On the other hand, a significant negative correlation was evident between silicon and the soil pH (r = −0.967), as well as with Mn (r = −0.997), indicating that as the content of one of these variables in the soil increases, the other tends to decrease.
In the inorganic silicon treatments (Table 3), positive correlations were observed between soil silicon and micronutrients such as Fe (r = 0.953) and Cu (r = 0.956); the values were slightly lower compared to organic silicon. The correlation with Zn (r = 0.949) and B (r = 0.916) was also positive, although not significant, which suggests a more moderate influence of inorganic silicon on micronutrient availability. Unlike what was observed with organic silicon, in this case, no significant correlation was detected between silicon and soil pH, although the negative trend was maintained (r = 0.936).
The foliar results for the organic silicon treatments (Table 4) showed a high positive correlation between Si content and Fe (r = 0.992), followed by elevated correlations with Ca (r = 0.978) and Cu (r = 0.866). Although these results were not statistically significant, the correlation reflects a possible synergy in the accumulation of silicon along with key micronutrients.
In the inorganic silicon treatments (Table 5), positive correlations were observed between foliar silicon content and the levels of K (r = 0.992), Mn (r = 0.967), B (r = 0.912), and Na (r = 0.913). Although these results were not statistically significant, the high correlation coefficients suggest a possible synergistic trend, particularly with potassium and manganese.

3.4. Impact of Silicon on the Physical Quality of Tahiti Lime Fruit

Silicon application affected the fresh weight of the fruit, with significant differences among treatments (F = 4.38; p = 0.017). The highest average weight was recorded in the treatments with organic silicon, especially when applied foliarly (134 g). In contrast, the control and the soil-applied inorganic silicon treatments showed the lowest values (95.33 g and 80 g, respectively). Regarding fruit composition, significant differences were found in both juice weight (F = 3.21; p = 0.045) and peel weight (F = 3.75; p = 0.028).
Furthermore, peel weight was also highest in the foliar-applied organic silicon treatment (68 g), while the soil-applied inorganic silicon showed the lowest value (42.66 g). In contrast, the foliar-applied organic silicon treatment exhibited the highest juice yield (44.7%), while the control treatment registered the lowest value (28.5%) (Figure 3). These results suggest that organic silicon sources, especially when applied via foliar or combined methods, promote biomass accumulation and higher juice content in the fruits without compromising soluble solids.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Silicon on Shoot Emergence and the Dynamics of the Vector D. citri

Recent studies have demonstrated that silicon (Si) enhances plant tolerance and mitigates the adverse effects of diseases and insect pests [30]. Moreover, silicon has been shown to reduce insect oviposition, feeding activity, digestibility, and overall fitness, thereby contributing to the reduction of pest-related damage [31]. Additionally, silicon can function either as an insecticide—directly targeting pest species—or as a carrier for insecticidal compounds, enabling sustained release and improved efficacy [32].
The findings of our study indicate that silicon treatment adversely affects the development of D. citri nymphs on Tahiti lime plants, resulting in a measurable decrease in infestation intensity. Similar outcomes have been reported in other phytophagous insect species. For instance, in Mythimna separata on wheat, elevated silicon levels were linked to increased mortality, extended developmental periods, and mandibular wear [32]. Silicon application in Spodoptera frugiperda was associated with a significant reduction in key population parameters, including intrinsic growth rate, finite rate of increase, and net reproductive rate, relative to all other treatment groups [33]. Silicon application has also been shown to reduce oviposition and prolong the life cycle of Bemisia tabaci [34,35]. In Thrips palmi, silicon has been observed to decrease both population density and nymphal damage. There have been reductions of 53–61% in whitefly populations and 48–58% in aphid populations following foliar application of potassium silicate [36]. Similarly, there has been documented reduced reproduction and yield in Brevicoryne brassicae on Brassica oleracea [37]. Although some species, such as Mahanarva fimbriolata, showed no significant effects on egg fertility or viability [38], the majority of studies indicate that silicon negatively affects at least one stage of insect development. In the present study, interference with development, not oviposition, was evident.
As observed in our study, silicon supplementation enhances plant resistance to herbivorous insects by negatively affecting pest development [32]. This improved resistance translates into reduced insect damage and greater plant tolerance to biotic stress [31]. Silicon-enriched plants exhibit strengthened structural and biochemical defenses, contributing to their resilience against insect infestations [39]. Furthermore, silicon-based treatments have proven effective in reducing pest populations and represent a sustainable strategy for integrated pest management [40].

4.2. Histological Accumulation of Silicon in Tahiti Lime Leaves

This beneficial response is linked to the histological patterns of silicon accumulation in citrus leaves. Silicon is deposited in various leaf structures, including epidermal cells, the cuticle layer, and around the outer cell surfaces, forming a dual layer of cuticle and silica [41,42]. In eudicotyledonous species, silicon is primarily stored in the leaf blade, with only minimal amounts found in the petioles and veins. These veins play a key role in the transport of water-soluble silicon throughout the leaf tissue [43]. Leaves treated with silicon exhibit significantly higher levels of silicon accumulation compared to the control group. Scanning electron microscopy revealed the presence of silica granules within the epidermal cells of Citrus sinensis [41]. The rate at which silicon accumulates in leaf tissues is influenced by environmental conditions, particularly light availability and shoot growth. Studies have reported positive correlations between shoot development, light exposure, and silicon uptake in leaves [44]. This accumulation of silicon not only reinforces leaf structure but also enhances key physiological functions in plants. It plays a crucial role in mitigating damage caused by environmental stress and contributes to maintaining normal plant development. From an agricultural perspective, silicon accumulation offers significant benefits, particularly in improving plant tolerance to both biotic and abiotic stressors. These findings support the use of silicon as a sustainable strategy in crop management, reinforcing its potential to strengthen plant resilience and reduce reliance on chemical inputs.

4.3. Interactions Between Silicon, Nutrients, and Soil–Foliar Dynamics

The interaction between silicon and soil components is significantly influenced by soil pH. In acidic soils, liming has been shown to enhance the availability of silicon forms that are accessible to plants [45]. Several factors affect silicon availability in agricultural soils, including pH, clay content, mineral composition, organic matter, and the presence of iron and aluminum oxides or hydroxides. These factors are closely linked to the geological age of the soil [46]. This behavior suggests that silicon may serve not only a nutritional role but also act as a soil amendment that helps neutralize acidity [47,48]. Supporting this idea, studies have shown that diatomaceous earth can exert a buffering effect on soil pH [49]. Furthermore, increased silicon levels have been associated with improvements in cation exchange capacity (CEC) [50], and its presence has been found to reduce phosphorus fixation, thereby enhancing phosphorus availability to plants [51].
Beyond its chemical interactions, silicon offers a range of environmental benefits. It plays a crucial role in regulating soil pH and improving nutrient availability. Its complex interactions with various soil components have important agricultural implications. The findings of this study underscore the positive effects of silicon on plant growth, stress tolerance, and soil quality, highlighting its potential in environmental remediation efforts.
Silicon also influences the absorption and content of nutrients in plant tissues, particularly affecting calcium and various micronutrients. It alters the stoichiometry of both macro- and micronutrients in grasses, notably modifying the concentrations of calcium and micronutrients in leaf blades [52]. Regarding potassium and sodium dynamics, silicon application has been shown to reduce sodium accumulation in potato tubers, especially under water-deficient conditions. Additionally, it improves the potassium-to-sodium (K/Na) ratio in leaf tissues, contributing to better plant health and resilience [53,54]. Other studies have evidenced that synergistic trend of silicon, particularly with potassium and manganese, which are involved in osmotic regulation, enzymatic activity, and the response to abiotic stress in plants [55,56].
Furthermore, the uptake and accumulation of phosphorus and magnesium in leaves are influenced by silicon, particularly under nutrient-limited conditions [57,58]. Concentrations of iron, zinc, and copper in leaf tissues may also decrease as a result of silicon application [59,60].
The application of organic silicon could be related to a greater availability of these elements in the soil, which is consistent with the findings in [61], which reported that Si in the soil increased the availability of calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), sulfur (S), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), Cu, and molybdenum (Mo), while that of chlorides (Cl−) and Fe tended to increase. In agreement with this, it has also been documented that silicon increases the availability and accumulation of macronutrients and micronutrients [62,63].
On the other hand, the accumulation of Na in these treatments is consistent with findings found that silicon not only increases the accumulation of sodium in the leaves of maize under moderate salt stress but also improves its sequestration in vacuoles, reducing the physiological damage caused by saline stress [64]. These results are consistent with reports that the application of silicon in potato increased the contents of silicon (Si), molybdenum (Mo), potassium (K), and phosphorus (P) but decreased the levels of aluminum (Al) and manganese (Mn) in both tubers and the foliar parts; furthermore, a decrease in Magnesium (Mg), Zinc (Zn), and Iron (Fe) was observed in the treated plants [59]. This is attributed to the buffering effect and greater availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil [65].
Silicon plays a vital role in regulating nutrient composition within leaf tissues. Its application not only promotes plant growth but also enhances resistance to environmental stress. By influencing the concentrations of various macro- and micronutrients, silicon contributes significantly to overall plant health and productivity. This trend is relevant to the structural and functional defense of plants, as elements like Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, and B are closely linked with processes of cell wall reinforcement, lignin synthesis, antioxidant metabolism, and resistance to biotic stress [66,67,68].

4.4. Impact of Silicon on the Physical Quality of the Fruit

Our study revealed that silicon positively influenced fruit weight, size, and juice yield, all without compromising their commercial quality. This effect has been widely documented in other crops, such as tomato and zucchini, where Si increased biomass and improved fruit quality parameters [69,70]. In fruit trees, there has also been a reported increase in the mineral content and dry matter of peach fruits, which aligns with the observed improvement in the physical quality of the fruit in this study [71]. In contrast, treatments with inorganic silicon (particularly the foliar application) were associated with smaller-sized fruits and a lower juice proportion; although, in some cases, they surpassed the control, which also presented low values for these variables.
It is worth noting that Colombia’s tropical climate promotes frequent sprouting, which can lead to increased populations of the vector. However, the phytosanitary measures outlined in Resolution 1668 of 2019 [72]—including regular monitoring, the use of yellow sticky traps, nutritional management, application of biological agents, control of host plants, and, when necessary, a chemical control—have helped maintain a low incidence of the vector in citrus plantations within the evaluated area. Given this context, it is recommended that future studies include assessments over at least two production cycles in regions severely affected by the pest and Huanglongbing in order to obtain more representative and robust data.

5. Conclusions

Foliar and combined applications of diatomaceous earth reduced vegetative flushing and decreased natural psyllid incidence by up to 75% in the first 30 days. While silicon did not affect oviposition in induced infestations, it disrupted the nymph-to-adult transition. Silicon also improved soil conditions, increasing pH, organic matter, and the availability of phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. In leaf tissue, higher levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, iron, and silicon (0.28–0.50%) were observed. Fruit quality improved with silicon, showing greater fresh weight (134 g) and juice content (44.7%) compared to the control (95.33 g and 28.5%).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; methodology, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; software, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; validation, A.M.R.-G., A.S.-G. and A.H.-S.; formal analysis, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; investigation, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; resources, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; data curation, A.M.R.-G.; writing original draft preparation, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; writing review and editing, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; visualization, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; supervision, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; project administration, A.M.R.-G. and A.H.-S.; funding acquisition, A.M.R.-G. and A.S.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tipu, M.H.; Rahman, M.; Islam, M.; Elhai, F.E.; Jahan, R.; Islam, R. Citrus greening disease (HLB) on Citrus reticulata (Mandarin) caused by Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus in Bangladesh. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2020, 112, 101558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yang, Y.; Huang, M.; Beattie, G.A.C.; Xia, Y.; Ouyang, G.; Xiong, J. Distribution, biology, ecology and control of the psyllid Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, a major pest of citrus: A status report for China. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2006, 52, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Santivañez, T.; Mora, G.; Diaz, G.; López, J.I.; Hurtado, P. Citrus. Marco Estratégico Para la Gestión Regional del Huanglongbing en América Latina y el Caribe, 1st ed.; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 15–54. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3319s.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2024).
  4. Stelinski, L.L. Ecological aspects of the vector-borne bacterial disease, citrus greening (Huanglongbing): Dispersal and host use by Asian Citrus Psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama. Insects 2019, 10, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, S.; Wu, F.; Duan, Y.; Singerman, A.; Guan, Z. Citrus greening: Management strategies and their economic impact. HortScience 2020, 55, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Costa, G.V.; Neves, C.S.V.J.; Bassanezi, R.B.; Leite Junior, R.P.; Telles, T.S. Economic impact of Huanglongbing on orange production. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2021, 43, e-472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bassanezi, R.B.; Lopes, S.A.; de Miranda, M.P.; Wulff, N.A.; Volpe, H.X.L.; Ayres, A.J. Overview of citrus huanglongbing spread and management strategies in Brazil. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2020, 45, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tiwari, S.; Mann, R.S.; Rogers, M.E.; Stelinski, L.L. Insecticide resistance in field populations of Asian citrus psyllid in Florida. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 1258–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. García-Méndez, V.H.; Ortega-Arenas, L.D.; Villanueva-Jiménez, J.A.; Sánchez-Arroyo, H. Susceptibility of Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (hemiptera: Liviidae) to insecticides, in Veracruz, Mexico. Agrociencia 2016, 50, 319–330. [Google Scholar]
  10. Liu, T.Y.; Zhou, Y.X.; Yuan, C.Y.; Gao, Y.F.; Fan, J.Y.; Yuan, G.R.; Wang, J.J.; Dou, W. Genetic mutations and insecticide resistance in Diaphorina citri: A comparative study across Chinese citrus regions. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2025, 81, 4831–4838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mamani, A.; Filippone, M.P. Bioinsumos: Componentes claves de una agricultura sostenible. Bio-products: Key components of sustainable agricultura. Rev. Agron. Noroeste Argent. 2018, 38, 9–21. [Google Scholar]
  12. Marzaini, B.; Mohd, A. Plant growth-promoting microorganisms isolated from plants as potential antimicrobial producers: A review. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2021, 44, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, X.D.; Stockton, D.; Gossett, H.; Qureshi, J.A.; Ibanez, F.; Pelz-Stelinski, K.S.; Stelinski, L.L. Comparisons of economic thresholds for Asian citrus psyllid management suggest a revised approach to reduce management costs and improve yield. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 948278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marschner, P. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; Chapter 8; pp. 257–261. [Google Scholar]
  15. Suganthy, M.; Sowmiya, A.; Yuvaraj, M.; Anitha, R. Silicon—A potential alternative in insect pest management for sustainable agriculture. Silicon 2024, 16, 1857–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Deshmukh, R.; Belanger, R.R. The functional role of silicon in plant biology, Molecular evolution of aquaporins and silicon influx in plants. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 1277–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Garza-Alonso, C.A.; Carballo-Méndez, F.J.; Rodríguez-Salinas, P.A.; Olivares-Sáenz, E.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, J.C. Salinidad y silicio en el crecimiento vegetativo y la concentración de pigmentos en cuatro cultivares de higuera. (Ficus carica L.). ITEA-Inf. Tec. Econ. Agrar. 2022, 118, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Antúnez-Ocampo, O.M.; Sabino-López, J.E.; Hernández-Galeno, C.; Espinosa-Rodríguez, M. Maize (Zea mays L.) yield in response to soil fertilization with nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon. Terra Latinoam. 2023, 41, e1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kovács, S.; Kutasy, E.; Csajbók, J. The multiple role of silicon nutrition in alleviating environmental stresses in sustainable crop production. Plants 2022, 11, 1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Islam, W.; Tayyab, M.; Khalil, F.; Hua, Z.; Huang, Z.; Chen, H. Silicon-mediated plant defense against pathogens and insect pests. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 168, 104641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Singh, A.; Kumar, A.; Hartley, S.; Singh, I.K. Silicon: Its ameliorative effect on plant defense against herbivory. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 6730–6743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ramírez-Godoy, A.; Puentes-Pérez, G.; Restrepo-Díaz, H. An evaluation of the use of calcium, potassium and silicon for the management of Diaphorina citri populations in Tahiti lime trees. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2018, 46, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. DeBolt, D.C. A high sample volume procedure for the colorimetric determination of soil organic matter. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1974, 5, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bremner, J. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J. Agric. Sci. 1960, 55, 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bray, R.H.; Kurtz, L.T. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci. 1945, 59, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gillman, G.P.; Bruce, R.C.; Davey, B.G.; Kimble, J.M.; Searle, P.L.; Skjemstad, J.O. A comparison of methods used for determination of cation exchange capacity. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1983, 14, 1005–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alvarez, J.M.; Lopez-Valdivia, L.M.; Novillo, J.; Obrador, A.; Rico, M.I. Comparison of EDTA and sequential extraction tests for phytoavailability prediction of manganese and zinc in agricultural alkaline soils. Geoderma 2006, 132, 450–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. John, K.M.; Chuah, H.H.; Neufeld, J.H. Application of improved Azomethine-H method to the determination of boron in soils and plants. Anal. Lett. 1975, 8, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Johansen, W.A. Plant Micro Techniques; McGraw Hill Book. Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1940. [Google Scholar]
  30. Samal, I.; Bhoi, T.K.; Mahanta, D.K.; Komal, J. Establishing the role of silicon (Si) in plant resistance to insects: A bibliometric approach. Silicon 2023, 16, 2119–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M.; Kannan, M.; Prakash, N.B. Chapter 16—Silicon as a natural plant guard against insect pests. In Silicon and Nano-Silicon in Environmental Stress Management and Crop Quality Improvement; Hassan, E., Abdullah, H., Al, S., Hassan, E., Masayuki, F., Pessarakli, M., Anwar, M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Saw, G.; Nagdev, P.; Jeer, M.; Murali-Baskaran, R.K. Silica nanoparticles mediated insect pest management. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2023, 194, 105524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ul Haq, I.; Idrees, A.; Abbasi, A.; Ali, S.; Asad, M.; Li, C.; Liu, C.Z.; Zhang, K.X.; Yasin, M.; Asghar, M.A.; et al. Silicon accumulation in maize and its effects on demographical traits of fall armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)]. Silicon 2023, 15, 3269–3281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Peixoto, M.L.; Moraes, J.C.; Silva, A.A.; Assis, F.A. Effect of silicon on the oviposition preference of Bemisia tabaci Biotype B (GENN.) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants. Ciência Agrotecnol. 2011, 35, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Correa, R.S.; Moraes, J.C.; Auad, A.M.; Carvalho, G.A. Silicon and acibenzolar-S-methyl as resistance inducers in cucumber, against the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B. Neotrop. Entomol. 2005, 34, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shah, M.A.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, J. Bio-efficacy of potassium silicate against aphids and whitefly in potato. Potato J. 2019, 46, 132–137. [Google Scholar]
  37. Teixeira, N.C.; Valim, J.O.S.; Oliveira, M.G.A.; Campos, W.G. Combined effects of soil silicon and drought stress on host plant chemical and ultrastructural quality for leaf-chewing and sap-sucking insects. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2019, 206, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Korndörfer, A.P.; Grisoto, E.; Vendramim, J.D. Induction of insect plant resistance to the spittlebug Mahanarva fimbriolata Stål (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) in sugarcane by silicon application. Neotrop. Entomol. 2011, 40, 387–392. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shameen, F.; Gulzar, I.; Wani, A.H.; Malik, M.; Rashid, I.; Ahmad, T. Silicon supplementation mitigates the effects of infestation of corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis Fitch (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Phytoparasitica 2025, 53, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ghafar, M.A.; Feng, Q.; Ul Haq, I.; Hyder, M.; Sufian, M.; Abbas, D.; Haider, K.; Lubaid, M.; Akhtar, M.; Wang, L.; et al. Impact of silicon-based treatments on the demographic traits of Spodoptera frugiperda in maize. J. Crop Health 2025, 77, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mvondo-She, M.A.; Marais, D. The investigation of silicon localization and accumulation in citrus. Plants 2019, 8, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rotmuenwai, N.; Aryuyo, K.; Kruethaworn, N.; Wattananit, W.; Yookongkaew, N. Exploring silica accumulation in bamboo leaves: A study on phytolith morphology and epidermal patterning in the tropical giant bamboo Dendrocalamus copelandii. Ann. Bot. 2025, 135, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kajino, H.; Kitajima, K. Lamina-specific localization of silicon accumulation in two broadleaf tree species. J. Plant Res. 2023, 136, 659–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kajino, H.; Kitajima, K. Leaf silicon accumulation rates in relation to light environment and shoot growth rates in paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera, Moraceae). J. Plant Res. 2021, 134, 1013–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Szulc, W.; Rutkowska, B.; Hoch, M.; Spychaj-Fabisiak, E.; Murawska, B. Exchangeable silicon content of soil in a long-term fertilization experiment. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 458–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tubaña, B.S.; Heckman, J.R. Silicon in soils and plants. In Silicon and Plant Diseases; Rodrigues, F., Datnoff, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zanão Júnior, L.A.; Blanco, I.B.; Pereira, N.; Schneider, J.A. Acidity neutralization and silicon availability using calcium silicate in soil cultivated with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2017, 11, 1354–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kozlov, A.V.; Kulikova, A.K.; Uromova, I.P. Mobility of silicates, fertility indicators of sod-podzolic soil, silicon bioaccumulation and productivity of agricultural crops under zeolite application. Agrobiology 2021, 56, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Prakash, N.B.; Anitha, M.S.; Sandhya, K. Behaviour of different levels and grades of diatomite as silicon source in acidic and alkaline soils. Silicon 2015, 8, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mehta, S.C.; Grewal, K.S.; Sangwan, P.S.; Dahiya, S.S. Effect of pH on cation exchange capacity of soils from semi-arid and humid regions. Ann. Biol. 2003, 19, 165–168. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pooniyan, S.; Kour, S.; Yadav, K.K.; Gora, R.; Chadha, D.; Choudhary, S. Silicon status in soils and their benefits in crop production. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2023, 54, 1887–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brackhage, C.; Schaller, J.; Bäucker, E.; Dudel, E. Silicon availability affects the stoichiometry and content of calcium and micronutrients in the leaves of common reed. Silicon 2013, 5, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wadas, W. Effect of foliar silicon application on nutrient content in early crop potato tubers. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tabatabaei, S.J. Interactive effects of Si and NaCl on growth, yield, photosynthesis, and ions content in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa var Camarosa). J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 1524–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Anil Kumar, S.; Kaniganti, S.; Hima Kumari, P.; Sudhakar Reddy, P.; Suravajhala, P.; Suprasanna, P. Functional and biotechnological cues of potassium homeostasis for stress tolerance and plant development. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 2022, 40, 3527–3570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hafeez, A.; Rasheed, R.; Ashraf, M.A.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S. Effects of exogenous taurine on growth, photosynthesis, oxidative stress, antioxidant enzymes and nutrient accumulation by Trifolium alexandrinum plants under manganese stress. Chemosphere 2022, 308 Pt 3, 136523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Minden, V.; Schaller, J.; Olde Venterink, H. Plants increase silicon content as a response to nitrogen or phosphorus limitation: A case study with Holcus lanatus. Plant Soil 2021, 462, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kostic, I.; Nikolic, N.; Milanovic, S.; Milenkovic, I.; Pavlovic, J.; Paravinja, A.; Nikolic, M. Silicon modifies leaf nutriome and improves growth of oak seedlings exposed to phosphorus deficiency and Phytophthora plurivora infection. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1265782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Soltani, M.; Kafi, M.; Nezami, A.; Taghiyari, H.R. Effects of silicon application at nano and micro scales on the growth and nutrient uptake of potato minitubers (Solanum tuberosum var. Agria) in Greenhouse Conditions. BioNanoSci 2018, 8, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bokhtiar, S.M.; Huang, H.R.; Li, Y.R. Response of sugarcane to calcium silicate on yield, gas exchange characteristics, leaf nutrient concentrations, and soil properties in two different soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 1363–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Greger, M.; Landberg, T.; Vaculík, M. Silicon influences soil availability and accumulation of mineral nutrients in various plant species. Plants 2018, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xu, D.; Gao, T.; Fang, X.; Bu, H.; Li, Q.; Wang, X.; Zhang, R. Silicon addition improves plant productivity and soil nutrient availability without changing the grass: Legume ratio response to N fertilization. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 10295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rea, R.S.; Islam, M.R.; Rahman, M.M.; Nath, B.; Mix, K. Growth, nutrient accumulation, and drought tTolerance in crop plants with silicon application: A review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bosnic, P.; Bosnic, D.; Jasnic, J.; Nikolic, M. Silicon mediates sodium transport and partitioning in maize under moderate salt stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 155, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bin, Z.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, W.; Xu, D. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon addition on leaf carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentration of Elymus nutans of alpine meadow on Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 4699–4706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dutta, A.; Dracatos, P.M.; Khan, G.A. Balancing act: The dynamic relationship between nutrient availability and plant defence. Plant J. 2024, 120, 1724–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Masullo, L.S.; Derisso, V.D.; Manarim, G.R.; Ferraz, A.V.; Rocha, J.H.T.; de Ávila, P.A.; Florentino, A.L.; de Aguiar, C.L.; Lavres, J.; Gonçalves, J.L. Modulation of structural carbohydrates, phenol compounds and lignin content in Eucalyptus urophylla cuttings grown under boron, copper and zinc induced-deficiency. New For. 2022, 53, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tripathi, R.; Tewari, R.; Singh, K.P.; Keswani, C.; Minkina, T.; Srivastava, A.K.; De Corato, U.; Sansinenea, E. Plant mineral nutrition and disease resistance: A significant linkage for sustainable crop protection. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 883970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Korkmaz, A.; Karagöl, A.; Akınoğlu, G.; Korkmaz, H. The effects of silicon on nutrient levels and yields of tomatoes under saline stress in artificial medium culture. J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. de Mesquita Alves, J.; de Lima, A.S.; de Figueredo, L.F.; de Oliveira Mesquita, F.; de Mesquita, E.F.; Bezerra, F.T.C.; da Silva Sousa, C.; da Silva, F.L.; Suassuna, C. Nitrogen and silicon application can increase nutrient uptake and fruit quality of Cucurbita pepo L. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Torres, E.; Carrasco-Cuello, F. Foliar- and root-applied silicon-based biostimulant increases the nutritional efficiency, fruit firmness and storage potential of nectarines. Acta Hortic. 2022, 1333, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. ICA. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Resolution No. 1668 of 2019. Available online: https://www.ica.gov.co/getattachment/877b5bbb-0f20-4253-9f7d-7b20f03e2629/2019R01668.aspx (accessed on 1 September 2025).
Agriculture 15 01961 g001
Figure 1. Effect of silicon treatments on D. citri and shoot flushing in citrus. (A) Shoot emergence per branch (DAP); (B) natural vector infestation (DAP); (C) induced infestation (DI).
Figure 1. Effect of silicon treatments on D. citri and shoot flushing in citrus. (A) Shoot emergence per branch (DAP); (B) natural vector infestation (DAP); (C) induced infestation (DI).
Agriculture 15 01961 g001
Agriculture 15 01961 g002
Figure 2. Histological sections were observed under light microscopy. (A) 40× and (B) 100× magnification. The arrows indicate silicon deposits (SD) on the adaxial leaf surface.
Figure 2. Histological sections were observed under light microscopy. (A) 40× and (B) 100× magnification. The arrows indicate silicon deposits (SD) on the adaxial leaf surface.
Agriculture 15 01961 g002
Agriculture 15 01961 g003
Figure 3. Fruit quality characteristics of Tahiti lime under silicon treatments. a–c Values with different superscript letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Fruit quality characteristics of Tahiti lime under silicon treatments. a–c Values with different superscript letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 15 01961 g003
Table 1. The application of two sources of silicon and two application methods for integrated management of Asian psyllids in Tahiti lemons is described.
Table 1. The application of two sources of silicon and two application methods for integrated management of Asian psyllids in Tahiti lemons is described.
TreatmentSilicon SourceApplication MethodDose
Foliar-applied organic siliconOrganicFoliar2% p/v
Soil-applied organic siliconOrganicSoil2% p/v
Combined-applied organic siliconOrganicFoliar + Soil2% p/v
Foliar-applied inorganic siliconInorganicFoliar2 mL∙L−1
Soil-applied inorganic siliconInorganicSoil5 mL∙L−1
Combined applied inorganic siliconInorganicFoliar + Soil2 mL∙L−1/5 mL∙L−1
Control—No application—
Table 2. Pearson correlations coefficients between soil nutrient contents and organic silicon treatments.
Table 2. Pearson correlations coefficients between soil nutrient contents and organic silicon treatments.
Ca2+Mg2+K+pHOMCEC EC N, NO3−PSFeMnCuZnBSi
Ca2+1
Mg2+0.981 *1
K+0.7670.8741
pH0.6230.5050.2001
OM0.4290.4990.6830.4941
CEC0.983 *1.000 **0.8710.5170.5051
EC0.6670.5680.1570.327−0.3780.5671
N, NO3−−0.841−0.729−0.358−0.917−0.333−0.737−0.6521
P0.2560.063−0.4110.700−0.2690.0730.590−0.6991
S−0.968 *−0.913−0.604−0.609−0.201−0.915−0.8300.868−0.4241
Fe−0.751−0.634−0.287−0.978 *−0.420−0.644−0.5050.980 *−0.7140.7591
Mn0.7990.6840.3240.952 *0.3790.6930.580−0.995 **0.710−0.817−0.995 **1
Cu−0.714−0.596−0.261−0.990 *−0.445−0.606−0.4510.965 *−0.7130.7150.998 **−0.986 *1
Zn−0.645−0.527−0.214−0.999 **−0.483−0.539−0.3560.930−0.7040.6350.984 *−0.962 *0.994 **1
B−0.807−0.693−0.330−0.947−0.371−0.702−0.5940.997 **−0.7080.8270.993 **−1.000 **0.983 *0.957 *1
Si−0.792−0.684−0.350−0.967 *−0.448−0.693−0.5170.986 *−0.6740.7910.998 **−0.997 **0.993 **0.975 *0.996 **1
* and **: Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively. Ca2+: calcium; Mg2+: magnesium; K⁺: potassium; pH; OM: organic matter; CEC: cation exchange capacity; EC: electrical conductivity; N, NO3−: nitrogen; P: phosphorus; S: sulfur; Fe: iron; Mn: manganese; Cu: copper; Zn: zinc; B: boron; Si: silicon. Units: Ca2+, Mg2+, K⁺, CEC (cmol/kg); pH (unitless); OM (%); EC (dS/m); N, NO3−, P, S, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B, Si (mg/kg).
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between soil nutrient contents and inorganic silicon treatments.
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients between soil nutrient contents and inorganic silicon treatments.
Ca2+Mg2+K+pHOMCEC ECN, NO3−PSFeMnCuZnBSi
Ca2+1
Mg2+0.996 **1
K+0.4220.4711
pH0.980 *0.982 *0.5841
OM0.7300.7870.8200.7981
CEC0.992 **0.997 **0.5320.994 **0.8071
EC0.3120.3750.978 *0.4700.8220.4321
N, NO3−−0.648−0.634−0.751−0.768−0.559−0.692−0.5971
P0.6010.5570.4900.6850.2950.6060.297−0.9421
S−0.812−0.821−0.008−0.698−0.559−0.7730.0120.083−0.0501
Fe−0.964 *−0.984 *−0.598−0.974 *−0.885−0.987 *−0.5250.646−0.5110.7791
Mn0.9130.9470.5990.9190.9280.9450.563−0.5330.359−0.805−0.984 *1
Cu−0.969 *−0.986 *−0.604−0.983 *−0.876−0.992 **−0.5250.674−0.5460.7620.999 **−0.976 *1
Zn−0.979 *−0.988 *−0.596−0.997 **−0.837−0.997 **−0.4970.731−0.6270.7290.990 *−0.9480.995 **1
B−0.950−0.974 *−0.527−0.940−0.880−0.968 *−0.4750.535−0.3960.8460.991 **−0.993 **0.984 *0.964 *1
Si−0.866−0.896−0.812−0.936−0.944−0.923−0.7450.772−0.5820.5610.953 *−0.9360.956 *0.9490.9161
* and **: Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively. Ca2+: calcium; Mg2+: magnesium; K+: potassium; pH; OM: organic matter; CEC: cation exchange capacity; EC: electrical conductivity; N, NO3−: nitrogen; P: phosphorus; S: sulfur; Fe: iron; Mn: manganese; Cu: copper; Zn: zinc; B: boron; Si: silicon. Units: Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, CEC (cmol/kg); pH (unitless); OM (%); EC (dS/m); N, NO3−, P, S, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B, Si (mg/kg).
Table 4. Pearson correlations coefficients between foliar nutrient contents and organic silicon treatments.
Table 4. Pearson correlations coefficients between foliar nutrient contents and organic silicon treatments.
NPKSCaMgFeMnCuBZnNaChlorideSi
N1
P0.9081
K0.6960.7921
S0.0550.184−0.4141
Ca−0.180−0.381−0.8320.6121
Mg0.9070.8020.3570.4280.2121
Fe0.7530.4250.424−0.3690.0000.6221
Mn−0.2400.135−0.1360.7100.002−0.063−0.8111
Cu−0.711−0.506−0.7420.6520.467−0.406−0.8820.7501
B−0.573−0.861−0.767−0.2030.607−0.4370.052−0.5050.1921
Zn0.956 *0.960 *0.6290.308−0.1220.9380.5400.049−0.485−0.7071
Na0.8220.979 *0.7080.342−0.3330.7690.2460.332−0.320−0.9110.9321
Chloride−0.0250.281−0.1570.8810.1980.226−0.6220.9480.686−0.5120.2700.4701
Si−0.189−0.500−0.9690.3970.9780.2400.992−0.5000.8660.756−0.189−0.470−0.1561
*: Significant at the 5% probability levels, respectively. N: nitrogen, P: phosphorus, K: potassium, S: sulfur, Ca: calcium, Mg: magnesium, Fe: iron, Mn: Manganese, Cu: copper, B: boron, Zn: zinc, Na: sodium, Si: silicon. Units: N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, and Si (%); Fe, Mn, Cu, B, Zn, and Na (ppm).
Table 5. Pearson correlations coefficients between foliar nutrient contents and inorganic silicon treatments.
Table 5. Pearson correlations coefficients between foliar nutrient contents and inorganic silicon treatments.
NPKSCaMgFeMnCuBZnNaChlorideSi
N1
P0.0671
K0.3240.9481
S0.605−0.616−0.3321
Ca−0.904−0.408−0.661−0.4301
Mg0.5850.1030.3970.674−0.7521
Fe0.4510.8920.989 *−0.195−0.7640.5011
Mn−0.154−0.601−0.745−0.0590.543−0.768−0.7591
Cu−0.190−0.911−0.969 *0.3020.583−0.485−0.952 *0.8721
B−0.386−0.750−0.903−0.0110.744−0.733−0.9290.9400.9501
Zn0.7940.6100.7310.005−0.8520.3060.786−0.263−0.560−0.5751
Na0.222−0.092−0.206−0.2300.078−0.661−0.2100.7960.4330.5440.3501
Chloride−0.097−0.955 *−0.968 *0.4340.492−0.356−0.9310.8110.990 *0.895−0.5360.3671
Si−0.0040.8970.992−0.7030.109−0.8540.7110.967−0.2540.9120.5800.913−0.5561
*: Significant at the 5% probability levels, respectively. N: nitrogen, P: phosphorus, K: potassium, S: sulfur, Ca: calcium, Mg: magnesium, Fe: iron, Mn: Manganese, Cu: copper, B: boron, Zn: zinc, Na: sodium, Si: silicon. Units: N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, and Si (%); Fe, Mn, Cu, B, Zn, and Na (ppm).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Restrepo-García, A.M.; Hurtado-Salazar, A.; Soto-Giraldo, A. Silicon as a Tool to Manage Diaphorina citri and Relation Soil and Leaf Chemistry in Tahiti Lime. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15181961

AMA Style

Restrepo-García AM, Hurtado-Salazar A, Soto-Giraldo A. Silicon as a Tool to Manage Diaphorina citri and Relation Soil and Leaf Chemistry in Tahiti Lime. Agriculture. 2025; 15(18):1961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15181961

Chicago/Turabian Style

Restrepo-García, Ana Maria, Alejandro Hurtado-Salazar, and Alberto Soto-Giraldo. 2025. "Silicon as a Tool to Manage Diaphorina citri and Relation Soil and Leaf Chemistry in Tahiti Lime" Agriculture 15, no. 18: 1961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15181961

APA Style

Restrepo-García, A. M., Hurtado-Salazar, A., & Soto-Giraldo, A. (2025). Silicon as a Tool to Manage Diaphorina citri and Relation Soil and Leaf Chemistry in Tahiti Lime. Agriculture, 15(18), 1961. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15181961

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop