Next Article in Journal
Hitting the Wall—Sensing and Signaling Pathways Involved in Plant Cell Wall Remodeling in Response to Abiotic Stress
Previous Article in Journal
The CLV-WUS Stem Cell Signaling Pathway: A Roadmap to Crop Yield Optimization
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fertigation: Nutrition, Stimulation and Bioprotection of the Root in High Performance

by
Víctor García-Gaytán
1,*,
Fanny Hernández-Mendoza
2,
Ana Velia Coria-Téllez
1,
Soledad García-Morales
3,
Esteban Sánchez-Rodríguez
1,
Luis Rojas-Abarca
1 and
Hadiseh Daneshvar
4
1
Laboratorio de Análisis y Diagnóstico del Patrimonio (LADIPA), Colegio de Michoacán, A.C., Cerro de Nahuatzen 85, La Piedad 59699, Michoacán, Mexico
2
Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo, Carretera México-Texcoco km 36.5, Montecillo 56230, Texcoco, Estado de México, Mexico
3
CONACYT—Centro de Investigación y Asistencia en Tecnología y Diseño del Estado de Jalisco, Camino Arenero 1227, El Bajío del Arenal, Zapopan 45019, Jalisco, Mexico
4
Collage of Agriculture and Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Karaj 3158777871, Alborz, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2018, 7(4), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7040088
Submission received: 9 July 2018 / Revised: 23 July 2018 / Accepted: 2 August 2018 / Published: 23 October 2018

Abstract

:
Temperature changes, drought, frost, and the presence of pest and diseases place enormous stress on crops, which implies that the potential performance of these crops may be affected. One of the main goals for agronomists, horticulturists, growers, physiologists, soil scientists, geneticists, plant breeders, phytopathologists, and microbiologists is to increase the food production on the same cultivable area and to ensure that they are safe and of high quality. Understanding the biophysical changes in soil will help to manage the crop’s ability to cope with biotic and abiotic stress. Optimization is needed in the nutrition of crops, which involves the use of biostimulants to counter oxidative stress and the management of strain bioformulations (bacteria and fungi) that protect and stimulate roots for the acquisition of nutrients. The implementation of these strategies in fertigation programs improves crop yields. This article addresses the importance of the stimulation and the bioprotection of the root as a fundamental pillar in ensuring the high performance of a crop.

1. Introduction

Redox potential (Eh) and pH are the main drivers of soil–plant–microorganism systems. This was determined based on the hypothesis that the plants function physiologically inside an Eh–pH specific internal rank and alter the Eh–pH of the rhizosphere together with the microorganisms to guarantee cellular homeostasis [1]. This perspective is important in the crop production as it provides us strategies for achieving high yields. It also highlights that the plant nutrition, the temperature extremes, drought, frost, the presence of pest and diseases as well as the use of biostimulants in the fertigation programs for the high production management are necessary. For precision agriculture and the characterization of soil conditions, the Eh–pH electrical conductivity (EC) could be used as an indicator of soil quality [2]. Geneticists and plant breeders are focusing their studies on developing plants with roots that improve the crop productivity under drought conditions, which have specific root characteristics including a thin diameter, specific length, and length density [3]. Architectural traits under genetic control include basal-root gravitropism, adventitious root formation, and lateral branching. This trait is important for the acquisition of phosphorus from infertile soils. Genetic variation in rhizosphere modification through the efflux of protons, organic acids, and enzymes is important for the mobilization of nutrients, such as phosphorus and transition metals, and the avoidance of aluminum toxicity [4]. Plants have diverse organs with different functions and nutritional requirements [5]. Therefore, understanding the root development is of vital agronomic importance [6]. It has been suggested that the distribution of the roots in the soil can be improved through genetic manipulation of the root system architecture by optimizing the absorption of water and nutrients [7]. It is challenging to obtain the measurement of the root architecture in the crops and the evaluation of the changes. It has been previously demonstrated that the changes in roots result in higher efficiency and tolerance to stress [8].

2. Nutrient Solution in Fertigation

The high yield and quality of crops is possible if nutrition is optimized. This includes the composition of the nutritive solution, water supply, nutrient solution temperature, concentration of dissolved oxygen, EC, and nutrient solution pH [9]. A high value of EC (3.5 and 4.5 dS m−1) increases the metabolites that are related to human diet (lycopene, ascorbic acid, phenols content, and antioxidant activity) [10], while an increase in EC reduces fruit cracking [11]. When the roots absorb excessive cations compared to anions, the roots offset this by excreting protons (H+), which generally leads to rhizosphere acidification. When they absorb more anions than cations, the roots excrete hydroxyl (OH). Hydroxyl reacts with carbon dioxide to form bicarbonate (HCO3), which leads to rhizosphere alkalization [12]. Fertigation is widely used in commercial and horticultural agriculture to produce high yield of high quality fruits and vegetables, with the combination of water and nutrients determined to be the key to success. Fertigation is not optional but it is indeed necessary for horticultural crops [13]. In fertigation, with the application of 56.4 cm of irrigation water and 3.4 kg ha−1 of urea daily, this results in higher performance of onion crops with less NO3-N leachate [14]. Better efficiency in the use of nutrients and water can be achieved through fertigation. A total of 25% of irrigation water can be saved and 33% more production can be obtained [15], while we can also maintain a low (but constant) nutrient level in soil solution, which is principally N [16,17]. An increase in fertigation frequency will allow us to reduce the concentration of immobile macronutrients, such as P, K, and micronutrients, and decrease environmental pollution [18]. Considering that nutrient leaching by fertigation is possible, the applied nutrients should not be submitted to excessive irrigation during application or in further irrigation [19]. Micronutrients, such as Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu, may be applied through the irrigation system in chelated traces without causing any precipitation [20]. Through adequate management, it is possible to increase water use efficiency (WUE) by 25–40%. At the field level, these changes significantly increase the crop yield [21]. The nitrogenous fertilizers in the majority of crops is the most expensive, demanding and limiting ingredient for obtaining high yield, while the phosphate content varies at the soil micro-spatial level. Therefore, roots need to develop continuously to reach new soil sectors that are high in P [22]. P is the most immobile of the nutrients and K is relatively immobile, while Ca and Mg have an intermediate mobility [23]. The availability of N, P, K, and S limits low-input agriculture, while the phytoavailability of Fe, Zn, and Cu limits the crop production on alkaline and lime soil. Furthermore, P, Mg, Ca, and K deficiencies as well as Al and Mn proton toxicity limit the crop production in acid soil. Consequently, the development of genotypes that have a higher capacity for nutritional acquisition must increase yields in infertile soil [24]. Nutrient acquisition efficiency in soil is influenced by root proliferation, exuded carriers for nutrient activation, symbiotic associations, massive water flow, and ion spread over root surface [25,26]. Crop nutrition optimization in fertigation must involve a good balance of anion and cation, pH control, and EC of nutrient solution. The EC of this solution will be calculated based on the physico-chemical properties of soil and water quality. A challenge for agronomists in the world involves minimizing biotic or abiotic stress impact, which will be achieved through the usage of stimulants (vegetable or animal origin) and bioprotection (fungi and bacteria) in roots for a higher nutrient acquisition and high crop production as shown on Figure 1.

3. Biostimulants Usage in Crops

Another strategy for achieving high yields involves the usage of biostimulants, which include the vitamins and enzymes that are easily metabolized by microorganisms [27]. Biostimulants improve metabolic efficiency to induce an increase in yields and enhancement in crop quality; increase the plants’ tolerance and abiotic stress retrieval; and ease absorption, translocation and nutrient usage. Furthermore, this results in better quality attributes of products, including sugar content and color. Improving certain physicochemical properties of soil and building soil microorganism development contribute to the production of low-input crop [28,29]. Algae extract, protein hydrolyzates, humic and fulvic acids, and other compound mixtures have properties that are better than basic nutrition. They often improve growth and stress tolerance. Furthermore, all are vegetable biostimulants or bioefectors [30]. Biostimulant action is diverse, but it can include N metabolism activation, P release on soil, stimulation of soil microbial activity, and root stimulation [31].

3.1. Seaweed Extract

For the production of biostimulants, seaweed contains cytokines and auxins, which are essentially trace amounts of plant hormones [32,33,34,35]. The biologically active compounds that are transferred from seaweed biomass to the liquid phase during its fabrication include: polysaccharides, proteins, fatty acids, pigments, polyphenol, and minerals [36]. Mineral trace amounts present in seaweed extract act as enzymatic enhancers [34]. The benefits of seaweed application in the agricultural field are numerous: they stimulate germination, plant growth, root and stem elongation, water and nutrient absorption, frost resistance, biological control against phytopathogenic organisms, and contaminated soil remediation [37]. Micro-algae extract has a biostimulant effect in from the expression of characteristics of the roots and the genes related to nutrient acquisition [38]. In hydroponic systems, the micro-algae aggregation from the nutritive solution is possible as its use encourages the good development of the plants [39] and increases leaf photochemical efficiency, root length and dry weight, carbohydrates, K, Ca, and proline [40]. They have positive effects on attainment and profitability, while they also improve the content of proteins in corn grain under stress conditions [41,42]. In soy, the use of seaweed increased yield and a better absorption of N, P, K, Ca, and S was observed [43]. Furthermore, they have a reductive effect on abiotic stress, such as salinity, extreme temperatures, nutrient deficiency, and drought [44].
Seaweed and algae extract enhance the soil health by improving the capacity of moisture retention and developing microbe growth [45]. This improves the overall quality and certain characteristics, which includes: size, color, firmness, total soluble solids, ascorbic acid level, and minerals in tomato [46,47]. In corn, the algae extracts mainly stimulated the root growth, the nutrition uptake, the esterase activity, and sugar content [48]. New research proves that algae extract that is fortified with polysaccharides from the same algae resource can efficiently develop the growth of beans and tomato [49], while the combination of algae extract and 5-aminolevulinic acid increased flavonoid and antioxidants accumulation in Asparagus aethiopicus L. in saline [50].

3.2. Protein Hydrolyzates

Protein hydrolyzates are a group of important biostimulants that are based on a mixture of peptides and amino acids, which can be of vegetable or animal origin [51,52]. Protein hydrolyzates relieve the negative effects of abiotic stress from salinity, drought and heavy metals, and can stimulate the plant microbiome [53]. Under saline conditions, hydrolyzates increase yield in fresh, dry biomass and dry root weight in lettuce [54]. Hydrolyzate application in tomatoes improved the concentration of K and Mg in the leaf and net assimilation of CO2 [55]. Besides, they have a similar effect to auxins and gibberellin as they induce higher absorption of N and yield of corn, pea, and tomato [51]. With the application of 2.5 and 5.0 mL L−1, the percentage of germination, weight, and height in soy, tomato, and corn seedlings were improved [56].

3.3. Humic Acids

Humic acids are macromolecules that are a compound of humic substances. Commercial humic acids are extracted from the peat, which can be produced by fermentation and polymerization/condensation reactions. The humic substances are soluble in alkaline solutions, partially soluble in water and insoluble in acidic solutions [57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. The more labile and functionalized fraction of humic substances is responsible for root emission, while the more recalcitrant and less functionalized fraction of humic acids is related to root growth [64]. The most recalcitrant structures of the humic acids improve the preservation of organic matter in sandy soil [65]. Humic acids have a significant effect on soil fertility and are vital in the establishment of biotic and abiotic interactions in the plant’s rhizosphere [66]. The use of humic acids in the nutrient solution improves the root growth, with the absorption of nutrients including Ca, and increases the shelf life in Gerbera jamesonii L. [67]. When they are applied to soil, leaves, or before seeding, they significantly improve the grain yield in Vigna radiata L. [68], induce lateral root formation, and stimulate the micronutrient and macronutrient assimilation [69]. Furthermore, they induce tolerance to environmental stress [70] and successfully eliminates stress toxicity produced by Cd by modulating the status of water, photosynthetic apparatus, and antioxidant activity [71].

3.4. Phosphites (Phi)

Phi is a reduced form of phosphate (Pi), which is widely used as commercial fungicide and fertilizer or as biostimulants [72]. Phi is easily absorbed and transported through the xylem and the phloem to all parts of the plant and can be applied in many ways to the crops, such as fertigation, foliar spraying, log spraying, log injecting, surrow injecting, and soil flooding [73]. Potassium phosphite (KPhi) can be used as a protection strategy in crops against pathogens [74]. Phi improved and provided protection to cucumber plants against Pythium ultimum, and induced major yield and growth. The foregoing was related with higher induction of antioxidant enzymes (peroxidases, superoxide, dismutase and catalasas) [75]. Phi increase the positive regulation of various defense genes in jasmonate, salicylic acid and ethylene routs against Phytophthora [76]. Besides, it has an antibiotic effect on mycelial growth and the production of zoospores of the oomycete [77]. KPhi improves resistance through increasing the expression of defense molecules. The first events unleashed by KPhi are related to the enhancement of the cell wall. At the same time, the transcription factors StNPR1 and StWRKY act as coordinating amplifiers in the cascade in defense signaling [78]. Oxidative stress caused by UV–B radiation is reduced in plants that are pretreated with KPhi as this increases the defense mechanisms [79]. The application of KPhi before infection by pathogens efficiently activates the antioxidant system and eliminates the reactive oxygen species [80]. There was an increase in the flower number, foliar area, and P concentration in cucumbers [81]. Recently, innovative and promising research has been carried out on cotton plants. Transgenic cotton plants expressing the bacterial dehydrogenase phosphite gene (ptxD) are able to acquire the capacity to convert Phi into orthophosphate (Pi, the metabolizable form of phosphorus). Such plants allow for a selective fertilization scheme that is based on Phi as the sole source of P for the crop while offering an effective alternative for suppressing weed growth [82]. This technology has the potential to prevent the overuse of the limited Pi reserve and is environmentally sound. The Phi fertilizer use efficiency is close to 100% due its high solubility, reduced reactivity with soil components and non-utilization by most soil bacteria. These characteristics make Phi superior to conventional phosphate-based fertilization [73]. Using phosphite as a dual fertilizer and herbicide may mitigate the overuse of phosphorus fertilizers and reduce eutrophication and the development of herbicide resistance, which in turn will improve the sustainability of agriculture [83].

3.5. Plant Hormones

The use of plant hormones in crops is also a strategy to achieve high yields. For example, the application of indol-3-butyric acid (AIB) through fertigation at 0.5 L ha−1 doses increased pepper yields [84]. When auxins are applied in fertigation, the yield is significantly higher [85]. However, the response differed in growing melons (Cucumis melo L.) because the auxin application did not improve yield and the nutrients in crops [86]. Auxins play a crucial role in the regulation and development of different organs, including the root. They work as long- and short-distance signals and they coordinate cellular proliferation, cellular elongation, cellular differentiation, and endo-replication [87,88,89]. The response of the root architecture to nutrients can be modified through growth regulators, which suggests that nutritional control in root development can be mediated by changes in the synthesis and hormonal carriage [90]. It has been suggested that abscisic acid (ABA) accumulation modulates auxin carriage in the root, thus fostering root growth under water stress [91]. The lateral root formation and emergence in response to the phosphate availability is mediated by auxins [92]. Cytokinins regulate the auxin distribution in the root apical meristem [93] and function as a key regulator in stress tolerance [94].

4. Bioprotection in Plants

The microbial activity also stimulates plant growth through hormonal signaling, while plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) increase nutrient bioavailability in the soil and carbon cycle [22,95,96,97,98,99]. Most of the plants have an additional mechanism of nutrient acquisition (particularly N and P) [100,101,102]. These include beneficial microorganisms, such as bacteria, and fungi, which can be free-living, rhizospheric, or endosymbiotic [29]. The interaction between fungi and host plants is principally part of a nutrient acquisition strategy as the mycorrhizal fungi improve the nutrient absorption for plant growth. Therefore, the fungi is compensated by C compounds derived from photosynthesis [22,100]. At a defined pH range, the soil microorganisms may develop. For example, the bacteria population is higher in neutral soil and lower in acid soil [103]. Soil redox fluctuations, pH, and organic matter regulate N formation by Azospirillum spp. [104]. In phytopathogenic fungi, the Aphanomyces cochlioides and Pythium spp. impact was minor with an increase in pH [105]. When soil pH is increased to 7.0 and clay is added, it is possible to eradicate wilting due to Fusarium oxysporum [106]. On the other hand, the use of Bacillus subtilis can also reduce disease severeness caused by Phytophthora and increase the root length [107]. Other Bacillus genera are capable of reducing the root rotting caused by F. oxysporum by up to 70% [108]. Strain bioformulations of Pseudomonas and Beauveria effectively reduce pest and disease impact [109]. Therefore, its application in the form of special solution in the irrigation head should be considered in fertigation programs as a potential factor in obtaining high yields (Figure 1).

5. Conclusions and Perspective

Recent climate models predict that the impact and duration of drought and stress periods caused by heat are increasing in many regions of the world. This has a negative impact on the main crops, and consequently, the principal challenges at the international level involve improving the yield of crops under biotic and abiotic stresses. Furthermore, the genetic engineering of crop plants for enhanced salt tolerance will be a very important approach. At least 20% of all irrigated lands are salt-affected, with some estimates being as high as 50%. Attempts to improve the salt tolerance of crops through conventional breeding programs have met with very limited success due to the complexity of traits as salt tolerance is genetically and physiologically complex. Molecular genetics and functional genomics provide a new opportunity to combine molecular and physiological knowledge to improve the salinity tolerance of plants relevant to food production and environmental sustainability [110,111,112,113,114]. The current applied technology in food productions is not enough to ensure that the global population is fed. Promising research that enables a new green revolution will be related to root architecture, nutrient absorption, and nitrogen fixation [115]. Projections for agriculture in Mexico due to climate changes indicate that a reduction of 27% in national agro-food production will occur by the year of 2080 [116]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop efficient strategies to ensure food security [117]. Water scarcity is present in many regions of the world. Agriculture consumes around 70% of fresh water at the global level [118]. In areas where the supply of available water limits agriculture production, the issue of deficit irrigation (DI) will gain importance as farmers endeavor to increase the productivity of land. However, due to the limited resources of water, they must cautiously choose crops and irrigation strategies to maximize the crop value and livestock production [119]. According to Yang and Zang [120], it will necessary to improve water use efficiency (WUE) to maintain or even increase crop yield. Hanjra et al. [121] mentioned that the reutilization of wastewater is an issue that needs to be addressed at the global level, but human health and environment protection are insufficient in most of the countries in development. Wastewater reutilization could reduce the water footprint in food production. There is the need to integrate the usage of water reutilization in the governance central framework in order to effectively face the challenges and maximize the potential of this vital resource. The usage of wastewater could be a reliable source for the growth of crops throughout the whole year [122]. It is also necessary to develop new technologies to accelerate the improvement of crops through the enhancement of genotyping and phenotyping and to raise genetic diversity in germplasm [123]. Features that reduce the difference between the potential yield and the real yield in a drought-susceptible environment need to be determined. To achieve this, the main approaches must involve the study of the plant physiology, molecular genetics, and molecular biology [124]. The rapid advance in genomics and proteomics knowledge will indeed be beneficial in refining the methods of transformation and molecular reproduction in order to achieve significant improvement of future crops [125]. In the biostimulants case, the recommendations for future directions of investigation include: finding the most promising substances, isolating active ingredients, and clearly demonstrating the mechanisms that affect the nutrient absorption [126]. The usage of friendly bacteria in combination with humic substances might be useful. For example, its potential has been observed when the plants are subjected to moderate or severe stress. However, there is a lack of studies that have focused on the combined usage of these techniques [127]. Another innovative study has indicated that the application of biostimulants and a low dose of fertilizer (N, P, and K) avoids oxidative stress and improves adaptation to stress conditions without affecting yield [128].
Finally, the high yield management is possible if the agronomic management of soil–plant–microorganism is considered. A challenge for the world’s agronomists involves raising the yield in the same surface while ensuring that the product is safe and of high quality. Adequate management of vegetal nutrition, the usage of biostimulants and strain bio-formulation for the nutrient protection and acquisition must be undertaken in order to achieve this. The use of biostimulants and microorganisms in fertigation programs is necessary since the crops are exposed to temperature changes, drought, frost, pest, and disease exposure. Therefore, offsetting such stress will help to achieve the potential yield in each crop.

Author Contributions

V.G.-G. and F.H.-M. were responsible for the ideation and editing of the article, A.V.C.-T., S.G.-M., E.S.-R., L.R.-A., and H.D. were responsible for the article display.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest

References

  1. Husson, O. Redox potential (Eh) and pH as drivers of soil/plant/microorganism systems: A transdisciplinary overview pointing to integrative opportunities for agronomy. Plant Soil 2013, 362, 389–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Husson, O.; Brunet, A.; Babre, D.; Charpentier, H.; Durand, M.; Sarthou, J.P. Conservation agriculture systems alter the electrical characteristics (Eh, pH and EC) of four soil types in France. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 176, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Comas, L.; Becker, S.; Cruz, V.M.V.; Byrne, P.F.; Dierig, D.A. Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lynch, J.P. Roots of the second green revolution. Aust. J. Bot. 2007, 55, 493–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kiba, T.; Kudo, T.; Kojima, M.; Sakakibara, H. Hormonal control of nitrogen acquisition: Roles of auxin, abscisic acid, and cytokinin. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 62, 1399–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Péret, B.; De Rybel, B.; Casimiro, I.; Benková, E.; Swarup, R.; Laplaze, L.; Beeckman, T.; Bennett, M.J. Arabidopsis lateral root development: An emerging story. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. De Dorlodot, S.; Forster, B.; Pagès, L.; Price, A.; Tuberosa, R.; Draye, X. Root system architecture: Opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops. Trends Plant Sci. 2007, 12, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Meister, R.; Rajani, M.; Ruzicka, D.; Schachtman, D.P. Challenges of modifying root traits in crops for agriculture. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gorbe, E.; Calatayud, A. Optimization of nutrition in soilless systems: A review. In Advances in Botanical Research; Kader, J.C., Delseny, M., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 53, pp. 193–245. ISBN 0065-2296. [Google Scholar]
  10. Moya, C.; Oyanedel, E.; Verdugo, G.; Flores, M.F.; Urrestarazu, M.; Álvaro, J.E. Increased Electrical Conductivity in Nutrient Solution Management Enhances Dietary and Organoleptic Qualities in Soilless Culture Tomato. HortScience 2017, 52, 868–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chrétien, S.; Gosselin, A.; Dorais, M. High electrical conductivity and radiation-based water management improve fruit quality of greenhouse tomatoes grown in rockwool. HortScience 2000, 35, 627–631. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mmolawa, K.; Or, D. Root zone solute dynamics under drip irrigation: A review. Plant Soil 2000, 222, 163–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Malhotra, S.K. Water soluble fertilizers in horticultural crops—An appraisal. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 86, 1245–1256. [Google Scholar]
  14. Rajput, T.; Patel, N. Water and nitrate movement in drip-irrigated onion under fertigation and irrigation treatments. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 79, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Suman, S.; Raina, J. Efficient use of water and nutrients through drip and mulch in apple. J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 37, 2036–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Incrocci, L.; Massa, D.; Pardossi, A. New trends in the fertigation management of irrigated vegetable crops. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mohammad, M.J. Squash yield, nutrient content and soil fertility parameters in response to methods of fertilizer application and rates of nitrogen fertigation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 2004, 68, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Silber, A.; Xu, G.; Levkovitch, I.; Soriano, S.; Bilu, A.; Wallach, R. High fertigation frequency: The effects on uptake of nutrients, water and plant growth. Plant Soil 2003, 253, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Badr, M.; El-Yazied, A. Effect of fertigation frequency from subsurface drip irrigation on tomato yield grown on sandy soil. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2007, 1, 279–285. [Google Scholar]
  20. Solaimalai, A.; Baskar, M.; Sadasakthi, A.; Subburamu, K. Fertigation in high value crops—A review. Agric. Rev. Agric. Res. Commun. Cent. INDIA 2005, 26, 1. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatfield, J.L.; Sauer, T.J.; Prueger, J.H. Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kleinert, A.; Benedito, V.; Morcillo, R.; Dames, J.; Cornejo-Rivas, P.; Zuniga-Feest, A.; Delgado, M.; Muñoz, G. Morphological and Symbiotic Root Modifications for Mineral Acquisition from Nutrient-Poor Soils. In Root Biology; Giri, B., Prasad, R., Varma, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 85–142. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lynch, J.P. Steep, cheap and deep: An ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. White, P.J.; George, T.S.; Dupuy, L.X.; Karley, A.J.; Valentine, T.A.; Wiesel, L.; Wishart, J. Root traits for infertile soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Jungk, A.O. Dynamics of nutrient movement at the soil-root interface. In Plant Roots; CRC Press: Florida, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 919–1016. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chapman, N.; Miller, A.J.; Lindsey, K.; Whalley, W.R. Roots, water, and nutrient acquisition: Let’s get physical. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cadahia, C. Fertirrigación: Cultivos hortícolas, frutales y ornamentales; Mundi-prensa Libros: Madrid, Spain, 2005; ISBN 84-8476-247-5. [Google Scholar]
  28. Calvo, P.; Nelson, L.; Kloepper, J.W. Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Du Jardin, P. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van Oosten, M.J.; Pepe, O.; De Pascale, S.; Silletti, S.; Maggio, A. The role of biostimulants and bioeffectors as alleviators of abiotic stress in crop plants. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yakhin, O.I.; Lubyanov, A.A.; Yakhin, I.A.; Brown, P.H. Biostimulants in plant science: A global perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hamza, B.; Suggars, A. Biostimulants: Myths and realities. TurfGrass Trends 2001, 8, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  33. Stirk, W.; Arthur, G.; Lourens, A.; Novak, O.; Strnad, M.; Van Staden, J. Changes in cytokinin and auxin concentrations in seaweed concentrates when stored at an elevated temperature. J. Appl. Phycol. 2004, 16, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Michalak, I.; Tuhy, Ł.; Chojnacka, K. Seaweed extract by microwave assisted extraction as plant growth biostimulant. Open Chem. 2015, 13, 1183–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bulgari, R.; Cocetta, G.; Trivellini, A.; Vernieri, P.; Ferrante, A. Biostimulants and crop responses: A review. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2015, 31, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chojnacka, K.; Saeid, A.; Witkowska, Z.; Tuhy, L. Biologically active compounds in seaweed extracts—The prospects for the application. Open Conf. Proc. J. 2012, 3, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nabti, E.; Jha, B.; Hartmann, A. Impact of seaweeds on agricultural crop production as biofertilizer. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 14, 1119–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barone, V.; Baglieri, A.; Stevanato, P.; Broccanello, C.; Bertoldo, G.; Bertaggia, M.; Cagnin, M.; Pizzeghello, D.; Moliterni, V.; Mandolino, G. Root morphological and molecular responses induced by microalgae extracts in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 1061–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barone, V.; Puglisi, I.; Fragalà, F.; Piero, A.R.L.; Giuffrida, F.; Baglieri, A. Novel bioprocess for the cultivation of microalgae in hydroponic growing system of tomato plants. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Elansary, H.O.; Yessoufou, K.; Abdel-Hamid, A.M.; El-Esawi, M.A.; Ali, H.M.; Elshikh, M.S. Seaweed extracts enhance Salam turfgrass performance during prolonged irrigation intervals and saline shock. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Trivedi, K.; Anand, K.V.; Kubavat, D.; Kumar, R.; Vaghela, P.; Ghosh, A. Crop stage selection is vital to elicit optimal response of maize to seaweed bio-stimulant application. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 2135–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Trivedi, K.; Anand, K.V.; Kubavat, D.; Patidar, R.; Ghosh, A. Drought alleviatory potential of Kappaphycus seaweed extract and the role of the quaternary ammonium compounds as its constituents towards imparting drought tolerance in Zea mays L. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 2001–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rathore, S.; Chaudhary, D.; Boricha, G.; Ghosh, A.; Bhatt, B.; Zodape, S.; Patolia, J. Effect of seaweed extract on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max) under rainfed conditions. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2009, 75, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Battacharyya, D.; Babgohari, M.Z.; Rathor, P.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khan, W.; Rayirath, U.P.; Subramanian, S.; Jithesh, M.N.; Rayorath, P.; Hodges, D.M.; Critchley, A.T.; Craigie, J.S.; Norrie, J.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants of plant growth and development. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2009, 28, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ali, N.; Farrell, A.; Ramsubhag, A.; Jayaraman, J. The effect of Ascophyllum nodosum extract on the growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato grown under tropical conditions. J. Appl. Phycol. 2016, 28, 1353–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hurtado, A.Q.; Critchley, A.T. A review of multiple biostimulant and bioeffector benefits of AMPEP, an extract of the brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum, as applied to the enhanced cultivation and micropropagation of the commercially important red algal carrageenophyte Kappaphycus alvarezii and its selected cultivars. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ertani, A.; Francioso, O.; Tinti, A.; Schiavon, M.; Pizzeghello, D.; Nardi, S. Evaluation of Seaweed Extracts From Laminaria and Ascophyllum nodosum spp. as Biostimulants in Zea mays L. Using a Combination of Chemical, Biochemical and Morphological Approaches. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hernández-Herrera, R.M.; Santacruz-Ruvalcaba, F.; Zañudo-Hernández, J.; Hernández-Carmona, G. Activity of seaweed extracts and polysaccharide-enriched extracts from Ulva lactuca and Padina gymnospora as growth promoters of tomato and mung bean plants. J. Appl. Phycol. 2016, 28, 2549–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Elansary, H.O. Synergetic effects of 5-aminolevulinic acid and Ascophyllum nodosum seaweed extracts on Asparagus phenolics and stress related genes under saline irrigation. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 129, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Colla, G.; Nardi, S.; Cardarelli, M.; Ertani, A.; Lucini, L.; Canaguier, R.; Rouphael, Y. Protein hydrolysates as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cristiano, G.; Pallozzi, E.; Conversa, G.; Tufarelli, V.; De Lucia, B. Effects of an Animal-Derived Biostimulant on the Growth and Physiological Parameters of Potted Snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Colla, G.; Hoagland, L.; Ruzzi, M.; Cardarelli, M.; Bonini, P.; Canaguier, R.; Rouphael, Y. Biostimulant Action of Protein Hydrolysates: Unraveling Their Effects on Plant Physiology and Microbiome. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lucini, L.; Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Canaguier, R.; Kumar, P.; Colla, G. The effect of a plant-derived biostimulant on metabolic profiling and crop performance of lettuce grown under saline conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 182, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Giordano, M.; El-Nakhel, C.; Kyriacou, M.C.; De Pascale, S. Foliar applications of a legume-derived protein hydrolysate elicit dose-dependent increases of growth, leaf mineral composition, yield and fruit quality in two greenhouse tomato cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 226, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Horii, A.; McCue, P.; Shetty, K. Seed vigour studies in corn, soybean and tomato in response to fish protein hydrolysates and consequences on phenolic-linked responses. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2170–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. De Melo, B.A.G.; Motta, F.L.; Santana, M.H.A. Humic acids: Structural properties and multiple functionalities for novel technological developments. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 62, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. MacCarthy, P. The principles of humic substances: An introduction to the first principle. Spec. Publ. R. Soc. Chem. 2001, 273, 19–30. [Google Scholar]
  59. Motta, F.L.; Santana, M. Production of humic acids from oil palm empty fruit bunch by submerged fermentation with Trichoderma viride: Cellulosic substrates and nitrogen sources. Biotechnol. Prog. 2013, 29, 631–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Sławiñska, D.; Polewski, K.; Rolewski, P.; Sławiñski, J. Synthesis and properties of model humic substances derived from gallic acid. Int. Agrophysics 2007, 21, 199–208. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kiprop, A.; Pourtier, E.; Kimutai, S.; Kirui, S. Synthesis of Humic and Fulvic Acids and their Characterization using Optical Spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR and UV-Visible). Int. J. Appl. 2013, 3, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  62. Klučáková, M.; Pekař, M. Solubility and dissociation of lignitic humic acids in water suspension. Colloids Surf. Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2005, 252, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stevenson, F.J. Humus Chemistry: Genesis, Composition, Reactions; John Wiley & Sons: California, CA, USA, 1994; ISBN 0-471-59474-1. [Google Scholar]
  64. García, A.C.; De Souza, L.G.A.; Pereira, M.G.; Castro, R.N.; García-Mina, J.M.; Zonta, E.; Lisboa, F.J.G.; Berbara, R.L.L. Structure-property-function relationship in humic substances to explain the biological activity in plants. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Martins Gomes, E.T.; Berbara, R.L.L.; Pereira, M.G.; Urquiaga, S.S.; Tavares, O.C.H.; Assunção, S.A.; Zonta, E.; do Amaral Sobrinho, N.M.B.; García, A.C. Effects of farmed managements in sandy soils on composition and stabilization of soil humic substances. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shah, Z.H.; Rehman, H.M.; Akhtar, T.; Alsamadany, H.; Hamooh, B.T.; Mujtaba, T.; Daur, I.; Al Zahrani, Y.; Alzahrani, H.A.; Ali, S. Humic Substances: Determining Potential Molecular Regulatory Processes in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Nikbakht, A.; Kafi, M.; Babalar, M.; Xia, Y.P.; Luo, A.; Etemadi, N. Effect of humic acid on plant growth, nutrient uptake, and postharvest life of gerbera. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 2155–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Waqas, M.; Ahmad, B.; Arif, M.; Munsif, F.; Khan, A.L.; Amin, M.; Kang, S.-M.; Kim, Y.-H.; Lee, I.-J. Evaluation of humic acid application methods for yield and yield components of mungbean. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nardi, S.; Ertani, A.; Francioso, O. Soil–root cross-talking: The role of humic substances. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017, 180, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; Jones, D.L.; Nebbioso, A.; Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A. Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. 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] [PubMed]
  72. Thao, H.T.B.; Yamakawa, T. Phosphite (phosphorous acid): Fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator? Soil Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2009, 55, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Achary, V.M.M.; Ram, B.; Manna, M.; Datta, D.; Bhatt, A.; Reddy, M.K.; Agrawal, P.K. Phosphite: A novel P-fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 1493–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Liljeroth, E.; Lankinen, Å.; Wiik, L.; Burra, D.D.; Alexandersson, E.; Andreasson, E. Potassium phosphite combined with reduced doses of fungicides provides efficient protection against potato late blight in large-scale field trials. Crop Prot. 2016, 86, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mofidnakhaei, M.; Abdossi, V.; Dehestani, A.; Pirdashti, H.; Babaeizad, V. Potassium phosphite affects growth, antioxidant enzymes activity and alleviates disease damage in cucumber plants inoculated with Pythium ultimum. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2016, 49, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dalio, R.J.; Fleischmann, F.; Humez, M.; Osswald, W. Phosphite protects Fagus sylvatica seedlings towards Phytophthora plurivora via local toxicity, priming and facilitation of pathogen recognition. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Liu, P.; Li, B.; Lin, M.; Chen, G.; Ding, X.; Weng, Q.; Chen, Q. Phosphite-induced reactive oxygen species production and ethylene and ABA biosynthesis, mediate the control of Phytophthora capsici in pepper (Capsicum annuum). Funct. Plant Biol. 2016, 43, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Machinandiarena, M.F.; Lobato, M.C.; Feldman, M.L.; Daleo, G.R.; Andreu, A.B. Potassium phosphite primes defense responses in potato against Phytophthora infestans. J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 169, 1417–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Oyarburo, N.S.; Machinandiarena, M.F.; Feldman, M.L.; Daleo, G.R.; Andreu, A.B.; Olivieri, F.P. Potassium phosphite increases tolerance to UV-B in potato. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 88, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ramezani, M.; Rahmani, F.; Dehestani, A. Study of physio-biochemical responses elicited by potassium phosphite in downy mildew-infected cucumber plants. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2017, 50, 540–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Constán-Aguilar, C.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, E.; Rubio-Wilhelmi, M.; Camacho, M.; Romero, L.; Ruiz, J.; Blasco, B. Physiological and nutritional evaluation of the application of phosphite as a phosphorus source in cucumber plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 204–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pandeya, D.; López-Arredondo, D.L.; Janga, M.R.; Campbell, L.M.; Estrella-Hernández, P.; Bagavathiannan, M.V.; Herrera-Estrella, L.; Rathore, K.S. Selective fertilization with phosphite allows unhindered growth of cotton plants expressing the ptxD gene while suppressing weeds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2018, 115, E6946–E6955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Manna, M.; Achary, V.M.M.; Islam, T.; Agrawal, P.K.; Reddy, M.K. The development of a phosphite-mediated fertilization and weed control system for rice. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Lopez-Elias, J.; Salas, M.; Urrestarazu, M. Application of indole-3-butyric acid by fertigation on pepper plants in soilless culture grown in a greenhouse. Acta Hortic. 2004, 697, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Salas, M.; Fernandez, M.; Urrestaraz, M. Sweet pepper yield and fruit quality affected by different auxin application methods. Acta Hortic. 2008, 807, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Salas, M.; Urrestarazu, M.; Lopez, J. Effect of IBA application by fertigation on melon in soilless culture. Acta Hortic. 2003, 609, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tanaka, H.; Dhonukshe, P.; Brewer, P.; Friml, J. Spatiotemporal asymmetric auxin distribution: A means to coordinate plant development. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. CMLS 2006, 63, 2738–2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Friml, J.; Benková, E.; Blilou, I.; Wisniewska, J.; Hamann, T.; Ljung, K.; Woody, S.; Sandberg, G.; Scheres, B.; Jürgens, G. AtPIN4 mediates sink-driven auxin gradients and root patterning in Arabidopsis. Cell 2002, 108, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Takatsuka, H.; Umeda, M. Hormonal control of cell division and elongation along differentiation trajectories in roots. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 2633–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. López-Bucio, J.; Cruz-Ramirez, A.; Herrera-Estrella, L. The role of nutrient availability in regulating root architecture. Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol. 2003, 6, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Xu, W.; Jia, L.; Shi, W.; Liang, J.; Zhou, F.; Li, Q.; Zhang, J. Abscisic acid accumulation modulates auxin transport in the root tip to enhance proton secretion for maintaining root growth under moderate water stress. New Phytol. 2013, 197, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Pérez-Torres, C.-A.; López-Bucio, J.; Cruz-Ramírez, A.; Ibarra-Laclette, E.; Dharmasiri, S.; Estelle, M.; Herrera-Estrella, L. Phosphate availability alters lateral root development in Arabidopsis by modulating auxin sensitivity via a mechanism involving the TIR1 auxin receptor. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 3258–3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Zhang, W.; Swarup, R.; Bennett, M.; Schaller, G.E.; Kieber, J.J. Cytokinin induces cell division in the quiescent center of the Arabidopsis root apical meristem. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, 1979–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Zwack, P.J.; Rashotte, A.M. Interactions between cytokinin signalling and abiotic stress responses. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 4863–4871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Verbon, E.H.; Liberman, L.M. Beneficial microbes affect endogenous mechanisms controlling root development. Trends Plant. Sci. 2016, 21, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Van Der Heijden, M.G.; Bardgett, R.D.; Van Straalen, N.M. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 296–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Mendes, R.; Garbeva, P.; Raaijmakers, J.M. The rhizosphere microbiome: Significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 37, 634–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Jacoby, R.; Peukert, M.; Succurro, A.; Koprivova, A.; Kopriva, S. The role of soil microorganisms in plant mineral nutrition—Current knowledge and future directions. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Jansson, J.K.; Hofmockel, K.S. The soil microbiome—From metagenomics to metaphenomics. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2018, 43, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Smith, S.E.; Read, D.J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Academic press: Massachusetts, MA, USA, 2010; ISBN 0-08-055934-4. [Google Scholar]
  101. Read, D.; Perez-Moreno, J. Mycorrhizas and nutrient cycling in ecosystems–a journey towards relevance? New Phytol. 2003, 157, 475–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hodge, A.; Berta, G.; Doussan, C.; Merchan, F.; Crespi, M. Plant root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 2009, 321, 153–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hinsinger, P.; Bengough, A.G.; Vetterlein, D.; Young, I.M. Rhizosphere: Biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Plant Soil 2009, 321, 117–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Charyulu, P.; Rao, V.R. Influence of various soil factors on nitrogen fixation by Azospirillum spp. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1980, 12, 343–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Payne, P.; Asher, M.; Kershaw, C. The incidence of Pythium spp. and Aphanomyces cochlioides associated with the sugar-beet growing soils of Britain. Plant Pathol. 1994, 43, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Höper, H.; Steinberg, C.; Alabouvette, C. Involvement of clay type and pH in the mechanisms of soil suppressiveness to fusarium wilt of flax. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1995, 27, 955–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lee, K.J.; Kamala-Kannan, S.; Sub, H.S.; Seong, C.K.; Lee, G.W. Biological control of Phytophthora blight in red pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) using Bacillussubtilis. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 1139–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Idris, H.A.; Labuschagne, N.; Korsten, L. Screening rhizobacteria for biological control of Fusarium root and crown rot of sorghum in Ethiopia. Biol. Control 2007, 40, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Karthiba, L.; Saveetha, K.; Suresh, S.; Raguchander, T.; Saravanakumar, D.; Samiyappan, R. PGPR and entomopathogenic fungus bioformulation for the synchronous management of leaffolder pest and sheath blight disease of rice. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Zörb, C.; Senbayram, M.; Peiter, E. Potassium in agriculture–status and perspectives. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Reynolds, M.; Foulkes, M.J.; Slafer, G.A.; Berry, P.; Parry, M.A.; Snape, J.W.; Angus, W.J. Raising yield potential in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 1899–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Pitman, M.G.; Läuchli, A. Global impact of salinity and agricultural ecosystems. In Salinity: Environment–Plants–Molecules; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2002; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  113. Flowers, T. Improving crop salt tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Den Herder, G.; Van Isterdael, G.; Beeckman, T.; De Smet, I. The roots of a new green revolution. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Moyer, M. How much is left? Sci. Am. 2010, 303, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. García-Gaytán, V.; Gómez-Merino, F.C.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I.; Baca-Castillo, G.A.; García-Morales, S. The chilhuacle chili (Capsicum annuum L.) in Mexico: Description of the variety, its cultivation, and uses. Int. J. Agron. 2017, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Pimentel, D.; Berger, B.; Filiberto, D.; Newton, M.; Wolfe, B.; Karabinakis, E.; Clark, S.; Poon, E.; Abbett, E.; Nandagopal, S. Water resources: Agricultural and environmental issues. BioScience 2004, 54, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Geerts, S.; Raes, D. Deficit irrigation as an on-farm strategy to maximize crop water productivity in dry areas. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 1275–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Yang, J.; Zang, J. Crop management techniques to enhance harvest index in rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 3177–3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Hanjra, M.A.; Blackwell, J.; Carr, G.; Zhang, F.; Jackson, T.M. Wastewater irrigation and environmental health: Implications for water governance and public policy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2012, 215, 255–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Dickin, S.K.; Schuster-Wallace, C.J.; Qadir, M.; Pizzacalla, K. A review of health risks and pathways for exposure to wastewater use in agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Tester, M.; Langridge, P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 2010, 327, 818–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Cattivelli, L.; Rizza, F.; Badeck, F.-W.; Mazzucotelli, E.; Mastrangelo, A.M.; Francia, E.; Mare, C.; Tondelli, A.; Stanca, A.M. Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: An integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops Res. 2008, 105, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ashraf, M. Inducing drought tolerance in plants: Recent advances. Biotechnol. Adv. 2010, 28, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Halpern, M.; Bar-Tal, A.; Ofek, M.; Minz, D.; Muller, T.; Yermiyahu, U. The use of biostimulants for enhancing nutrient uptake. In Advances in Agronomy; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 130, pp. 141–174. ISBN 0065-2113. [Google Scholar]
  127. Olivares, F.L.; Busato, J.G.; Paula, A.M.; Lima, L.S.; Aguiar, N.O.; Canellas, L.P. Plant growth promoting bacteria and humic substances: Crop promotion and mechanisms of action. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Koleška, I.; Hasanagić, D.; Todorović, V.; Murtić, S.; Klokić, I.; Parađiković, N.; Kukavica, B. Biostimulant prevents yield loss and reduces oxidative damage in tomato plants grown on reduced NPK nutrition. J. Plant Interact. 2017, 12, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. High crop production in the near future will be done through a good control of nutrient solution. In addition, we should consider stimulants (algae extract, protein hydrolysates, humic acids, phosphites, and phytohormones) and root bioprotection (fungi and bacteria) for greater nutrient acquisition and yield in improving fertigation programs.
Figure 1. High crop production in the near future will be done through a good control of nutrient solution. In addition, we should consider stimulants (algae extract, protein hydrolysates, humic acids, phosphites, and phytohormones) and root bioprotection (fungi and bacteria) for greater nutrient acquisition and yield in improving fertigation programs.
Plants 07 00088 g001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Gaytán, V.; Hernández-Mendoza, F.; Coria-Téllez, A.V.; García-Morales, S.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, E.; Rojas-Abarca, L.; Daneshvar, H. Fertigation: Nutrition, Stimulation and Bioprotection of the Root in High Performance. Plants 2018, 7, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7040088

AMA Style

García-Gaytán V, Hernández-Mendoza F, Coria-Téllez AV, García-Morales S, Sánchez-Rodríguez E, Rojas-Abarca L, Daneshvar H. Fertigation: Nutrition, Stimulation and Bioprotection of the Root in High Performance. Plants. 2018; 7(4):88. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7040088

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Gaytán, Víctor, Fanny Hernández-Mendoza, Ana Velia Coria-Téllez, Soledad García-Morales, Esteban Sánchez-Rodríguez, Luis Rojas-Abarca, and Hadiseh Daneshvar. 2018. "Fertigation: Nutrition, Stimulation and Bioprotection of the Root in High Performance" Plants 7, no. 4: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7040088

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