Next Article in Journal
Morphological Evaluation and Phenolic Content of Wild Prunus cerasifera Ehrh. Fruits from Slovenia
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Efficiency of Glasshouses and Plant Factories for Sustainable Urban Farming in the Desert Southwest of the United States of America
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/horticulturae10101056
horticulturae-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

Increasing Tomato Productivity through Integrated Nutrient Sources and Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Azospirillum spp.

by
Lowell C. Bernados
1,*,
Joven P. Espineli
1,
Julieta A. Anarna
2 and
Nelly S. Aggangan
2,*
1
Department of Agriculture—Bureau of Soils and Water Management (DA-BSWM), Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines
2
National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of the Philippines Los Baños (BIOTECH UPLB), Laguna 4031, Philippines
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(10), 1056; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101056
Submission received: 20 August 2024 / Revised: 18 September 2024 / Accepted: 26 September 2024 / Published: 3 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
An open-field experiment was conducted in Cabuyao, Laguna, Philippines to investigate the effects of combining chemical fertilizers, vermicompost, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Azospirillum spp.) on the growth, nutrient uptake, and yield of tomato plants. The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design replicated four times. The treatments include the recommended rate of chemical fertilizer (RRC) and three integrated nutrient management (INM) strategies. The results revealed that AMF inoculation significantly increased the uptake of P, K, Ca, and Mg while INM 3 recorded the highest N uptake. Treatments with vermicompost application recorded a significantly higher uptake of Cu. INM 1, INM 2, and INM 3 gave a significantly higher fruit yield than the RRC with an increase of 8%, 13%, and 14%, respectively. The percentage of mycorrhizal root colonization and number of rhizosphere spores were higher in mycorrhizal plants. Fruit yield and AMF root colonization were positively correlated with the uptake of several nutrients. INM strategies obtained a higher net income than the current fertilizer recommendation by 4–15%. These findings imply that the INM strategies can increase tomato productivity, reduce the amount of chemical fertilizer inputs, increase profitability, and potentially lead to soil health and environmental benefits.

1. Introduction

Modern agriculture has been intensified to increase crop production and become highly dependent on chemical fertilizers, the excessive or imbalanced use of which can decrease soil productivity and cause environmental problems. The improper use of these fertilizers can cause soil acidification, a decrease in soil organic carbon and beneficial soil microorganisms, stunted plant growth and yield, and even the emission of greenhouse gases [1,2]. Utilizing organic wastes, on the other hand, as soil amendment can enhance the physicochemical and biological properties of the soil. However, as a substitute for chemical fertilizers, large quantities of organic material would be required to satisfy the nutritional needs of crops [3]. Farmers also struggle to achieve high yields with this kind of fertilization compared to the conventional practice. Therefore, efforts must be made to develop an efficient nutrient management strategy while reducing the negative impacts of agrochemical inputs on soil health and the environment.
An approach called integrated nutrient management (INM) aims to address the constraints on soil and crop productivity by optimizing the benefits derived from chemical, organic, and biological sources in an integrated manner. A comprehensive literature review revealed that compared with conventional practices, INM increased crop yields and the income of farmers while improving soil health [4].
Several studies have also reported the influence of microbial interactions in the sustainable management of agricultural soils. Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in plant nutrition have been documented to enhance plant growth, increase nutrient uptake and yield of crops, and improve tolerance to several biotic and abiotic stresses as they colonize plant root systems [5,6,7]. Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) including nitrogen-fixing bacteria (NFB) are another promising soil microorganisms for crop production as they interact with plant roots. Among these is the genus Azospirillum, which has been studied for its interaction with plants and their beneficial impacts on plant growth [8]. Azospirillum bacteria were determined to improve plant growth through the biological fixation of nitrogen and the production of several plant hormones [9,10,11]. These mechanisms make the utilization of these beneficial soil microorganisms promising for optimizing nutrient management and increasing crop productivity.
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the most widely grown and consumed crops in the world as it is rich in vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants [12]. In the Philippines, the average yield of tomato per hectare is 13.62 tons, which is way lower than the world average of 37.84 tons [13]. Nutrient management is one of the factors that play an important role in the productivity of tomato plants as nutrients affect their morphological growth, photosynthetic processes, and yield accumulation [14]. Several studies revealed that the integrated use of chemical and organic sources of nutrients can increase the yield of tomato [15,16]. The significant effect of beneficial soil microorganisms on tomato yield was documented under various levels of chemical fertilization [17,18]. Still, their synergy with combined nutrient sources in the actual tomato production field is a new investigation. The present work aimed to improve nutrient management strategies to increase tomato productivity through the development of INM strategies using integrated nutrient sources and beneficial soil microorganisms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description and Soil Characterization of the Experimental Area

The field experiment was conducted on a tomato farm in Cabuyao, Laguna, Philippines (N 14°11′55″, E 121°2′1″) during the dry season from February to May 2022. Within the growing period, the daily mean temperature of the area ranges from 21.8 °C to 36.5 °C, while the accumulated precipitation is about 225 mm (Figure 1). The average relative humidity of the area is about 77%.
Initial soil samples from the experimental site were collected at 0–15 cm depth, prepared, and then analyzed in the Laboratory Services Division of DA-BSWM. The soil pH was determined from the suspension of 1:1 soil:deionized H2O ratio using a pH meter. The levels of organic carbon (OC) were analyzed using the Walkley–Black method, and organic matter (OM) was calculated by multiplying %OC by 1.724, assuming that the average C concentration of OM is 58%. The total nitrogen was determined using the Kjeldahl distillation method. The determination of available P was carried out following the Bray1 extraction (1 M NH4F). The phosphate in the extract is determined by colorimetry with the molybdenum blue method using a UV–Vis spectrophotometer. The exchangeable K and cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined by the leaching method with ammonium acetate solution (1M NH4OAc). The concentration of exchangeable K was measured from the extract using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer. For CEC, the exchangeable NH4+ is determined using the Kjeldahl distillation method. The available micronutrients (Cu, Zn, Mn, and Fe) were extracted with diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), and their concentrations were measured by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Table 1 and Table S1).

2.2. Characterization of Vermicompost

The study used vermicompost derived from a mixture of poultry manure and guinea grass (Panicum maximum) substrates. This is produced at the DA-BSWM—National Soil and Water Resources Research and Development Center for Hillyland Pedo-ecological Zone, Tanay, Rizal, Philippines.
Composite samples of vermicompost were subjected to laboratory analysis of selected parameters. For the total N, samples were digested using H2SO4 and N concentrations, which were measured using the Kjeldahl method. For the determination of other nutrients, samples were digested using aqua regia, a mixture of concentrated HNO3 and HCl. The digested sample for total P2O5 followed the vanadomolybdophosphoric acid colorimetric method using a UV–Vis spectrophotometer. The total K2O was determined using flame emission spectrometry while the total CaO, MgO, and micronutrient levels were determined using flame absorption spectrometry. The levels of OM were derived from OC levels, which were analyzed using the Walkley–Black method. The moisture content of samples was determined using the thermogravimetric method (Table 2).

2.3. Experimental Design and Treatments

A tomato variety commonly grown in the Philippines, Diamante Max F1, was used in the study. Tomato seedlings were raised in a screenhouse and transplanted 28 days after sowing. The recommended planting distance of 75 cm between rows and 50 cm between plants was followed. All cultural management practices such as weeding, hilling-up, trellising, and irrigation were employed for each plot as per the recommendations.
The experiment was carried out following a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replicates. The treatments are detailed in Table 3. The DA-BSWM provided the recommended rates (RRC) of chemical fertilizers for tomato based on the results of soil analyses. The RRC (80-90-0 kg ha−1 N-P2O5-K2O) served as the positive control and point of comparison for the INM treatments. Urea (46-0-0) was used as the N source and solophos (0-18-0) as the P2O5 source. INM 1 is composed of 50% RRC plus 4 t ha−1 of vermicompost. INM 2 consisted of the integrated sources as in INM 1 with AMF inoculation, while INM 3 used integrated sources as in INM 1 and dual inoculation with AMF and Azospirillum spp.

2.4. Application of Nutrient Sources and Microbial Inoculants

The rates of fertilizer treatments are detailed in Table 3. Half the dose of inorganic N fertilizer and the full dose of P2O5 fertilizer were applied during transplanting, and the remaining dose of N fertilizer was applied one month after transplanting. The recommended rate of vermicompost was applied during basal fertilization.
The soil-based AMF inoculant contained 12 species belonging to the genera Glomus, Gigaspora, Entrophospora, and Acaulospora. These species were isolated from marginal grasslands and mine tailing areas and mass-produced using bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) as a trap plant [19]. The NFB inoculant consists of Azospirillum spp. originally isolated from the roots of talahib (Saccharum spontaneum L.) thriving in a marginal grassland. These inoculants were developed and commercially produced at the National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of the Philippines Los Banos (BIOTECH UPLB), Laguna, Philippines.
For INM 2, the seedlings were inoculated with AMF inoculant at the rate of 5 g per seedling placed in a 2–3 inches depth of hole beneath and in contact with the roots, and for INM 3, the seedlings were inoculated with 5 g of a 1:1 mixture of AMF and Azospirillum inoculants.

2.5. Measurement of Agronomic Parameters

Measurement of plant height, number and weight of marketable fruits, and fruit yield were taken from ten randomly sampled plants from the central rows of each plot [16]. Plant height, dry weight, and nutrient uptake were measured at the first harvest.
The aboveground parts of the tomato were collected, washed, air-dried, and oven-dried at 60 °C until a constant weight for the measurement of dry weight and analysis of nutrient concentrations. The Total N of plant tissue samples was determined using the Kjeldahl method. For the other nutrients, similar test methods with vermicompost samples were performed in the analysis of plant tissues except for the reagent used during digestion, which is a mixture of HNO3 and HClO4. Nutrient uptake was calculated by multiplying the nutrient concentrations with the dry weight of the aboveground biomass [20].
At each harvest, fruits from sample plants were sorted as marketable and unmarketable and then weighed. Based on Philippine National Standards (PNS), the basic requirements for marketable fruits include those that are mature, not overripe or soft, not damaged, and not less than 3.0 cm in diameter [21].

2.6. Assessment of Mycorrhizal Root Colonization and Number of Spores

Fine (<0.02 mm diameter) roots were also collected, cleared, and stained following the method of Phillips and Hayman [22] and observed under a stereomicroscope. All roots that crossed the grid lines were counted, and roots with vesicles, hyphae, or other AMF propagules were also considered as mycorrhiza-infected roots. The percentage of mycorrhizal root colonization was calculated based on a formula [23].
AMF spores were separated from the rhizosphere soil following the wet sieving and centrifugation technique [24], and the number of spores was counted using light microscopy [25].

2.7. Data Analysis

All data were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in RCBD using statistical software (SAS version 9.4). Treatment means were compared using Least Significant Difference (LSD) if ANOVA showed a significant difference at p < 0.05. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between the observation variables.

2.8. Economic Analysis

The cost and return of production were calculated to determine the economically optimal fertilization strategy. The gross income was calculated by adjusting the actual marketable fruit yield to 90% [16]. Material and labor costs were based on average local prices in 2022 [26,27] while the local farmgate price of tomato was based on three-year average values from 2020 to 2022 [28].

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth and Yield

No significant difference was observed among treatments in terms of growth parameters, but higher values were observed on treatments under integrated nutrient management, particularly INM 1 for the plant height (77.59 cm), INM 3 for the dry weight (112.10 g plant−1) and number of marketable fruits per plant, and INM 2 for the fruit weight (40.42 g fruit−1). Treatment with combined chemical fertilizers and vermicompost recorded a significantly higher yield than RRC at 38.92 t ha−1. AMF inoculation with combined nutrient sources further increased the tomato yield by 13% relative to those applied with RRC. Dual inoculation with AMF and Azospirillum obtained the highest yield among the INM strategies with 40.96 t ha−1; however, it is not statistically different with sole AMF inoculation (Figure 2 and Table 4).

3.2. Plant Nutrition

The plant uptake of various macro- and micronutrients was significantly affected by fertilization strategies and microbial inoculation. The treatment of dual inoculation with AMF and Azospirillum recorded the highest N uptake at 3.53 g plant−1 and is not significantly different with RRC even with a 50% reduction in inorganic nitrogen fertilizer rate. AMF inoculation combined with chemical and organic nutrient sources, significantly increased the P, K, Ca, and Mg uptake by tomato plants over the RRC by 33%, 8%, 21%, and 11%, respectively (Table 5). Integrating chemical fertilizers and vermicompost resulted in a significant increase in Cu uptake even without the use of microbial inoculants while no significant effect was observed on Zn, Fe, and Mn uptake among the treatments (Table 6).

3.3. Mycorrhizal Root Colonization and Spore Count

Mycorrhizal inoculation of tomato plants resulted in a significantly higher percentage of root colonization (38–39%) and number of spores in the tomato rhizosphere (34–40 spores per 10 g of soil) than the non-mycorrhizal treatments (Figure 3).

3.4. Correlation Analysis

Pearson correlation analysis shows that fruit yield is positively correlated with AMF root colonization and nutrient uptake, particularly of Ca (0.64), Cu (0.66), and Mn (0.65) (Table 7). AMF root colonization is significantly correlated with plant uptake of P (0.62), K (0.66), Ca (0.69), Mg (0.77), and Cu (0.58).

3.5. Production Cost and Return

As indicated in the cost and return analysis (Table 8), the treatments with integrated nutrient sources and microbial inoculants incurred higher costs than the current fertilizer recommendation but also recorded a higher net income than the control. This indicates that the yield increase in INM treatments compensated for their higher production cost. The highest increase in net income over the control was recorded by INM 2 (15%), followed by INM 3 (14%) and INM 1 (4%).

4. Discussion

In this study, fertilization strategies integrating chemical and organic nutrient sources and beneficial soil microorganisms such as AMF and Azospirillum spp. were assessed in an actual tomato farm. This approach gives direct agronomic information under field conditions on the potential synergy of nutrient sources and microbial inoculants to increase the productivity of tomato plants.
Higher values of nutrient uptake were recorded in the mycorrhizal treatments, particularly on P, K, Ca, and Mg. AMF root colonization is also significantly correlated with the uptake of these nutrients as well as Cu. Using another variety of tomato (EVIA F1), Leventis et al. [29] documented the ability of AMF to increase the uptake of the same nutrients. Similar findings on the significant effect of AMF were observed on other horticultural crops such as in P uptake of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) [30], K, Ca, and Mg uptake of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) [31], and P, K, Ca, and Mg uptake of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) [32]. When AMF colonizes the root, their hyphae extend and establish a mycelial network or extraradical mycelium (ERM), which transfers these nutrients to the intraradical mycelium (IRM) where nutrients are exchanged from the host plant for carbon [33]. These mechanisms of mycorrhizal symbiosis can lead to improved soil rhizosphere and increased nutrient uptake.
The highest N uptake of tomato plants inoculated with Azospirillum spp. under a 50% reduction in nitrogen fertilizer rate demonstrated similar findings with Fernandez et al. [34] in which potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) inoculated with Azospirillum recorded higher N concentrations in leaves at lower rates of nitrogen fertilization.
Regardless of treatment, nutrient levels in tomato plants indicate sufficiency in all nutrients except for Fe [35]. K and Mn levels are high but not excessive. Toxic levels of Fe in tomato plant tissues may be due to high Fe levels in the soil (Table 1). However, leaf bronzing, a morphological indicator of Fe toxicity in plants, was not observed during the field trial. Das et al. [36] indicated that few cultivars of tomato can potentially exclude phytotoxic elements through different strategies. In this case, Fe-tolerant cultivars can be recommended since other nutrients that have roles in the management of Fe toxicity in soils have already been applied sufficiently [37].
In terms of the yield response of tomato plants, the INM treatments obtained higher values of fruit yield (38.93–40.96 t ha−1) than both the local and world average data. The results also indicate that 4 t ha−1 of vermicompost used in the trial can reduce the rate of chemical fertilizers by 50% without compromising the yield. This can be attributed to the nutrient contents of vermicompost and the increase in the uptake of several nutrients. Its micronutrient contents, which are not usually common in chemical fertilizers, may have further increased the yield of crops. These results agreed with the findings of Islam et al. [15] and Qasim et al. [38] in which a combination of chemical fertilizers and vermicompost can significantly increase the yield of tomato. The slow release of nutrients from organic amendments like vermicompost can increase the uptake of nutrients. Vermicompost also encompasses different enzymes, which are necessary for the decomposition of soil organic matter and the release of various nutrients, making them available for plant uptake [39]. Vermicompost application was documented by Liu et al. [40] to enhance photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence traits, which are essential in the productivity of tomato plants.
The similar results of a study conducted by Bona et al. [17] revealed that the use of AMF and PGPB allowed the sparing of 30% of the recommended rate of chemical fertilizer without a significant yield reduction. The increased yield of mycorrhizal treatments in the present work can be attributed to the increased nutrient uptake of tomato plants and its significant correlation with mycorrhizal root colonization. No significant effect was observed on additional Azospirillum inoculation, which might be due to the high rate of nitrogen from integrated nutrient sources. Similar findings were observed by Andrade-Sifuentes et al. [41] by which inoculation with Azospirillum spp. had no significant effect on the yield of tomato plants on treatments with higher fertilizer rates in contrast with Aseri et al. [42] wherein dual inoculation of AMF and N-fixing bacteria increased the fruit yield of pomegranate (Punica granatum) under field conditions.
Higher mycorrhizal root colonization and an estimated number of spores were observed in treatments with AMF inoculation. The values of AMF root colonization in tomato roots are higher than those recorded by Bona et al. [17]. The results also agree with the study of Aggangan et al. [43] on the effects of AMF inoculation using the same AMF inoculant root colonization and AMF spores in a cacao rhizosphere. They are similar findings to those previously obtained by Bona et al. [17] wherein no effect on mycorrhizal root colonization by dual inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) was documented in this study in contrast with the other studies involving vegetable crops in which colonization was further increased by PGPB in cucumber [44] and eggplant [45] species. These studies indicate that the combined application of different microorganisms like AMF and Azospirillum spp. may have different effects on various plants.
Mengistu et al. [16] obtained similar results in terms of economic analysis by which treatments with combined chemical fertilizer and vermicompost recorded higher net income than the recommended rate. This present work provides new information on the financial profitability of tomato production using microbial inoculants in addition to combined nutrient sources. The yield increase by INM strategies compensated for its higher production cost as compared with the current fertilizer recommendation. With a similar effect of vermicompost in this trial, other organic soil amendments with lower costs in the locality, such as properly decomposed animal manures, can also be used as an alternative to vermicompost to reduce production costs and further increase income.

5. Conclusions

The present study documented how INM strategies can reduce the dosage of chemical fertilizers while maintaining and even increasing nutrient uptake and fruit yield of tomato plants. In terms of agronomic performance and net income of the fertilization strategies, INM 2 can be regarded as relatively the best treatment. The results obtained in this study indicate that INM strategies for tomato farming systems can potentially lead to sustainable crop production. However, there is a need for more studies under various soil and agro-climatic conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae10101056/s1, Table S1: Test methods and instruments used for various parameters.

Author Contributions

L.C.B.: methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, and visualization; J.P.E.: resources, project administration, and supervision; J.A.A.: methodology, resources, and formal analysis; N.S.A.: methodology, resources, investigation, formal analysis, and writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

These findings are from the project entitled “Development of Integrated Nutrient Management Strategy for Improving Soil and Tomato Productivity”, which was funded by the Department of Agriculture—Bureau of Agricultural Research (DA-BAR), Philippines: 2022-02-302.

Data Availability Statement

All data included in this published article are generated from the abovementioned project.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is due to the Department of Agriculture—Bureau of Soils and Water Management (DA-BSWM) headed by Gina P. Nilo and Denise A. Solano, the Laboratory Services Division (LSD), the Soil and Water Resources Research Division (SWRRD), Juanito D. Andal, farmer–collaborator, and especially to the project implementation team of the National Soil and Water Resources Research and Development Center for Hillyland Pedo-ecological Zone (NSWRRDC HILLPEZ), for their support and contributions in the realization of the project and this manuscript. The authors would also like to acknowledge the fund support of DA-BAR for the completed project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Savci, S. Investigation of Effect of Chemical Fertilizers on Environment. APCBEE Procedia 2012, 1, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pahalvi, H.N.; Rafiya, L.; Rashid, S.; Nisar, B.; Kamili, A.N. Chemical Fertilizers and Their Impact on Soil Health. In Microbiota and Biofertilizers; Dar, G.H., Bhat, R.A., Mehmood, M.A., Hakeem, K.R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 2, pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hernandez, T.; Chocano, C.; Moreno, J.L.; Garcia, C. Towards a more sustainable fertilization: Combined use of compost and inorganic fertilization for tomato cultivation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 196, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wu, W.; Ma, B. Integrated nutrient management (INM) for sustaining crop productivity and reducing environmental impact: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 512, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Balliu, A.; Sallaku, G.; Rewald, B. AMF inoculation enhances growth and improves the nutrient uptake of transplanted, salt-stressed tomato seedlings. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15967–15981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Berruti, A.; Lumini, E.; Balestrini, R.; Bianciotto, V. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as natural biofertilizers: Let’s benefit from past successes. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, S.J.; Eo, J.K.; Lee, E.H.; Park, H.; Eom, A.H. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and soil conditions on crop plant growth. Microbiology 2017, 45, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cassán, F.; Coniglio, A.; López, G.; Molina, R.; Nievas, S.; de Carlan, C.L.; Donadio, F.; Torres, D.; Rosas, S.; Pedrosa, F.O. Everything you must know about Azospirillum and its impact on agriculture and beyond. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 461–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Contreras-Liza, S.; Villadeza, C.Y.; Rodriguez-Grados, P.M.; Palomares, E.G.; Arbizu, C.I. Yield and Agronomic Performance of Sweet Corn in Response to Inoculation with Azospirillum sp. under Arid Land Conditions. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2024, 15, 683–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pankievicz, V.C.S.; do Amaral, F.P.; Santos, K.F.D.N.; Agtuca, B.; Xu, Y.; Schueller, M.J. Robust biological nitrogen fixation in a model grass-bacterial association. Plant J. 2015, 81, 907–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fibach-Paldi, S.; Burdman, S.; Okon, Y. Key physiological properties contributing to rhizosphere adaptation and plant growth promotion abilities of Azospirillum brasilense. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2012, 326, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dumas, Y.; Dadomo, M.; Di Lucca, G.; Grolier, P. Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003, 83, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023)—With major processing by Our World in Data. “Tomato Yields—FAO” [Dataset]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Production: Crops and Livestock Products” [Original Data]. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tomato-yields (accessed on 10 September 2024).
  14. Guo, L.; Yu, H.; Kharbach, M.; Wang, J. The Response of Nutrient Uptake, Photosynthesis and Yield of Tomato to Biochar Addition under Reduced Nitrogen Application. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Islam, M.A.; Islam, S.; Akter, A.; Rahman, M.H.; Nandwani, D. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and the growth, yield and quality of tomato in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Agriculture 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mengistu, T.; Gebrekidan, H.; Kibret, K.; Woldetsadik, K.; Shimelis, B.; Yadav, H. The integrated use of excreta-based vermicompost and inorganic NP fertilizer on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit yield, quality and soil fertility. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2017, 6, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bona, E.; Todeschini, V.; Cantamessa, S.; Cesaro, P.; Copetta, A.; Lingua, G.; Gamalero, E.; Berta, G.; Massa, N. Combined bacterial and mycorrhizal inocula improve tomato quality at reduced fertilization. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 234, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ziane, H.; Hamza, N.; Meddad-Hamza, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and fertilization rates optimize tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) growth and yield in a Mediteranean agroecosystem. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2021, 20, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aggangan, N.S.; Moon, H.K. The effects of soil sterilization, mycorrhizal inoculation and rates of phosphorus on growth and survival of Kalopanax septemlobus microplants during the acclimization period. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2013, 7, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cedeño, J.M.; Magán, J.-J.; Thompson, R.B.; Fernández, M.-D.; Gallardo, M. Comparison of Methods to Determine Nutrient Uptake of Tomato Grown in Free-Draining Perlite Substrate—Key Information for Optimal Fertigation Management. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards. Philippine National Standard: Fruit Vegetables—Tomato—Specification. 2006. Available online: http://spsissuances.da.gov.ph/attachments/article/1092/PNS-BAFS26-2006-Tomato.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2024).
  22. Phillips, J.M.; Hayman, D.S. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1970, 55, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ishii, T.; Kadoya, K. Effects of charcoal as a soil conditioner on citrus growth and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal development. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1994, 63, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brundrett, M.; Bougher, N.; Grove, T.; Malajczuk, N. Working with Mycorrhizas in Forestry and Agriculture; ACIAR Monograph 32; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia, 1996; p. 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moreira, S.D.; Baretta, D.; Tsai, S.M.; Cardoso, E.J.B.N. Spore density and root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in preserved or disturbed Araucariaa angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze. Ecosystems. Sci. Agric. 2006, 63, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority. Weekly Prices 2022. 2022. Available online: https://fpa.da.gov.ph/weekly-prices/ (accessed on 9 September 2024).
  27. National Wages and Productivity Commission. Wage Order No. IVA-19. 2022. Available online: https://nwpc.dole.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Published-WO-No.-IVA-19.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2024).
  28. Philippine Statistics Authority. Fruit Vegetables: Farmgate Prices by Geolocation, Commodity, Year and Period. 2023. Available online: https://openstat.psa.gov.ph/PXWeb/pxweb/en/DB/DB__2M__FG/?tablelist=true (accessed on 9 September 2024).
  29. Leventis, G.; Tsiknia, M.; Feka, M.; Ladikou, E.V.; Chatzipavlidis, I.; Papadopoulou, K.; Ehaliotis, C. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance growth of tomato under normal and drought conditions, via different water regulation mechanisms. Rhizosphere 2021, 19, 100394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Badr, M.A.; El-Tohamy, W.A.; Abou-Hussein, S.D.; Gruda, N.S. Deficit Irrigation and Arbuscular Mycorrhiza as a Water-Saving Strategy for Eggplant Production. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Franczuk, J.; Tartanus, M.; Rosa, R.; Zaniewicz-Bajkowska, A.; Dębski, H.; Andrejiová, A.; Dydiv, A. The Effect of Mycorrhiza Fungi and Various Mineral Fertilizer Levels on the Growth, Yield, and Nutritional Value of Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Agriculture 2023, 13, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, S.; Zhao, H.; Zou, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Liu, A.; Zhao, P.; Wang, M.; et al. Combined Inoculation with Multiple Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Improves Growth, Nutrient Uptake and Photosynthesis in Cucumber Seedlings. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fellbaum, C.R.; Mensah, J.A.; Cloos, A.J.; Strahan, G.E.; Pfeffer, P.E.; Kiers, E.T.; Bucking, H. Fungal nutrient allocation in common mycorrhizal networks is regulated by the carbon source strength of individual host plants. New Phytol. 2014, 203, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fernandes, A.M.; da Silva, J.A.; Eburneo, J.A.M.; Leonel, M.; Garreto, F.G.d.S.; Nunes, J.G.d.S. Growth and Nitrogen Uptake by Potato and Cassava Crops Can Be Improved by Azospirillum brasilense Inoculation and Nitrogen Fertilization. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences. Interpretive Nutrient Levels for Plant Analysis—Tomato, Any. 2024. Available online: https://agsci.psu.edu/aasl/plant-analysis/plant-tissue-total-analysis/interpretive-nutrient-levels-for-plant-analysis/tomato-any (accessed on 16 September 2024).
  36. Das, U.; Rahman, M.M.; Roy, Z.R.; Rahman, M.M.; Kabir, A.H. Morpho-physiological retardations due to iron toxicity involve redox imbalance rather than photosynthetic damages in tomato. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 156, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sahrawat, K.L. Iron Toxicity in Wetland Rice and the Role of Other Nutrients. J. Plant Nutr. 2005, 27, 1471–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qasim, M.; Ju, J.; Zhao, H.; Bhatti, S.M.; Saleem, G.; Memon, S.P.; Ali, S.; Younas, M.U.; Rajput, N.; Jamali, Z.H. Morphological and Physiological Response of Tomato to Sole and Combined Application of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizers. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aslam, Z.; Ahmad, A.; Bellitürk, K.; Kanwal, H.; Asif, M.; Ullah, E. Integrated Use of Simple Compost, Vermicompost, Vermi-Tea and Chemical Fertilizers NP on the Morpho-Physiological, Yield and Yield Related Traits of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Innov. Sci. 2023, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Q.; Chang, T.; Shaghaleh, H.; Hamoud, Y.A. Improvement of Photosynthesis by Biochar and Vermicompost to Enhance Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yield under Greenhouse Conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 3214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Andrade-Sifuentes, A.; Fortis-Hernandez, M.; Preciado-Rangel, P.; Orozco-Vidal, J.A.; Yescas-Coronado, P.; Rueda-Puente, O. Azospirillum brasilense and Solarized Manure on the Production and Phytochemical Quality of Tomato Fruits (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aseri, G.K.; Jain, N.; Panwar, J.; Rao, A.V.; Meghwal, P.R. Biofertilizers improve plant growth, fruit yield, nutrition, metabolism and rhizosphere enzyme activities of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) in Indian Thar Desert. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 117, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aggangan, N.S.; Cortes, A.D.; Reaño, C.E. Growth response of cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) plant as affected by bamboo biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in sterilized and unsterilized soil. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 22, 101347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gamalero, E.; Berta, G.; Massa, N.; Glick, B.R.; Lingua, G. Synergistic interactions between the ACC deaminase-producing bacterium Pseudomonas putida UW4 and the AM fungus Gigaspora rosea positively affect cucumber plant growth. FEMS Microbiol. 2008, 37 (Suppl. 1), 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sharma, M.; Delta, A.K.; Brar, N.S.; Yadav, A.; Dhanda, P.S.; Baslam, M.; Kaushik, P. Rhizophagus irregularis and Azotobacter chroococcum Uphold Eggplant Production and Quality under Low Fertilization. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2022, 13, 601–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 10 01056 g001
Figure 1. Daily rainfall and maximum and minimum temperatures of the experimental area during the growing season in 2022 (Source: DOST-PAGASA, Philippines).
Figure 1. Daily rainfall and maximum and minimum temperatures of the experimental area during the growing season in 2022 (Source: DOST-PAGASA, Philippines).
Horticulturae 10 01056 g001
Horticulturae 10 01056 g002
Figure 2. Plant height (A) and dry weight (B) of tomato as affected by nutrient management and microbial inoculation. Data are shown as means ± SD.
Figure 2. Plant height (A) and dry weight (B) of tomato as affected by nutrient management and microbial inoculation. Data are shown as means ± SD.
Horticulturae 10 01056 g002
Horticulturae 10 01056 g003
Figure 3. Mycorrhizal root colonization (A) and AMF spore count (B) as affected by nutrient management and microbial inoculation. Data are shown as means ± SD. Bars followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p ˂ 0.05 (LSD).
Figure 3. Mycorrhizal root colonization (A) and AMF spore count (B) as affected by nutrient management and microbial inoculation. Data are shown as means ± SD. Bars followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p ˂ 0.05 (LSD).
Horticulturae 10 01056 g003
Table 1. Mean ± SD values of selected soil properties of the experimental area before planting.
Table 1. Mean ± SD values of selected soil properties of the experimental area before planting.
PropertiesValue (Mean ± SD)
pH (H2O 1:1)5.17 ± 0.20
OM (%)4.28 ± 0.57
Total N (%)0.23 ± 0.02
Available P (mg kg−1)7.79 ± 1.90
Exchangeable K (cmol kg−1)2.06 ± 0.21
Exchangeable Ca (cmol kg−1)12.15 ± 0.94
Exchangeable Mg (cmol kg−1)3.57 ± 1.89
CEC (cmolc kg−1)37.29 ± 1.02
Cu (mg kg−1)6.26 ± 0.64
Zn (mg kg−1)1.61 ± 0.57
Fe (mg kg−1)102.30 ± 3.28
Mn (mg kg−1)54.32 ± 1.40
Table 2. Mean ± SD values of selected chemical properties of vermicompost used.
Table 2. Mean ± SD values of selected chemical properties of vermicompost used.
PropertiesValue (Mean ± SD)
Total N (%)0.77 ± 0.06
Total P2O5 (%)3.45 ± 0.60
Total K2O (%)0.66 ± 0.15
Total CaO (%)3.42 ± 0.55
Total MgO (%)0.60 ± 0.07
Cu (g kg−1)0.50 ± 0.08
Zn (g kg−1)0.60 ± 0.06
Fe (g kg−1)34.94 ± 5.25
Mn (g kg−1)0.83 ± 0.14
C:N15:1 ± 3.50
OM (%)26.28 ± 3.99
MC (%)35.00 ± 1.35
Table 3. Description of treatments.
Table 3. Description of treatments.
TreatmentRate of Chemical FertilizerRate of Vermicompost
(t ha−1)		AMF InoculationAzospirillum Inoculation
N (kg ha−1)P2O5 (kg ha−1)
RRC8090-nono
INM 140454nono
INM 240454yesno
INM 340454yesyes
Table 4. Yield response of tomato to nutrient sources and microbial inoculation.
Table 4. Yield response of tomato to nutrient sources and microbial inoculation.
TreatmentNumber of Marketable Fruits Plant−1Fruit Weight (g fruit−1)Total Fruit Yield (t ha−1)% Marketable Fruits
RRC3437.1136.04 c92.62
INM 13438.3338.92 b90.13
INM 23540.4240.87 a93.98
INM 33740.2940.96 a96.79
p-value0.1337 ns0.5272 ns0.0017 **0.3715 ns
CV (%)4.217.842.315.06
Means in a column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p ˂ 0.05 (LSD). ** significant at p ≤ 0.01, ns—not significant, CV—coefficient of variation.
Table 5. Macronutrient uptake of tomato as affected by nutrient sources and microbial inoculation.
Table 5. Macronutrient uptake of tomato as affected by nutrient sources and microbial inoculation.
TreatmentNutrient Uptake (g plant−1)
NPKCaMg
RRC3.30 ab0.19 b3.64 b1.59 b0.43 b
INM 12.91 b0.18 b4.23 ab1.65 b0.49 ab
INM 23.01 b0.24 a4.59 a2.00 a0.55 a
INM 33.53 a0.23 a4.64 a2.01 a0.57 a
p-value0.0394 *0.0190 *0.0329 *0.0018 **0.0424 *
CV (%)8.669.4910.054.678.88
Means in a column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p ˂ 0.05 (LSD). * and ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively, CV—coefficient of variation.
Table 6. Micronutrient uptake of tomato as affected by nutrient sources and microbial inoculation.
Table 6. Micronutrient uptake of tomato as affected by nutrient sources and microbial inoculation.
TreatmentNutrient Uptake (mg plant−1)
CuZnFeMn
RRC1.06 b4.3633.8513.65
INM 11.53 a4.0733.3614.84
INM 21.76 a4.6541.3714.86
INM 31.71 a4.9845.0115.84
p-value0.0179 *0.4446 ns0.6418 ns0.8029 ns
CV (%)13.0917.4633.5920.98
Means in a column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p ˂ 0.05 (LSD). * significant at p ≤ 0.05, ns—not significant, CV—coefficient of variation.
Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients (r2) between observation variables.
Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients (r2) between observation variables.
Fruit YieldN UptakeP UptakeK UptakeCa UptakeMg UptakeCu UptakeZn UptakeFe UptakeMn UptakeAMF Root Colonization
Fruit Yield-0.230.450.450.64 *0.210.66 *0.210.240.65 *0.10
N uptake -0.080.320.30−0.010.090.33−0.060.450.15
P uptake -0.500.75 **0.540.430.330.210.140.62 *
K uptake -0.72 **0.75 **0.71 **0.400.030.120.66 *
Ca uptake -0.510.63 *0.190.550.390.69 *
Mg uptake -0.64 *0.41−0.04−0.090.77 **
Cu uptake -−0.030.090.240.58 *
Zn uptake -−0.370.310.21
Fe uptake -0.080.33
Mn uptake -0.29
AMF root
colonization		 -
* and ** indicate significance levels of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Table 8. Cost and return of tomato production per hectare under different nutrient management strategies in Philippine Peso (PHP).
Table 8. Cost and return of tomato production per hectare under different nutrient management strategies in Philippine Peso (PHP).
TreatmentMaterial CostLabor CostContingency Cost (15%)Total Production CostGross IncomeNet Income% Increase over Current Recommendation
RRC84,240.0089,824.0026,109.60200,173.60781,092.00580,918.40-
INM 197,488.0089,824.0028,096.80215,408.80820,872.00605,463.204.23
INM 2110,788.0091,829.0030,392.55233,009.55898,794.00665,784.4514.61
INM 3137,588.0093,834.0034,713.30266,135.30927,576.00661,440.7013.86
Local production costs are based on 2022 values for the fertilizers [24], labor [25], and farmgate price of tomato fruits [26]. 1 PHP ≈ 0.02 USD.
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

Bernados, L.C.; Espineli, J.P.; Anarna, J.A.; Aggangan, N.S. Increasing Tomato Productivity through Integrated Nutrient Sources and Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Azospirillum spp. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101056

AMA Style

Bernados LC, Espineli JP, Anarna JA, Aggangan NS. Increasing Tomato Productivity through Integrated Nutrient Sources and Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Azospirillum spp. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(10):1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bernados, Lowell C., Joven P. Espineli, Julieta A. Anarna, and Nelly S. Aggangan. 2024. "Increasing Tomato Productivity through Integrated Nutrient Sources and Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Azospirillum spp." Horticulturae 10, no. 10: 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101056

APA Style

Bernados, L. C., Espineli, J. P., Anarna, J. A., & Aggangan, N. S. (2024). Increasing Tomato Productivity through Integrated Nutrient Sources and Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Azospirillum spp. Horticulturae, 10(10), 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101056

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