Next Article in Journal
Research on Ginger Price Prediction Model Based on Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Canopy-Level Rice Yield and Yield Component Estimation Using NIR-Based Vegetation Indices
 
 
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 6
10.3390/agriculture15060595
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

Effect of Humic Biostimulant Agriful on Agronomic and Nutritional Parameters of Radish (Raphanus sativus)

by
Miroslav Šlosár
,
Lucia Galovičová
*,
Júlia Fabianová
,
Ivana Porubská
and
Marianna Schwarzová
Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Trieda Andreja Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(6), 595; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060595
Submission received: 13 January 2025 / Revised: 5 March 2025 / Accepted: 7 March 2025 / Published: 11 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the humic biostimulant Agriful on the average weight of root per plant, yield, antioxidant capacity, and total polyphenol content of three radish (Raphanus sativus L.) varieties during two growing seasons. The research was carried out as a small-plot field experiment, comparing a control variant with a variant treated with Agriful. The results showed that Agriful significantly increased root weight, yield, antioxidant capacity (measured using DPPH, FRAP, and ABTS methods), and polyphenol content in all varieties tested. The most significant improvement in all monitored parameters was observed in the ’Kulatá černá’ variety. On the contrary, the least significant improvement in the monitored parameters was observed in the ’Red Meat’ variety. The results indicate the potential of Agriful to increase the nutritional and yield parameters of radish production and to provide an organic alternative to synthetic inputs.

1. Introduction

Increasing demands for sustainability in agriculture require alternative approaches to plant nutrition that reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers while promoting crop growth, yield, and nutritional value. In this context, biostimulants, especially humic substances, are proving to be effective tools for improving plant agronomic parameters and their resistance to stress factors [1,2]. Humic biostimulants are organic compounds obtained from natural sources such as leonardites or composts, and their action includes improving nutrient availability, stimulating physiological processes, and promoting the activity of soil microorganisms [3,4].
Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) is a fast-growing crop of the Brassicaceae family, known not only for its ease of cultivation but also for its high content of bioactive compounds with positive effects on health [5]. It contains a wide spectrum of polyphenols, glucosinolates, and other antioxidants that may contribute to protecting against oxidative stress and reducing the risk of some chronic diseases [6,7]. Although radish is part of various dietary crops, its commercial cultivation remains limited in some regions, with only 57.15 ha cultivated in the Slovak Republic in 2024 [8]. Improving the yield and nutritional profile of this crop by using natural biostimulants could increase its economic and health importance.
The effect of humic substances on plant growth has been demonstrated in various studies, where it has been shown that they can improve photosynthetic activity, increase mineral nutrient uptake, and stimulate the synthesis of secondary metabolites [9,10]. Several works suggest that the application of humic biostimulants can positively affect the quality parameters of root crops such as carrot (Daucus carota L.) or beet (Beta vulgaris L.) [11]. Nevertheless, there are still relatively few studies investigating their specific effect on radishes, especially under small-plot experimental conditions.
The objective of this study was to ascertain the impact of the humic biostimulant Agriful on the growth and development of diverse R. sativus L. varieties while monitoring its influence on the content of total polyphenols and antioxidant capacity (AC), as well as its yield parameters in comparison to a control variant that did not receive biostimulant application. In this way, we can contribute to the optimization of radish cultivation, thereby ensuring a more favorable position for radish on the market. By elucidating the interaction between the Agriful biostimulant and diverse varieties of R. sativus L., we can gain insight into optimizing radish cultivation for enhanced nutritional value, health benefits, and increased yield production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Locality

The small-plot field experiment with radish was conducted on medium-heavy soil, categorized as Fluvisol [12], at the Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovak Republic in 2021 and 2022.
The experimental site is situated at 144 m above sea level. Based on the long-term climatic normal (1991–2020), this area is considered one of the warmest and driest regions in the Slovak Republic. Table 1 compares the average air temperature and precipitation during the experimental years with the mentioned climatic normal.
Before the experiment in each year, soil analysis was carried out, where parameters such as pH (determined colorimetrically using Nessler’s reagent [13]) and humus content resp. organic matter (using Tjurin method [14]), mineral nitrogen content (determined using the flow injection spectrometric method [15]), phosphorus (colorimetrically and Mehlich II), potassium (flamm photometry and Mehlich II), calcium, magnesium (using atomic absorption spectrophotometry and Mehlich II) and sulfur (nephelometrically through ammonium octane) [13]. The results are presented in Table 2.

2.2. Used Varieties

Three varieties of R. sativus L. were used in the study (Figure 1): Two radish varieties with characteristic black skin ’Nero Tondo d’Inverno’ (Figure 1a) and ’Kulatá černá’ (Figure 1b), were used. Theywere randomly selected according to the seed availability in the market and subsequently used in field experiments. The variety ’Red Meat’ (Figure 1c) was selected due to its unusual internal root color, with the hypothesis that it might have a higher nutritional value. The basic characteristics of the radish varieties were assessed using the currently valid UPOV descriptor [16] from ten randomly selected roots. The characteristics of the tested varieties are presented in Table 3.

2.3. Experimental Organization

The total area of the field experiment with beetroot was 21.3 m2 (7 × 3.1 m), including pathways. The experimental area was divided into two main blocks: the control and Agriful treatment. In both treatments, three rows/replications of individual radish cultivars were sown at a distance of 0.3 m. Between cultivars in the treatment, the inter-row distance was 0.5 m. The experimental units consisted of replication (30 plants), followed by variety (90 plants per cultivar), and then treatment (270 plants for each treatment). The experiment was established by sowing to a depth of 20 mm on 10 August 2021 and 15 August 2022. Two weeks before sowing, the herbicide ’Stomp’ (active substance pendimethalin) was applied to prevent the germination of weeds that could compete with the radish plants during their early growth stages. After sowing, the experimental plots were immediately covered with white, non-woven textiles to protect the young plants from pests, particularly flea beetles from the genus Phyllotreta. No disease control was needed. Manual hoeing was performed four times during the experiment to break the soil crust and remove weeds on three specific dates. Sprinkler irrigation was used for additional watering based on the weather conditions.
Based on the soil analyses conducted before the experiment (Table 2), no additional nutrient supply was required, as the soil nutrient content was adequate for radish cultivation. Within the experiment, the application of soil biostimulant ’Agriful’ (AgriTecon Fertilizantes S. L., Valencia, Spain) was tested and compared to the control treatment. Used biostimulant is based mostly on the abundance of humic substances, and available data about its composition are the following: humic (25%) and fulvic (25%) acids, nitrogen (4.5%), phosphorus (1%), potassium oxide (1%) and other organic substances (45%); pH 4.7. Information about the more detailed composition of used biostimulant preparation is proprietary of its production company. Therefore, it cannot be disclosed (Organix, 2022). The biostimulant ’Agriful’ (50 mL/10 L H2O/10 m2) was applied immediately after radish sowing and then in two-week intervals (25 August 2021, 8 September 2021, 22 September 2021; 30 August 2022, 13 September 2022, 27 September 2022).
The radish roots were harvested manually on 18 October 2021 and 25 October 2022. Immediately after harvest, the leaves and soil residues were removed from the roots. Subsequently, they were subjected to analyses of quantitative and qualitative parameters.

2.4. Quantitative Parameters

Average root weight per plant and yield were evaluated as quantitative parameters. After harvesting and cleaning the roots, all roots in each replicate were weighed using a digital balance (Digi DS-530, Teraoka Seiko, Tokyo, Japan) at laboratory temperature. Subsequently, the average weight of root per plant was determined, which was calculated based on the harvest of each replicate as the sum of the weights of all roots of that replicate/total number of roots of the replicate.
The yield was calculated as the total weight of the repeat (kg)/area of the repeat (0.9 m2), giving the yield expressed as kg/m2. Subsequently, the yield per ha (t/ha) was recalculated according to the clamp used and the resulting plant density.

2.5. Qualitative Parameters

An average sample was prepared for each analysis. In each repetition of both tested treatments, ten randomly selected radish roots were quartered, and opposite sections were used for qualitative analysis. Initially, the radish samples intended for ACAC and TPC determination were lyophilized at −55 °C for five days at the Institute of Nutrition and Genomics, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (ilShin TFD 5503, ilShin BioBase Europe BV, Ede, Netherlands).
The AC of radish was determined spectrophotometrically using the DPPH, FRAP, and ABTS methods at the Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovak Republic. The DPPH method [17] measures the electron-donating ability of antioxidants to neutralize the DPPH (2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) radical (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MI, USA). The ABTS method Paulová et al., 2004 [18] evaluates the AC to scavenge the stable ABTS+ radical cation (2,2′-azinobis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid)) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MI, USA), while the FRAP method Paulová et al., 2004 [18] assesses the reduction of ferric ion (Fe3+) complexes to ferrous ion (Fe2+) complexes (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
The total polyphenol content (TPC) in radish roots was analyzed at the Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovak Republic. The TPC was determined using the method described by Fernández et al., 2005 [19]. Sample absorbance was measured at a wavelength of 765 nm against a blank using a ’Shimadzu UV/VIS-1240 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Duisburg, Germany). The TPC of radish was subsequently expressed in milligrams of gallic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) equivalent (GAE) per kilogram (mg GAE/kg).

2.6. Data Analyses

The experiment utilized a multifactorial design, considering the variety (‘Kulatá černá’, ‘Nero Tondo d‘Inverno’, and ‘Red Meat’) and biostimulant treatment (Agriful) as factors. Multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the independent effects of these factors and their interactions on both quantitative and qualitative parameters. The analyzed factors included the variety, treatment, and year of cultivation. This design allowed for an examination of how different treatments influenced each variety, as well as how these effects varied across different years. Some results indeed reflected data where multiple years and yields were combined. In such cases, one-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the overall effects of the treatment when summarized across various variables. Our aim was to provide a holistic view of the data, capturing the combined impact of the treatment over two years of experimentation. Mean values were tested using Tukey’s HSD test, conducted at a 95% significance level (p ≤ 0.05). Statistical analysis was performed using Statgraphics Centurion XVII software (StatPoint Inc., Warrenton, VA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Impact of Humus Biostimulant (Agriful) on Quantitative and Qualitative Parameters of R. sativus

Multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the effect of different factors (year, variety, treatment) on the agronomic and nutritional parameters studied (Table 4).
The Agriful biostimulant treatment had a highly significant effect on agronomic parameters (α < 0.01) and also on polyphenol content (α < 0.01). An important effect of treatment was also observed on the antioxidant capacity measured by DPPH (α < 0.01), while the impact on ABTS and FRAP was not statistically significant (α > 0.05). The year of the experiment had a highly significant effect on all parameters studied (α < 0.01), similarly to the variety.
The use of the Agriful biostimulant resulted in a significant increase in the average root weight compared to the control (Table 5). The average root weight over two years for the treated variant was 89.16 g, an increase of 35.6% over the control (65.74 g). The average yield over two years also increased with Agriful application to 2.54 t/ha, while that of the control was 1.87 t/ha.
The total polyphenol content over two years was significantly higher in treated plants (4069.7 mg GAE/kg) compared to controls (3688.9 mg GAE/kg). A significant increase in AC was observed with the DPPH method where values reached 26.97 µmol TE/g as compared to 23.47 µmol TE/g in the control variant.
In the context of the effect of the Agriful treatment on a particular variety, the most significant effect of an increase in agronomic parameters was observed for the varieties ’Kulatá černá’ and ’Nero Tondo d’Inverno’. In nutritional parameters, the variety of ’Red Meat’ stood out (Table 6). The increased nutritional parameters in the ’Red Meat’ variety could also be supported by the cultivar difference expressed in Figure 1 and Table 3.

3.2. Interactions Between Experimental Factors

3.2.1. Interaction of Treatment and Year (T × Y)

The effect of treatment on agronomic parameters (average root weight and yield) was significant in 2022 (Table 7). These findings correlate with the data presented in Table 1, which show that 2022 was a more favorable year in terms of temperature and precipitation. In 2021, the effect of treatment was less marked, although this year also showed a significant improvement over the control. The effect of treatment on nutritional parameters (AC and TPC), although an increase in each parameter was observed, was not statistically significant.

3.2.2. Interaction of Treatment and Variety (T × V)

The most significant increase in the average root weight over two years of 36.3% compared to the control was observed for the variety ’Kulatá černá’ (Table 8). The highest yield was obtained for the variety ’Nero Tondo d’Inverno’, where the application of the biostimulant led to an increase in yield of 34.8% over two years compared to the control. The polyphenol content was highest in the ’Red Meat’ variety in combination with the biostimulant. AC increased significantly in the ’Red Meat’ variety. The increased nutritional parameters in the Red Meat variety could also be supported by the cultivar difference expressed in Figure 1 and Table 3.

3.2.3. Interactions Between Treatment, Variety, and Year (T × V × Y)

In terms of ANOVA for the three interactions, a highly significant effect could be confirmed for all parameters examined, except for the average root weight and yield (Table 4). There were significant differences among the variations, but as highlighted in Table 9, the average root weight was the highest in the TVY A–‘Kulatá černá’–2022 interaction. The highest yield was obtained in the TVY A–‘Nero Tondo d’Inverno’–2022 interaction. On the other hand, the highest values of quality parameters were recorded in the TVY A–‘Red Meat’–2022 interaction.

4. Discussion

The HP increases nutrient availability and promote the growth of R. sativus L. through several mechanisms. One key process is nutrient mobilization, whereby HP forms stable complexes with iron (Fe) and phosphate (P), thereby increasing their solubility and availability in the soil. This mechanism is particularly important in soils with higher pH where Fe solubility is limited [20,21]. The results support this mechanism, as the application of the biostimulant Agriful, which contains humic substances, led to a significant increase in root weight for all varieties studied, with an average increase of 35.6% over the control, indicating better nutrient availability and more efficient Fe and P uptake. In addition to improved nutrient availability, HP also affects the root system morphology. HP affects changes in root architecture, where HP stimulates root growth by increasing root size, branching, and root hair density, which increases the efficiency of nutrient uptake. Alternatively, hormonal signaling, where H+-ATPase activity is stimulated by HP, thereby improving nutrient uptake through increased electrochemical gradients across root membranes [3]. This mechanism may also explain the results, since in the case of the experimental variant, the average root weight after Agriful application increased. This positive effect of the biostimulant on root growth is in agreement with the results of Öztürk and Kibar [22], who observed an improvement in the growth of the ’Rolex F1’ radish when humic acids were applied in substrate. Among the varieties studied, the most significant increase in the average root weight over two years was observed for ’Kulatá černá’ (36.3% increase). Similar effects of hormone regulation were also reported by Hussain et al. [23], who observed a significant increase in root weight in ’Red Dragon’ and ’Red Meat’ varieties when humic acids were applied at a dose of 100 kg/ha. In addition to normal growing conditions, humic substances proved to be effective under stress factors. Elkhatib et al. [24] investigated the response of ’Balady’ radish to cadmium stress and reported an improvement in root growth after the application of humic acids. The results suggest a similar trend, as under more favorable growing conditions in 2022, including more stable rainfall and higher temperatures, we observed higher absolute root weight values in all varieties. While the differences between the control and the Agriful variant remained very similar, the highest yield was obtained for the variety ’Nero Tondo d’Inverno’, where Agriful application led to an increase of 34.8% over the control.
This suggests that the biostimulant not only promotes root growth under optimal conditions but may also provide benefits in different growing environments.
Biostimulants containing humic substances show positive effects on plant development, including improved nutrient availability and root growth, which can increase radish yield [25]. Barzegar et al. [11] studied the effect of HAs on the yield of ’Watermelon’ radish. In their results, they reported that the application of HAs had a positive impact on the yield parameters of sown radish, with an increase in the number of leaves per plant, leaf area size, root diameter, fresh biomass weight, total yield, and root strength. These findings align with our results, as Agriful significantly increased R. sativus L. yield in all varieties studied and in both years of the experiment, with an average yield increase to 2.54 t/ha compared to 1.87 t/ha in the control. The results confirm these findings, as the application of the biostimulant Agriful significantly increased R. sativus L. yield in all varieties studied and in both years of the experiment. The most significant effect was observed in 2022. In their research, Rased et al. [26] point to the interaction effects of humic acid and mineral fertilizer applications. In their work, they observed an increase in leaf fresh weight, leaf area, root fresh weight, and root diameter of radish ’Vikima’ due to the application of humic acid during its cultivation. Sahu et al. [27] found that seed treatment by pre-soaking in humic acid combined with foliar application of 95% humic acid solution to radish crop resulted in an 82.34% increase in total root yield compared with the control, where seeds were treated with distilled water and no humic acid was applied to the crop. Although studies did not focus on the effect of pre-sowing treatments, the results of Agriful soil application indicate a significant effect of humic substances on radish yield.
The biostimulatory properties of HPs, such as Agriful, are attributed to carboxyl and phenolic hydroxyl groups, which affect plant growth and antioxidant responses [28]. The application of HPs has been demonstrated to enhance the activity of enzymes involved in the ascorbate-glutathione cycle, thereby increasing the overall AC of the plant [29,30]. The results confirm these findings, as Agriful application led to a significant increase in polyphenol content across all radish varieties (4069.7 mg GAE/kg vs. 3688.9 mg GAE/kg in the control) and a significant increase in AC measured by the DPPH method (26.97 µmol TE/g vs. 23.47 µmol TE/g in the control), while the impact on ABTS and FRAP was not statistically significant. These findings have been corroborated by other authors in studies utilizing humic substances. It was demonstrated that the application of biostimulants can enhance the AC of plants, as humic substances stimulate the production of phenolic compounds and other bioactive substances that facilitate the neutralization of free radicals [31]. It has been demonstrated that humic substances can facilitate the uptake of nutrients and their conversion into antioxidant compounds, thereby enhancing the overall defense mechanism of plants against oxidative stress. In the ABTS method, a synergistic effect between the biostimulant and natural plant mechanisms is frequently observed, resulting in an enhanced antioxidant response [32]. As with the DPPH and ABTS methods, the application of humic biostimulants, such as Agriful, has been observed to result in an increase in antioxidant concentration within the plants, as evidenced by a higher FRAP value. This increase may be attributed to the capacity of humic substances to facilitate biological processes associated with the synthesis of secondary metabolites, such as polyphenols and flavonoids, which possess high reducing capacity [31]. Furthermore, it has been proposed that different plant varieties may exhibit disparate responses to biostimulants, potentially influencing their efficacy [9]. Yakhin et al. [10] also suggest that the efficacy of biostimulants may vary depending on previous applications and varietal variability.
The application of humic biostimulants has been demonstrated to enhance the TPC of crops through a range of mechanisms. These mechanisms include, primarily, phytohormonal regulation, whereby HPs exhibit auxin- and gibberellin-like activities that promote root growth and nutrient uptake, which are critical for polyphenol synthesis. The subsequent improvement in root morphology and surface area facilitates enhanced nutrient uptake, which in turn indirectly promotes polyphenol production [33]. Another mechanism is the alleviation of stress, whereby HA assists plants in coping with biotic and abiotic stresses that may otherwise impede the accumulation of polyphenols. This alleviation of stress permits a greater investment of metabolic resources in secondary metabolites, including polyphenols [25,34]. Finally, metabolic stimulation is involved in this mechanism, whereby HA application increases the activity of key enzymes such as phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), which is vital for the biosynthesis of phenolic compounds [33,35]. These findings are reflected in our results, where the variety ’Red Meat’ showed the highest polyphenol content and the most significant increase in AC in response to Agriful application. Furthermore, HA has been demonstrated to enhance overall metabolic processes, resulting in elevated production of antioxidant polyphenolic compounds, including flavonols and hydroxycinnamic acids [35]. The available evidence suggests that the application of HAs to plants results in increased enzyme activity, which in turn leads to elevated polyphenol and flavonoid production. These compounds play a pivotal role in the plant’s defense mechanisms [36]. This corroborates findings that the application of Agriful resulted in an increase in polyphenol content across all radish varieties, which is consistent with the positive effect of humic biostimulants. Furthermore, the increase in polyphenol content in radish may also be beneficial from the perspective of human nutrition. Polyphenols have been demonstrated to function as crucial antioxidants, safeguarding cells from oxidative stress and conferring a reduced risk of chronic diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease [37]. In R. sativus L., the polyphenol content can vary depending on several factors, including the growing conditions, the variety, and the extraction procedure employed [38]. It has been demonstrated that radishes contain considerable quantities of polyphenols, particularly in the leaves and stems, which are frequently disregarded. The polyphenol content of radish leaves and stems exhibited a range of 78.77 to 86.16 mg/g dry extract, indicating the considerable potential of this crop as a source of antioxidants [39]. The results suggest that the application of humic biostimulants such as Agriful may be an effective way to increase the polyphenol content of radish, thereby increasing not only its nutritional value but also its potential health benefits to consumers.
The results indicate that Agriful significantly affected the agronomic parameters of radish, specifically root weight and yield. This effect confirms the importance of biostimulants in improving plant production indicators [40]. Interestingly, the interaction between variety and year had a statistically significant impact on both agronomic parameters, suggesting that climatic conditions and genetic predispositions may influence the effectiveness of the applied biostimulant [41].
On the other hand, nutritional parameters showed varying results depending on the method used for determining AC. Agriful had a significant effect on AC measured by the DPPH method and on TPC, but not on AC measured by the FRAP and ABTS methods. This difference may be due to the various mechanisms these methods use to evaluate antioxidant activity [42]. Significant interactions between factors in all AC measurement methods and in TPC suggest that the effectiveness of Agriful in improving the nutritional quality of radish is conditioned by the complex interplay of different environmental and genetic factors [43].
Overall, the results show that Agriful is an effective biostimulant for improving radish yield, while its impact on nutritional parameters depends on the AC assessment method and interactions between factors. These findings could be important for agricultural practice, as they indicate that the effectiveness of biostimulants may be variable and should be evaluated in a broader context of different cultivation conditions.

5. Conclusions

The growing need for sustainable solutions in agriculture requires effective and environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional agrochemicals. In this context, humic biostimulants represent an important tool that can promote crop growth, improve their nutritional profile, and at the same time, reduce the negative environmental impacts of intensive agriculture. This study focused on the application of the humic biostimulant Agriful in radish cultivation, and the results confirmed its ability to positively affect the agronomic and nutritional parameters of the plants. The importance of this work lies not only in quantifying the effects of the biostimulant but also in the broader context of its applicability in organic and precision agriculture. The results highlight the potential of Agriful as a tool for improving crop quality and yield without the need for increased use of synthetic inputs. Such an approach can contribute to a more sustainable agricultural production model that will be able to respond to the challenges of climate change, land degradation, and the increasing nutritional requirements of the population. Based on the knowledge gained, future research should investigate the long-term effects of the application of humic biostimulants on soil microbiota, plant physiology, and the overall stability of agroecosystems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Š., J.F. and L.G.; methodology, M.Š. and J.F.; validation, M.Š., I.P. and L.G.; formal analysis, M.Š. and L.G.; investigation, M.Š., J.F. and I.P.; resources, M.Š.; data curation, L.G. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.G. and M.Š.; writing—review and editing, L.G., M.Š. and M.S.; visualization, L.G. and M.S.; supervision, M.Š.; funding acquisition, M.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Sport of the Slovak Republic (KEGA), grant number KEGA 004SPU-4/2022, “Interactive Classroom for Horticulture study program in the Context of Innovation of the Current Student’s Teaching Process”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y. Biostimulants in Horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khan, N. Unlocking Innovation in Crop Resilience and Productivity: Breakthroughs in Biotechnology and Sustainable Farming. Innov. Discov. 2024, 1, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L. Physiological Responses to Humic Substances as Plant Growth Promoter. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2014, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Atero-Calvo, S.; Navarro-León, E.; Rios, J.J.; Blasco, B.; Ruiz, J.M. Chapter 6—Humic Substances-Based Products for Plants Growth and Abiotic Stress Tolerance. In Biostimulants in Plant Protection and Performance; Husen, A., Ed.; Plant Biology, Sustainability and Climate Change; Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2024; pp. 89–106. ISBN 978-0-443-15884-1. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gamba, M.; Asllanaj, E.; Raguindin, P.F.; Glisic, M.; Franco, O.H.; Minder, B.; Bussler, W.; Metzger, B.; Kern, H.; Muka, T. Nutritional and Phytochemical Characterization of Radish (Raphanus Sativus): A Systematic Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 113, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khan, R.S.; Khan, S.S.; Siddique, R. Radish (Raphanus sativus): Potential Antioxidant Role of Bioactive Compounds Extracted from Radish Leaves—A Review. Pak. J. Med. Health Sci. 2022, 16, 2–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hernández-Sánchez, L.Y.; González-Trujano, M.E.; Moreno, D.A.; Martínez-Vargas, D.; Vibrans, H.; Hernandez-Leon, A.; Dorazco-González, A.; Pellicer, F.; Soto-Hernández, M. Antinociceptive Effects of Raphanus Sativus Sprouts Involve the Opioid and 5-HT1A Serotonin Receptors, cAMP/cGMP Pathways, and the Central Activity of Sulforaphane. Food Funct. 2024, 15, 4773–4784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Babincová, Z. Súpis Plôch Osiatych Poľnohospodárskymi Plodinami k 20. 5. 2024; Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2024. Available online: http://www.statistics.sk/ (accessed on 8 January 2025)ISBN 978-80-8121-973-3.
  9. Nardi, S.; Pizzeghello, D.; Muscolo, A.; Vianello, A. Physiological Effects of Humic Substances on Higher Plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1527–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yakhin, O.I.; Lubyanov, A.A.; Yakhin, I.A.; Brown, P.H. Biostimulants in Plant Science: A Global Perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barzegar, T.; Mahmoodi, S.; Nekounam, F.; Ghahremani, Z.; Khademi, O. Effects of Humic Acid and Cytokinin on Yield, Biochemical Attributes and Nutrient Elements of Radish (Raphanus Sativus L.) Cv. Watermelon. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 1582–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Polláková, N.; Šimanský, V. Physical Properties of Urban Soil in the Campus of Slovak University of Agriculture Nitra. Acta Fytotech. Zootech. 2015, 18, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kováčik, P.; Uher, A.; Lošák, T.; Takáč, P. Vliv Rychle Fermentovaného Prasečího Hnoje Na Výnosové Parametry Brokolice a Vybrané Půdní Parametry. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2014, 56, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kononova, M.M. Humus of Virgin and Cultivated Soils. In Soil Components: Vol. 1: Organic Components; Gieseking, J.E., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1975; pp. 475–526. ISBN 978-3-642-65915-7. [Google Scholar]
  15. Swify, S.; Mažeika, R.; Volungevičius, J. Mineral Nitrogen Release Patterns in Various Soil and Texture Types and the Impact of Urea and Coated Urea Potassium Humate on Barley Biomass. Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability—Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.); UPOV: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012; Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/mdocs/upov/en/tc_48/tg_63_7_proj_7_tg_64_7_proj_6.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2025).
  17. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C. Use of a Free Radical Method to Evaluate Antioxidant Activity. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Paulová, H.; Bochořáková, H.; Táborská, E. Metody Stanovení Antioxidační Aktivity Přírodních Látek In Vitro. Chem. Listy 2004, 98, 174–179. Available online: http://chemicke-listy.cz/docs/full/2004_04_03.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  19. Fernández, E.C.; Havrland, B.; Lachman, J.; Hejtmánková, A.; Dudjak, J.; Faitová, K. Content of Polyphenolic Antioxidants and Phenolcarboxylic Acids in Selected Organs of Yacon [Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp. et Endl.) H. Robinson]. Sci. Agric. Bohem. 2005, 36, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gerke, J. Review Article: The Effect of Humic Substances on Phosphate and Iron Acquisition by Higher Plants: Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2021, 184, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yuan, Y.; Tang, C.; Jin, Y.; Cheng, K.; Yang, F. Contribution of Exogenous Humic Substances to Phosphorus Availability in Soil-Plant Ecosystem: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 53, 1085–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Öztürk, Y.Ö.; Ki̇Bar, B. Effects of Different Growing Media and Humic Acid Doses on Plant Growth and Quality in Radish. Int. J. Agric. Wildl. Sci. 2023, 9, 334–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hussain, K.; Kiran, M.; Haq, F.; Waseem, K.; Nadeem, M.A.; Ullah, G.; Farid, A.; Aziz, T. Humic Acid as a Growth Booster: Evaluating Its Synergistic Influence on Three Red Radish Varieties. Trends Hortic. 2023, 6, 2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Elkhatib, H.A.; Gabr, S.M.; Brengi, S.H. Impact of Humic Acid Amendments on Alleviating the Harmful Effects of Cadmium in Radish and Bean Plants. Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 2013, 34, 263–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kłeczek, A. Agricultural Use of Natural Biostimulants—Humic Substances: A Rview. Rocz. Ochr. Śr. 2022, 24, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rased, A.; Mashayekhi, K.; Mousavizadeh, S.J.; Ghorbani, A. Growth and Physiological Characters of Radish in Response to Humic Acid Enriched with MS Medium. Hortic. Plants Nutr. 2020, 2, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sahu, J.; Sharma, S.P.; Singh, J.; Deshmukh, U.; Nishad, D.; Mishra, R. Effect of Seaweed Extract and Humic Acid on Yield Parameters of Red Radish. Pharma Innov. J. 2022, 11, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lamar, R.T.; Gralian, J.; Hockaday, W.C.; Jerzykiewicz, M.; Monda, H. Investigation into the Role of Carboxylic Acid and Phenolic Hydroxyl Groups in the Plant Biostimulant Activity of a Humic Acid Purified from an Oxidized Sub-Bituminous Coal. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1328006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yildiztugay, E.; Ozfidan-Konakci, C.; Karahan, H.; Kucukoduk, M.; Turkan, I. Ferulic Acid Confers Tolerance against Excess Boron by Regulating ROS Levels and Inducing Antioxidant System in Wheat Leaves (Triticum aestivum). Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 161, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ozfidan-Konakci, C.; Yildiztugay, E.; Bahtiyar, M.; Kucukoduk, M. The Humic Acid-Induced Changes in the Water Status, Chlorophyll Fluorescence and Antioxidant Defense Systems of Wheat Leaves with Cadmium Stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 155, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nawaz, H.; Shad, M.A.; Muzaffar, S. Phytochemical Composition and Antioxidant Potential of Brassica. In Brassica Germplasm—Characterization, Breeding and Utilization; El-Esawi, M.A., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-78984-241-8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dejanovic, G.M.; Asllanaj, E.; Gamba, M.; Raguindin, P.F.; Itodo, O.A.; Minder, B.; Bussler, W.; Metzger, B.; Muka, T.; Glisic, M.; et al. Phytochemical Characterization of Turnip Greens (Brassica rapa ssp rapa): A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Conselvan, G.B.; Pizzeghello, D.; Francioso, O.; Di Foggia, M.; Nardi, S.; Carletti, P. Biostimulant Activity of Humic Substances Extracted from Leonardites. Plant Soil 2017, 420, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jindo, K.; Olivares, F.L.; da Paixão Malcher, D.J.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Kempenaar, C.; Canellas, L.P. From Lab to Field: Role of Humic Substances Under Open-Field and Greenhouse Conditions as Biostimulant and Biocontrol Agent. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Savarese, C.; Cozzolino, V.; Verrillo, M.; Vinci, G.; De Martino, A.; Scopa, A.; Piccolo, A. Combination of Humic Biostimulants with a Microbial Inoculum Improves Lettuce Productivity, Nutrient Uptake, and Primary and Secondary Metabolism. Plant Soil 2022, 481, 285–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Verhulst, E.P.; Brunton, N.P.; Rai, D.K. Polyphenols in Agricultural Grassland Crops and Their Health-Promoting Activities—A Review. Foods 2023, 12, 4122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arfaoui, L. Dietary Plant Polyphenols: Effects of Food Processing on Their Content and Bioavailability. Molecules 2021, 26, 2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mohamed Abdoul-Latif, F.; Elmi, A.; Merito, A.; Nour, M.; Risler, A.; Ainane, A.; Bignon, J.; Ainane, T. Essential Oils of Ocimum Basilicum L. and Ocimum Americanum L. from Djibouti: Chemical Composition, Antimicrobial and Cytotoxicity Evaluations. Processes 2022, 10, 1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stagnari, F.; Galieni, A.; D’Egidio, S.; Pagnani, G.; Ficcadenti, N.; Pisante, M. Defoliation and S Nutrition on Radish: Growth, Polyphenols and Antiradical Activity. Hortic. Bras. 2018, 36, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Du Jardin, P. Plant Biostimulants: Definition, Concept, Main Categories and Regulation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Calvo, P.; Nelson, L.; Kloepper, J.W. Agricultural Uses of Plant Biostimulants. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prior, R.L.; Wu, X.; Schaich, K. Standardized Methods for the Determination of Antioxidant Capacity and Phenolics in Foods and Dietary Supplements. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 4290–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 00595 g001
Figure 1. Varieties of R. sativus L.: (a) ‘Nero Tondo d’Inverno’; (b) ‘Kulatá černá’; (c) ‘Red Meat’.
Figure 1. Varieties of R. sativus L.: (a) ‘Nero Tondo d’Inverno’; (b) ‘Kulatá černá’; (c) ‘Red Meat’.
Agriculture 15 00595 g001
Table 1. Assessment of the average monthly air temperature in 2021 and 2022 compared with the long-term climatic normal (1991–2020).
Table 1. Assessment of the average monthly air temperature in 2021 and 2022 compared with the long-term climatic normal (1991–2020).
YearMonthT (°C)CN (°C)EvaluationPRC (mm)CN (mm)Evaluation
2021VIII18.421.1very cold12855extraordinary wet
IX15.415.9normal3658dry
X9.310.4normal1846very dry
2022VIII21.921.1normal6055normal
IX13.915.9cold758extraordinary dry
X11.510.4normal4146normal
Notes: T—air temperature; PRC—precipitation; CN—long-term climatic normal (1991–2020).
Table 2. Agrochemical soil analyses before the establishment of the radish experiment.
Table 2. Agrochemical soil analyses before the establishment of the radish experiment.
YearpHHumus (%)Content (mg/kg)
NminPKCaMgS
20217.33.841551986017850679293
20226.94.2919114848057501028275
pH (concentration of hydrogen ions in a substance)—colorimetrically, Nessler reagent; Humus (organic matter)—Tjurin method; Nmin (mineral nitrogen content)—flow injection, spectrometric method; P (phosphorus)—colorimetrically, Mehlich II; K (potassium)—flamm photometry, Mehlich II; Ca (calcium), Mg (magnesium)—atomic absorption spectrophotometry, Mehlich II; S (sulfur)—nephelometrically, ammonium octane.
Table 3. Basic characteristics of used radish varieties.
Table 3. Basic characteristics of used radish varieties.
Characteristics/VarietyKulatá ČernáNero Tondo d’InvernoRed Meat
Root position in the soildeepdeepdeep
Root shapecircularmedium ellipticcircular
Skin colorblackblackwhite
Main pulp colorwhitewhitereddish-purple
Producer of seedsSemo a. s.Semo a. s.Franchi Sementi S.p.A.
Origin countryCzech RepublicCzech RepublicItaly
Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for impact of different sources of variation on agronomic and nutritional parameters of R. sativus.
Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for impact of different sources of variation on agronomic and nutritional parameters of R. sativus.
Source
of
Variation		Agronomic ParametersNutritional Parameters
WYAC-DPPHAC-FRAPAC-ABTSTPC
p-Values
Treatment0.00000.00000.00010.05200.20840.0000
Variety0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
Year0.00000.00000.00080.00000.00000.0000
T × V0.00000.09100.00000.00000.00000.0000
T × Y0.01800.00020.67230.00000.00000.0000
V × Y0.00000.01370.00000.00000.00000.0000
T × V × Y0.73470.54480.00000.00000.00000.0000
T—treatment; V—variety; Y—year of experiment; W—weight of root per plant; Y—yield; AC-DPPH—antioxidant capacity by DPPH method; AC-FRAP—antioxidant capacity by FRAP method; AC-ABTS—antioxidant capacity by ABTS method; TPC—total polyphenol content.
Table 5. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative parameters affected by treatment for both years and all varieties tested in summary.
Table 5. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative parameters affected by treatment for both years and all varieties tested in summary.
ParametersControlAgriful
W (g)65.74 ± 2.23 a89.16 ± 2.45 b
Y (t.ha−1)1.87 ± 0.87 a2.54 ± 1.25 b
DPPH (µmolTE.g−1)23.47 ± 0.22 a26.97 ± 0.50 b
FRAP (µmolTE.g−1)12.71 ± 0.2014.73 ± 0.28
ABTS (µmolTE.g−1)40.63 ± 0.3042.69 ± 0.37
TPC (mgGAE.kg−1)3688.9 ± 22.7 a4069.7 ± 24.3 b
W—weight of root per plant; Y—yield; AC-DPPH—antioxidant capacity by DPPH method; AC-FRAP—antioxidant capacity by FRAP method; AC-ABTS—antioxidant capacity by ABTS method; TPC—total polyphenol content. Lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significant differences among variants determined by Tukey’s HSD test; standard deviation (±SD) is also included.
Table 6. Agronomic and nutritional parameters after Agriful treatment of the three radish varieties used in this study for both years in summary.
Table 6. Agronomic and nutritional parameters after Agriful treatment of the three radish varieties used in this study for both years in summary.
ParametersKulatá ČernáNero Tondo d’InvernoRed Meat
W (g)106.98 ± 3.90 a85.39 ± 1.93 b39.98 ± 1.20 c
Y (t.ha−1)1.94 ± 0.70 a2.86 ± 2.15 b1.82 ± 0.33 a
DPPH (µmolTE.g−1)16.36 ± 0.4 b11.54 ± 0.23 a47.76 ± 0.45 c
FRAP (µmolTE.g−1)4.43 ± 0.25 b4.18 ± 0.18 a32.56 ± 0.30 c
ABTS (µmolTE.g−1)16.06 ± 0.25 b14.87 ± 0.33 a24.05 ± 0.43 c
TPC (mgGAE.kg−1)2275.44 ± 19.0 b2227.14 ± 25.5 a7135.34 ± 104.0 c
W—weight of root per plant; Y—yield; AC-DPPH—antioxidant capacity by DPPH method; AC-FRAP—antioxidant capacity by FRAP method; AC-ABTS—antioxidant capacity by ABTS method; TPC—total polyphenol content. Lowercase letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among varieties determined by Tukey’s HSD test; standard deviation (±SD) is also included.
Table 7. Two-way interactions between experimental year (Y) and Agriful treatment (T).
Table 7. Two-way interactions between experimental year (Y) and Agriful treatment (T).
Interaction
T × Y		W
(g)		Y
(t.ha−1)		DPPH (µmolTE.g−1)FRAP (µmolTE.g−1)ABTS (µmolTE.g−1)TPC (mgGAE.kg−1)
2021C54.26 a1.26 a22.02 a10.44 a45.94 a3615.32 a
A75.33 a1.80 a25.58 a11.69 a49.17 a3907.39 a
2022C77.23 a2.52 b24.91 a14.98 a35.32 a3762.51 a
A102.99 b3.38 c28.36 a17.77 a36.20 a4232.01 a
Weight of root per plant (W), yield (Y), antioxidant capacity by DPPH method (DPPH), FRAP method (FRAP), ABTS method (ABTS), and total polyphenol content (TPC). Treatment variants are labeled as C (control) and A (Agriful). Lowercase letters indicate differences according to HSD Tukey test at level of significance α = 0.05.
Table 8. Two-way interactions between Agriful treatment (T) and variety (V).
Table 8. Two-way interactions between Agriful treatment (T) and variety (V).
T × VW
(g)		Y
(t.ha−1)		DPPH (µmolTE.g−1)FRAP (µmolTE.g−1)ABTS (µmolTE.g−1)TPC (mgGAE.kg−1)
Kulatá ČernáC90.56 a1.70 a14.86 b3.90 a15.42 a2117.15 a
A123.40 b2.24 ab17.87 c4.95 a16.70 a2433.73 b
Nero Tondo d’InvernoC72.54 a2.44 ab10.32 ab3.73 a14.24 a2163.65 a
A98.24ab3.29 b12.76 abc4.62 a15.49 a2290.63 ab
Red MeatC34.13c1.54 a45.22 d30.50 b92.23 b6785.95 c
A45.84c2.23 ab50.29 d34.62 b95.87 b7484.73 d
Weight of root per plant (W), yield (Y), antioxidant capacity by DPPH method (DPPH), FRAP method (FRAP), ABTS method (ABTS), and total polyphenol content (TPC). Treatment variants are labeled as C (control) and A (Agriful). Lowercase letters indicate differences according to HSD Tukey test at level of significance α = 0.05.
Table 9. Three-way interactions between treatment, variety, and experimental year.
Table 9. Three-way interactions between treatment, variety, and experimental year.
Interaction
T × V × Y		W
(g)		Y (t.ha−1)DPPH (µmolTE.g−1)FRAP (µmolTE.g−1)ABTS (µmolTE.g−1)TPC (mgGAE.kg−1)
2021Kulatá ČernáC75.5 d1.12 a16.3 c3.4 a18.4 c2057 a
A106.4 f1.48 ab18.4 c4.3 b19.9 d2361 c
Nero Tondo d’InvernoC57.6 c1.82 b7.8 a3.1 a16.7 b2044 a
A79.9 d2.53 c8.6 a3.3 a18.2 c2107 ab
Red MeatC29.8 a0.85 a42.2 d24.9 d102.8 f6745 e
A39.7 b1.38 ab49.7 e27.5 e109.4 g7254 g
2022Kulatá ČernáC105.7 f2.28 bc13.5 b4.4 b12.5 a2177 b
A140.4 h3.01 d17.3 c5.6 c13.5 a2506 d
Nero Tondo d’InvernoC87.5 e3.05 d12.8 b4.4 b11.8 a2283 c
A116.6 g4.04 e16.9 c5.9 c12.7 a2475 cd
Red MeatC38.5 b2.23 bc48.5 e36.1 f81.7 e6828 f
A52.0 c3.08 d50.9 e41.8 g82.4 e7715 h
Weight of root per plant (W), yield (Y), antioxidant capacity by DPPH method (DPPH), FRAP method (FRAP), ABTS method (ABTS), and total polyphenol content (TPC). Treatment variants are labeled as C (control) and A (Agriful). Lowercase letters indicate differences according to HSD Tukey test at level of significance α = 0.05.
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

Šlosár, M.; Galovičová, L.; Fabianová, J.; Porubská, I.; Schwarzová, M. Effect of Humic Biostimulant Agriful on Agronomic and Nutritional Parameters of Radish (Raphanus sativus). Agriculture 2025, 15, 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060595

AMA Style

Šlosár M, Galovičová L, Fabianová J, Porubská I, Schwarzová M. Effect of Humic Biostimulant Agriful on Agronomic and Nutritional Parameters of Radish (Raphanus sativus). Agriculture. 2025; 15(6):595. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060595

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šlosár, Miroslav, Lucia Galovičová, Júlia Fabianová, Ivana Porubská, and Marianna Schwarzová. 2025. "Effect of Humic Biostimulant Agriful on Agronomic and Nutritional Parameters of Radish (Raphanus sativus)" Agriculture 15, no. 6: 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060595

APA Style

Šlosár, M., Galovičová, L., Fabianová, J., Porubská, I., & Schwarzová, M. (2025). Effect of Humic Biostimulant Agriful on Agronomic and Nutritional Parameters of Radish (Raphanus sativus). Agriculture, 15(6), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060595

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