Next Article in Journal
Effects of Foliar and Root Application of Different Amino Acids on Mini-Watermelon
Previous Article in Journal
Establishment of an In Vitro Regeneration System and Analysis of Endogenous Hormone Dynamics in Melastoma dodecandrum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/horticulturae11080876
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

Selenium Nanoparticles Improve Morpho-Physiological and Fruit Quality Parameters of Tomato

by
Juan José Reyes-Pérez
1,
Tomás Rivas-García
2,3,*,
Luis Tarquino Llerena-Ramos
1,
Rommel Arturo Ramos-Remache
1,
Luis Humberto Vásquez Cortez
4,
Pablo Preciado-Rangel
5 and
Rubí A. Martínez-Camacho
6,*
1
Quevedo State Technical University, Quevedo 120501, Los Ríos, Ecuador
2
Investigadores por México (IxM), Secretaria de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación, Benito Juárez 03940, Ciudad de México, Mexico
3
Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture Research Group (ASORE), Chapingo Autonomous University, Texcoco 56230, Estado de México, Mexico
4
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Babahoyo Technical University, Babahoyo 120114, Los Ríos, Ecuador
5
Department of Horticulture, Antonio Narro Autonomous Agrarian University, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez and Carretera Santa Fe S/N, Torreón 27010, Coahuila, Mexico
6
Engineering Department, TecNm-Instituto Tecnológico de La Paz, La Paz 23080, Baja California Sur, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(8), 876; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080876
Submission received: 8 June 2025 / Revised: 15 July 2025 / Accepted: 22 July 2025 / Published: 28 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Developmental Physiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Although favorable effects of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs or nSe) in tomato have been reported, research has concentrated on stress alleviation and disease management. From the above it is noticeable that the effect of NPs varies greatly depending on the model plant, nanoparticle (concentration, size, shape), and application (foliar or drenching). For this reason, the objective of this study was to investigate the impact of biostimulating tomato plants under no stressor conditions (Solanum lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’ L.) with SeNPs on morpho-physiological and fruit quality parameters. Three doses of Selenium nanoparticles (5, 15, and 30 mg L−1), and a control were applied via a foliar application after transplanting. The results indicate that a 5 mg L−1 SeNP treatment improved the growth and yield of the tomato, with the exception of the root length and leaf weight. Moreover, all doses modified the evaluated physiology, bioactive compounds, and fruit quality parameters. This research helped in understanding the SeNPs’ effect on tomato plants in greenhouses under a no stressor condition.

1. Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the most important vegetables by its commercial consumption after potato. Tomato fruit contains bioactive substances, such as vitamins, carotenoids, and phenolic compounds, which increase antioxidant activity and have a direct benefit to human health [1]. Although the tomato growing demand has been met with conventional fertilizers and pesticides, their limited effectiveness (i.e., after their application, approximately 99% are volatilized) also causes undesirable consequences for the environment (i.e., 64% of global land is at risk of pesticide pollution) [2,3,4]. Moreover, natural resource depletion and climate change cause biotic and abiotic stresses on agriculture, reducing crop growth and yields [5]. On the other hand, as people’s living standards have improved in recent years, there has been an increase in the consumer demand for high-quality food with products such as tomatoes [6,7,8]. Therefore, sustainable and ecologically friendly agricultural practices are being promoted to overcome these challenges [9].
As alternatives, plant biostimulants such as Selenium (Se) allow us to reduce agrochemical inputs by enhancing the physiology and metabolic responses of the breeding plants [10]. Selenium is an essential element for humans (40–400 µg d−1) and animals [11], which acts as a beneficial element for higher plants [12]. Based on the amount of Se accumulation, plants are classified as hyper-accumulators (>1000 mg kg−1 DW), accumulators (100–1000 mg kg−1 DW), and non-accumulators, such as tomato (<100 mg kg−1 DW) [13]. Se at low concentrations improved plant photosynthesis [14], increased plant growth and development [15], reduced plant senescence [16], and improved the plant stress tolerance under many stressors (i.e., heavy metals, salinity, cold, UV exposure, drought, pathogens) [17]. In addition, by Se supplementations, plants are able to resist biotic stress, such as fungal infections, insects, and pests [18]. However, high doses of Se can cause chlorosis and growth inhibition because it replaces sulfur elements presented in proteins and other compounds [19].
Because there is a fine line between beneficial and harmful doses of organic and inorganic Se [20], numerous approaches to its application (i.e., seed priming, soil amendments, foliar spray, and drenching) and formulation have been proposed [21]. Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs) are gaining popularity in many areas of plant science due to their high bioavailability and low toxicity when compared to inorganic (SeO42−, Se2−, SeO32−) and organic (SeCys and SeMet) forms [22]. SeNPs should have dimensions less than 100 nm (Figure 1), which results in distinct characteristics from those of the bulk materials of Se [23]. Their large surface area, solubility, surface chemistry, surface charge, and size generally influence their biological characteristics; smaller NPs have a higher activity [16]. The most notable feature of the SeNPs are that they can produce greater outcomes with fewer applications compared to its bulk form [13].
SeNPs have been found to be beneficial in their antimicrobial, pest control, biostimulant, biofortification, stress alleviation, and nutraceutical effects on crops such as potato, tobacco, eggplant, cucumber, pepper, spinach, peanut, strawberry, barley, sorghum, and tomato, among others [22]. In tomato, SeNPs improved the germination and seedling; nonetheless, Se had antagonisms with other micronutrients [25]. In another research project, SeNPs in combination with CuNPs increased the yield, antioxidant capacity, and quality of tomato fruit [26]. Also, SeNPs biostimulated morpho-physiological and fruit quality parameters of tomato under many stress conditions [27,28,29,30].
Although favorable effects of SeNPs in tomato have been reported, research has concentrated on stress alleviation and disease management. From the above it is noticeable that the effect of SeNPs on different tomato varieties varies greatly depending on the stage of development, duration of exposure, shape, size, chemical composition, concentration, surface structure, and aggregation of the plants. The biostimulation of healthy tomato plants with SeNPs in the absence of induced stress will be helpful in understanding their effects in the natural environment. Hence, the main objective of this study was to investigate the impact of biostimulating tomato plants (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’) in greenhouse conditions with SeNPs on morpho-physiological and fruit quality parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material and Growing Conditions

Seeds of S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’ (Harris Moran, Davis, CA, USA) of indeterminate growth were germinated in 200-cavity polystyrene trays containing a peat moss–perlite medium (70/30; v/v). Plantlets with three developed true leaves (10–15 cm) were transplanted in 10 L polyethylene bags with a mixture of peat moss and perlite (50/50; v/v) and directly irrigated with Steiner’s nutritive solution [31]. The crop was established under greenhouse conditions in a tunnel-type greenhouse with a semi-transparent polyethylene cover and natural ventilation with side vents, belonging to ‘La María’ experimental Campus at the State Technical University of Quevedo. During the crop cycle, the greenhouse’s temperature was 24.9 °C, its relative humidity was 80%, and its photo-synthetically active radiation was 870 µmol m−2 s−1. The crop was handled using standard agricultural practices (irrigation, staking, and pest and disease control) during its 102-day development. Fertilizer was composed of urea (46% N), di-ammonium phosphate (44% P2O5), and potassium oxide (60% K2O).
Based on previous results from García-Locascio [25] and Hernández-Hernández [26], the treatments used were three concentrations of SeNPs (5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) and a control (deionized H2O). SeNPs are solid black, with a diameter size of 80 nm, surface area of 40 m2 g−1, purity of 99.99%, and density of 4.79 g cm−1, according to the manufacturer’s information sheet (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA, #919519). The SeNPs were sonicated in an aqueous solution prior to use to ensure the homogeneity of the solution. After transplanting, tomato seedlings were subjected to foliar spray using a calibrated hand-held compression sprayer. Each treatment was sprayed evenly on abaxial and adaxial surfaces of the leaves with 250 mL of solution per plant. The experimental design was completely randomized with 4 biological replicates with 10 tomato plants each; therefore, each group consisted of 40 tomato plants for analysis.

2.2. Plant Growth and Fruit Yield

The morphological parameters evaluated were plant and root length; stem diameter; polar and equatorial fruit diameter; number of flowers and fruits per plant; leaf, stem, and root biomass; and yield. The plant and root length were measured three times at 30, 45, and 60 days after transplanting (DAT) using a magnetic tape measure (FCN-55M, TRUPER, Mexico City, Estado de México, México). The results were reported in cm. The stem diameter at 1 cm from the base of the stem was measured at 30, 45, and 60 DAT with a digital Vernier (500-192-30 Mitutoyo Co., Yokohama, Japan). The results were reported in cm. The number of flowers and fruits per plant was measured when 50% of the flowers and fruits were present on each plant in each treatment (based on total flower buds). Twelve fruits at ripening stage 6 were harvest according to the USDA scale [32]. The yield and measurements were evaluated with a digital Vernier and a granary balance (SPX2202, OHAUS, Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA). The results were reported in kg ha−1 and cm, respectively. The fresh and dry leaf biomass were determined at 90 DAT. The samples were introduced into a drying oven at 60 °C for 72 h or until constant weight (Arsa, AR-290AD, EC, San Ramon, CA, USA). The results were reported in g.

2.3. Chlorophyll Content

Chlorophyll content was quantified in five different leaves per plant in each treatment with the SPAD-502 Plus chlorophyll meter (Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) at 30, 45, and 60 DAT.

2.4. Leaf Gas Exchange

The gas exchange parameters were measured according to Reyes-Pérez et al. [33] and described as follows. During the soil drying period, leaf gas exchange rates were measured every morning in each plant between 9:00 and 11:00 h, including net photosynthetic rate (A, µmol m−2 s−1), transpiration rate (E, mmol m−2 s−1), stomatal conductance (gs, mmol m−2 s−1), intercellular concentration of CO2 (Ci, µmol mol−1), and water use efficiency (WUE, µmol mol−1). The ratio of A to E was used to compute WUE. A portable infrared gas analyzer (CIRAS-II, PP Systems Inc., Amesbury, MA, USA) was used to conduct the measurements. A CO2 concentration of 400 µmol mol−1, a leaf temperature of 28 °C, a leaf-air vapor pressure deficit (VPD) of 2.4 kPa, and a photosynthetic photon flux density (PFD) of 1000 µmol m−2 s−1 were the conditions under which the measurements were conducted on fully expanded and healthy adult leaves (the third leaf from the apex). The light was supplied by an LED-based light unit from the same manufacturer.

2.5. Leaf Osmotic Adjustment

The Scholander pressure chamber (PMS, Corvallis, OR, USA) was used to measure the water relations of the leaves, including water potential (Ψw). One leaf was taken from each plant, placed in tubes, and frozen at −20 °C to measure the osmotic potential (Ψπ). To extract the cell sap, they were then thawed, squeezed, and centrifuged (1000× g). After determining the sap osmolarity with an osmometer (Digital Osmometer, Roebling, Berlin, Germany), the osmotic potential of the leaf sap was computed. The difference between the water and osmotic potentials (Ψw − Ψπ) was used to compute turgor pressure (Ψp) (Equation (1)). Assuming Ψsource = 0 Mpa, the ratio of E to the water potential gradient from the water reservoir to the leaf (Ψsource − ΨLeaf) was used to calculate the total leaf hydraulic conductance (KL, mmol m−2 s−1 Mpa−1). Next, K was divided by leaf area to determine area-adjusted KL. In order to account for temperature-dependent variations in water viscosity, KL was then normalized at 20 °C.
Ψp = Ψw − Ψπ

2.6. Fruit Quality Parameters

Fruits of uniform size and no physical damage were harvested at stage 6 (light red) of maturity, according to the USDA’s visual color scale. Six fruits from each treatment were washed and utilized whole to instantly assess fruit quality characteristics. The hydrogen potential (pH) was measured using a digital potentiometer (Hanna Instruments, HI 98130 model, Woonsocket, RI, USA). The total soluble solids (TSS) in 10 mL of fruit pulp were determined using a digital refractometer (ATAGO, MASTER-100H model, Bellevue, WA, USA). The titratable acidity (TA) was evaluated using the colorimetric approach described in the AOAC standard [34], by adding 10 mL of fruit pulp and two drops of phenolphthalein (1%). It was titrated with 0.1 N of NaOH. The data were expressed as a percentage of citric acid.

2.7. Bioactive Compounds

At harvest stage, 12 fruits of uniform size and no physical damage were sampled at stage 6 (light red) of maturity, according to the USDA’s visual color scale [32]. Half of the sampled fruits were used for dry weight determination (DW). The other half was stored at −20 °C and then lyophilized for 72 h at −84 °C and 0.060 mbar (Labconco, FreeZone 2.5 L, Kansas, MO, USA). Vitamin C (mg 100 g−1 FW) was determined by the colorimetric method using 2,6 dichlorophenol, 1 g of fresh tissue, and HCl (2%), as described by Levine et al. [35]. β-Carotene [mg 100 g−1 DW] was determined according to Nagata and Yamashita [36] using the absorbance values of 453, 505, 645, and 663 nm in Equation (2):
β-carotene = 0.216 × Abs663 − 1.22 × Abs645 − 0.304 × Abs505 + 0.452 × Abs453
Phenols (mg 100 g−1 DW) were determined with Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, as described in Cumplido-Nájera et al. [37]. One milliliter of a 1:1 water/acetone solution was used to extract the 0.2 g sample. For 30 s, the mixture was vortexed. For ten minutes at 4 °C, the tubes were centrifuged (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA, ST 16R Model, Langenselbold, GER) at 17,500× g. Then, 500 µL of 20% sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), 200 µL of the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, 50 µL of the supernatant, and 5 mL of distilled water were added to a test tube, and the mixture was vortexed for 30 s. The samples spent 30 min at 45 °C in a water bath. Lastly, a plastic cell in a UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, G10S model, Waltham, MA, USA) was used to record the reading at an absorbance of 750 nm. Gallic acid was used as standard (Shahdadi et al., 2015 [38]).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Data from four replicates for each evaluated variable in a factorial experiment in a completely random design were collected, and means were compared by applying one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with SPSS 26.0 statistical software (IBM, Inc., Amonk, NY, USA), considering that SeNP concentration was the variable factor. Tukey’s test was used as a post hoc test at a 5% level of significance. Data were presented as mean ± standard errors.

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth and Fruit Yield

The application of SeNPs positively affected the plant growth and fruit yield of tomato plants in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The stem diameter (Figure 2a), plant height (2f), flowers and fruits per plant (Figure 3a,b), fruit diameter (Figure 3c), and yield (Figure 3d) increased significantly with the 5 mg L−1 SeNP treatment compared to the control. But, for the same parameters, there were no significant differences or they decreased after the 15 and 30 mg L−1 SeNP treatments. Also, the stem and root weight were significantly increased after the 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1 treatments (Figure 2b,d). In contrast, there were no significant differences between treatments and the control for the root length, and there was only a difference between the control and the 30 mg L−1 treatment for the leaf weight (Figure 2c,e).

3.2. Physiological Parameters

In the present study, the physiological parameters of tomato plants were also studied, including the Chlorophylls (Figure 4), leaf gas exchange (Figure 5), and leaf osmotic adjustment (Figure 6). For Chlorophylls, with the exception of 45 and 60 DAT, the SeNP treatments positively affected the physiological parameters in a dose-dependent manner. Specifically, the SeNP treatments of 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1 at 30 DAT significantly increased the Chlorophylls by 11.1, 18.2, and 15.2%, respectively, compared with the control.
The findings also revealed that the leaf gas exchange parameters evaluated (Figure 5) were not significant, with the exception of the 15 mg L−1 SeNP treatment in the net photosynthetic rate (Figure 5a) and water use efficiency (Figure 5e) parameters. Specifically, the above-mentioned treatment positively affected the net photosynthetic rate and water use efficiency of tomato plants by 24.6 and 25.8%, respectively, compared with the control.
Moreover, the leaf osmotic adjustments of tomato plants were also evaluated (water potential, osmotic potential, turgor pressure, and total leaf hydraulic conductance) (Figure 6a–d, respectively). For the above mentioned, only the osmotic potential (Figure 6b) and turgor pressure (Figure 6c) were significant modified by the 30 mg L−1 SeNP treatment. In contrast, the 5 and 30 mg L−1 SeNP treatments were not significant in all the leaf osmotic adjustment parameters evaluated.

3.3. Fruit Quality and Bioactive Compounds

The application of SeNPs positively affected the fruit quality and bioactive compounds (pH, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, Vitamin C, β-Carotene) (Figure 7a–e) in a dose-dependent manner, with the exception of (Figure 7f). Specifically, the pH (Figure 7a) was significant increased by 45.9, 70.5, and 97% after the 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1 SeNP treatments, respectively, compared with the control. Moreover, the titratable acidity (Figure 7c) was also significant increased by 22 and 37%, respectively, compared with the control after the 15 and 30 mg L−1 SeNP treatments. Also, the total soluble solids (Figure 7b) and Vitamin C (Figure 7d) parameters were significant increased by 23.3 and 43%, respectively, compared with the control after the 5 mg L−1 SeNP treatment. Finally, the β-Carotene (Figure 7e) was significant increased by 10.9, 50.8, and 17.6%, respectively, compared with control after the 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1 SeNP treatments, respectively.

4. Discussion

According to previous studies, the biological activity and antioxidant characteristics of NPs are directly connected to the particle size and surface area/volume ratio [39]. For that reason, plant cells interact with NPs at a physicochemical level, regardless of the substance utilized, due to their surface qualities [40]. Thus, the previous research on NPs has demonstrated a variety of effects, ranging from negative [41] to positive ones. The principal parameters with negative to positive results were the fruit quality, physiological parameters, and secondary metabolites, among others [39,42,43]. Moreover, the application route (foliar or drenching) can also directly affect the positive or negative effect and the plant response [44].
In the present research, the treatment was applied via foliar applications. And although the absorption and stability of the applied SeNP treatments were not evaluated, it is important to mention that there are many factors that determine their absorption, translocation, and bioavailability on the leaf tissue and the plant [44]. Consequently, in this work, it was demonstrated that the SeNPs applied induced a positive effect in a dose-dependent manner in tomato plants. According to Garza-García et al. [22], the biostimulant activity of SeNPs is related to the primary embolism, increasing the enzymatic activity of nitrate reductase, which could be linked to a higher uptake of Mo and Fe, resulting in a higher content of amino acids and proteins, as reflected in a greater plant growth and yield.
Previous studies have demonstrated that SeNP concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 50 mg L−1 were effective in promoting tomato plant growth in many tomato varieties under different growing conditions [25,26,28]. Hernández-Hernández et al. [26] reported that SeNPs had a growth promotion effect on tomato under salt stress conditions. As demonstrated in our results and according to previous research, SeNPs have positive effects when applied at low concentrations in many crops [45,46,47]. Likewise, Domokos-Szabolcsy et al. [46] concluded that 265–530 µM of a SeNP treatment promoted the root growth and organogenesis in an in vitro tobacco tissue culture (Nicotiana tabacum L.). In the present study, the 5 mg L−1 treatment showed a stronger growth-promoting ability than the 15 and 30 mg L−1 treatments. Higher doses of Se might induce selenosis, thus lowering the tomato performance [48]. In addition, low concentrations of SeNPs can decrease the danger of excessive leaching and contamination, highlighting their benefits for sustainable agriculture.
The plant biomass was also increased after the 5 mg L−1 SeNP treatment. SeNPs protect chloroplast enzymes and the structure against oxidative damage, promoting the production of photosynthetic pigments [49]. According to studies, Se promotes respiration and electron transport in the respiratory chain, hence increasing chlorophyll synthesis. It is possible that the enhanced biomass is due to SeNPs mediating greater photosynthesis in tomato plants under the investigated conditions [50]. The results obtained confirmed our hypothesis that the foliar application of SeNPs can improve tomato growth and yields. Moreover, recent research suggests that Se interacts with certain nutrients, including Cu, Mo, Zn, and I [51]. These components may have altered the Se bioavailability in tomato plants, leading to an improved nutritional homeostasis and performance. Se and other nutrients interact with absorption and transporters and have comparable biological roles in plants [52]. SeNPs may have improved the tomato plant survival by increasing the root multiplication and nutrient uptake. These findings are consistent with previous studies [25,26,28]. Of course, the increased fruit diameter and yield caused by SeNPs might also be attributable to an increase in auxin levels, as reported by Luo et al. [53] who explored the function of the auxin interaction with Se on tobacco. They found that low concentrations of Se (10 µM) increased the growth, yield, and auxin concentrations. It is important to mention that auxin is a hormone that promotes plant and fruit development [54].
Chlorophylls are the most abundant photosynthetic pigments, which are crucial for the photosynthetic capacity by absorbing the sun’s light energy [55]. In the present research, the Chlorophylls were only significantly increased compared with the control at 30 DAT, with slightly but not significantly increased SPAD units at 45 and 60 DAT. Similar results were reported by Hernández-Hernández et al. [26], who did not find an increase in the content of SPAD units in tomato plants after SeNP applications. At a high dose (100 mg L−1) [56], SeNPs decreased the Chlorophylls due to the oxidative stress on the membrane of the chloroplast [57]. However, according to Morales-Espinoza [58], Selenium increased the concentrations of chlorophyll a and b on tomato plants under NaCl stress, suggesting that the influence of Selenium ions on leaf oxidation reduction is responsible for this alteration. Therefore, we assumed that SeNPs may help to maintain the photosynthetic capacity of tomato plants under stress conditions. The effect of NPs on plants varies depending on the dosages, with some causing favorable reactions and others having no effect. Hormesis is a characteristic seen when nanoparticles are used as biostimulants in crops [59].
Plant gas exchange is one of the most important factors to consider when examining stress tolerance in plants [60]. The donating portion of photosystem II (PSII) is negatively impacted by stressors, which also hinder the movement of electrons from reaction centers to plastoquinone, decrease the interference in the electron transport chain, and lower photosynthesis efficiency [61]. The current study also reports the effect of using SeNPs as a foliar spray on leaf gas exchange parameters of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’), which is closely related to the photosynthetic plant physiology. As previously mentioned, there were no significant differences in Chlorophylls and leaf gas exchange parameters, with the exception of the water use efficiency. In contrast, SeNPs improved the photosynthetic system of Citrus sinensis L. under salinity stress [62]. The decline of the net photosynthetic rate (A) and transpiration rate (E) parameters are related to the decline of the stomatal conductance (gs) and the intercellular concentration of CO2 (Ci). Also, the decrease in photosynthesis is considered to be due to stomatal conductance (gs). This means that the optimal intercellular concentration of CO2 (Ci), water use efficiency (WUE), and the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) are also related to the stomatal nature.
The leaf osmotic adjustment is an adaptative response of a leaf’s water status and the plant’s survival capabilities. In the present research, after evaluating the water potential (Ψw), osmotic potential (Ψπ), turgor pressure (ΨP), and total leaf hydraulic conductance (KL), only Ψπ and ΨP were significantly increased compared to the control. According to Barrera-Ayala et al. [63], these findings are consistent with their evaluation of the leaf osmotic conductance of two wild tomatoes (Solanum peruvianum L. and Solanum chilense (Dunal) Reiche) under dry conditions in order to enhance domestic tomatoes (S. lycopersicum). They discovered that the hydraulic strategies of the two wild species differed, with S. peruvianum displaying a water-saving strategy and S. chilense acting as a water-spender. Remarkably, S. lycopersicum had the greatest WUE and was also rather conservative. Water availability is the most critical element that limits plant photosynthesis and development [64]. The control of the water usage is frequently thought to be predominantly governed by interactions between the xylem architecture and stomatal activity, which may overlap to optimize water use [65]. Regarding this, water-savers would reduce their water use at the expense of a limited carbon benefit, whereas water-spending plants would maintain quicker growth rates but need a bigger water transport capacity [66]. In this sense, leaves serve as the main source of restriction for the hydraulic capacity of the entire plant, and in a wide range of species, including tomatoes, the hydraulic conductance of the leaves is a crucial limiting factor for water consumption and photosynthesis [63].
The total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity (TA) determine the tomato fruit’s taste and quality [67]. Furthermore, the pH has a significant impact on the tomato fruit quality, as less acidic fruits have a superior flavor and are thus more valued by customers [68]. Natural ripening causes a larger concentration of sugars, such as fructose and glucose, which add to the overall amount of soluble solids in the fruits [69]. According to our findings, SeNPs may have triggered an accelerated fruit maturity, resulting in an increase in the aforementioned tomato fruit quality parameters. The observed decrease in the pH in the control treatment may be due to the accumulation of organic acids in vacuoles [70]. This is in agreement with Morales-Espinoza et al. [58], who reported that an application of SeNPs in tomatoes under NaCl stress increases the pH levels compared to the diminished pH levels of the control. In a previous work, the application of 100 mg L−1 of SeNPs increased the TSS but lowered the firmness compared to the control [71].
Plants detoxify reactive oxygen species (ROS) via both enzymatic and non-enzymatic processes, such as ascorbic acid accumulation and antioxidant enzyme activation [72]. In the current study, it was discovered that plants treated with SeNPs had a higher Vitamin C and β-Carotene content than controls. Hernández-Hernández et al. [26] also reported that the application of SeNPs increases the content of Vitamin C, β-Carotene, and phenols in tomato fruits under NaCl stress. Vitamin C is the most abundant antioxidant in plants, functioning as a cofactor for redox enzymes against free radicals such OH−, H2O2, and O2− [73]. It is produced in the mitochondria and is subsequently transferred to chloroplasts via a phosphate transporter (AtPHT4; 4). Its function in the chloroplast is to release energy in the form of heat, while also eliminating free radicals during photosynthesis [74]. Thus, it can be inferred that under abiotic stress, phenols, which are antioxidants, can perform cellular signaling roles and produce a number of secondary metabolites through the malonic acid or shikimic acid pathways [75].
As a result, tomato plants may experience less oxidative stress if their levels of these chemicals rise. In line with the findings of this study, the application of NPs has been shown in several investigations to aid in the synthesis of antioxidant chemicals in plants [49]. Furthermore, because it is a cofactor for antioxidant enzymes, like glutathione peroxidases [34], Selenium alone can boost the synthesis of antioxidant molecules in plants [49]. Moreover, because of their physicochemical properties [19] and the benefit of their low toxicity [22], this capacity can be increased when administered as NPs.

5. Conclusions

The biostimulation of healthy tomato plants (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’) with SeNPs in the absence of induced stress improved morpho-physiological and fruit quality parameters. The beneficial effect of SeNPs on tomato plants depends on the concentration used. At low concentrations, SeNPs increased the plant growth and yield of tomato. In contrast, at medium to high concentrations, those parameters were not increased and even decreased. For physiological parameters, medium to high doses of SeNPs increased the net photosynthetic rate, water use efficiency, osmotic potential, and turgor pressure. In tomato fruit, the quality parameters and bioactive compounds were also increased after SeNP treatments. This research helped us to understand the SeNPs’ biostimulation effect on tomato plants in greenhouses under no stressor conditions. Nonetheless, additional open-field trials would be necessary to complement the results already obtained in practical agricultural settings. Moreover, the mechanisms with which SeNPs improve the morpho-physiological and fruit quality parameters are not fully understood. Therefore, it is essential to elucidate the intricacies of SeNPs’ interactions with the different plant systems before properly implementing the use of SeNPs in sustainable agriculture. To achieve this, quantitative studies with ‘omics’ science are needed to understand the interactions between SeNPs and plant tissues on a deeper level.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by State Technical University of Quevedo, with support provided through the Scientific and Technological Research Competitive Fund (FOCICYT) 9th Call, via the project PFOC9-07-2023 response of horticultural crops to Selenium application under controlled conditions.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Acknowledgments

To the State Technical University of Quevedo, for the support provided.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Vats, S.; Bansal, R.; Rana, N.; Kumawat, S.; Bhatt, V.; Jadhav, P.; Kale, V.; Sathe, A.; Sonah, H.; Jugdaohsingh, R.; et al. Unexplored nutritive potential of tomato to combat global malnutrition. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 1003–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Srivastav, A.L.; Patel, N.; Rani, L.; Kumar, P.; Dutt, I.; Maddodi, B.S.; Chaudhary, V.K. Sustainable options for fertilizer management in agriculture to prevent water contamination: A review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 8303–8327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tang, F.H.M.; Lenzen, M.; McBratney, A.; Maggi, F. Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abdollahdokht, D.; Gao, Y.; Faramarz, S.; Poustforoosh, A.; Abbasi, M.; Asadikaram, G.; Nematollahi, M.H. Conventional agrochemicals towards nano-biopesticides: An overview on recent advances. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2022, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Terán, F.; Vives-Peris, V.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Pérez-Clemente, R.M. Facing climate change: Plant stress mitigation strategies in agriculture. Physiol. Plant. 2024, 176, e14484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Tipán-Torres, H.C.; Llerena-Ramos, L.T.; Hernandez-Montiel, L.G.; Rivas-Garcia, T. Silicon increased the growth, productivity, and nutraceutical quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2023, 51, 13155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shiriaev, A.; Pezzarossa, B.; Rosellini, I.; Malorgio, F.; Lampis, S.; Ippolito, A.; Tonutti, P. Efficacy and Comparison of Different Strategies for Selenium Biofortification of Tomatoes. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gundala, R.R.; Singh, A. What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Zhao, G.; Zhu, X.; Zheng, G.; Meng, G.; Dong, Z.; Baek, J.H.; Jeon, C.O.; Yao, Y.; Xuan, Y.H.; Zhang, J.; et al. Development of biofertilizers for sustainable agriculture over four decades (1980–2022). Geogr. Sustain. 2024, 5, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Medrano-Macías, J.; Narvaéz-Ortiz, W.A. Selenium and Nano-Selenium as a New Frontier of Plant Biostimulant. In Selenium and Nano-Selenium in Environmental Stress Management and Crop Quality Improvement; Hossain, M.A., Ahammed, G.J., Kolbert, Z., El-Ramady, H., Islam, T., Schiavon, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheng, B.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Yue, L.; Cao, X.; Li, J.; Wang, C.; Wang, Z. Bioavailability of selenium nanoparticles in soil and plant: The role of particle size. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2024, 220, 105682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ikram, S.; Li, Y.; Lin, C.; Yi, D.; Heng, W.; Li, Q.; Tao, L.; Hongjun, Y.; Weijie, J. Selenium in plants: A nexus of growth, antioxidants, and phytohormones. J. Plant Physiol. 2024, 296, 154237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Khan, Z.; Thounaojam, T.C.; Chowdhury, D.; Upadhyaya, H. The role of selenium and nano selenium on physiological responses in plant: A review. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 100, 409–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gao, S.; Zhou, M.; Xu, J.; Xu, F.; Zhang, W. The application of organic selenium (SeMet) improve the photosynthetic characteristics, yield and quality of hybrid rice. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2024, 208, 108457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Raza, M.A.S.; Aslam, M.U.; Valipour, M.; Iqbal, R.; Haider, I.; Mustafa, A.E.Z.M.A.; Elshikh, M.S.; Ali, I.; Roy, R.; Elshamly, A.M.S. Seed priming with selenium improves growth and yield of quinoa plants suffering drought. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hajiboland, R.; Rahmat, S.; Zeinalzadeh, N.; Farsad-Akhtar, N.; Hosseinpour-Feizi, M.A. Senescence is delayed by selenium in oilseed rape plants. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2019, 55, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Feng, R.; Wei, C.; Tu, S. The roles of selenium in protecting plants against abiotic stresses. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 87, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Q.; Xian, L.; Yuan, L.; Lin, Z.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Li, T. The use of selenium for controlling plant fungal diseases and insect pests. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1102594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Somagattu, P.; Chinnannan, K.; Yammanuru, H.; Reddy, U.K.; Nimmakayala, P. Selenium dynamics in plants: Uptake, transport, toxicity, and sustainable management strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 949, 175033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kaur, N.; Sharma, S.; Kaur, S.; Nayyar, H. Selenium in agriculture: A nutrient or contaminant for crops? Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2014, 60, 1593–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nedjimi, B. Selenium as a powerful trace element for mitigation of plant salt stress: A review. J. Trace Elem. Miner. 2024, 8, 100123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Garza-García, J.J.O.; Hernández-Díaz, J.A.; Zamudio-Ojeda, A.; León-Morales, J.M.; Guerrero-Guzmán, A.; Sánchez-Chiprés, D.R.; López-Velázquez, J.C.; García-Morales, S. The Role of Selenium Nanoparticles in Agriculture and Food Technology. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2022, 200, 2528–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Menon, S.; Shanmugam, V.K. Chemopreventive mechanism of action by oxidative stress and toxicity induced surface decorated selenium nanoparticles. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2020, 62, 126549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hughes, K. Nanoparticle Size Comparison. Available online: https://app.biorender.com/biorender-templates/details/t-65fb245c3cb8c55fa6777d6e-nanoparticle-size-comparison (accessed on 2 June 2025).
  25. García-Locascio, E.; Valenzuela, E.I.; Cervantes-Avilés, P. Impact of seed priming with Selenium nanoparticles on germination and seedlings growth of tomato. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 6726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hernández-Hernández, H.; Quiterio-Gutiérrez, T.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; De La Fuente, M.C.; Valdés-Reyna, J.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Impact of Selenium and Copper Nanoparticles on Yield, Antioxidant System, and Fruit Quality of Tomato Plants. Plants 2019, 8, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ishtiaq, M.; Mazhar, M.W.; Maqbool, M.; Hussain, T.; Hussain, S.A.; Casini, R.; Abd-ElGawad, A.M.; Elansary, H.O. Seed Priming with the Selenium Nanoparticles Maintains the Redox Status in the Water Stressed Tomato Plants by Modulating the Antioxidant Defense Enzymes. Plants 2023, 12, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ahmad, A.; Javad, S.; Iqbal, S.; Shahzadi, K.; Gatasheh, M.K.; Javed, T. Alleviation potential of green-synthesized selenium nanoparticles for cadmium stress in Solanum lycopersicum L: Modulation of secondary metabolites and physiochemical attributes. Plant Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kang, Y.; Qin, H.; Wang, G.; Lei, B.; Yang, X.; Zhong, M. Selenium Nanoparticles Mitigate Cadmium Stress in Tomato through Enhanced Accumulation and Transport of Sulfate/Selenite and Polyamines. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2024, 72, 1473–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Liu, R.; Li, B.; Liu, Y.; Pan, C.; Zhou, Z.; Diao, J.; Zhang, Y. Selenium nanoparticle alleviates penthiopyrad-induced oxidative stress and restores the development and flavor quality of tomato fruit. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 130, 106142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Steiner, A.A. A universal method for preparing nutrient solutions of a certain desired composition. Plant Soil 1961, 15, 134–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. (USDA), U.S.D. of A. United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. Available online: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Tomato_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2024).
  33. Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Llerena-Ramos, L.T.; Hernández-Montiel, L.G.; Reynel-Chila, V.H.; Tezara, W.; Rivas-García, T. Chitosan improves morpho-physiological, rooting atributes and profitability of two cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) varieties during vegetative propagation. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2023, 26, 4761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC; Methods 932.06, 925.09, 985.29, 923.03; AOAC: Arlington, VA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  35. Levine, M.; Katz, A.; Padayatty, S.J.; Wang, Y.; Eck, P.; Kwon, O.; Chen, S.; Lee, J.H. Vitamin C. In Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA; pp. 745–755. ISBN 0824755030.
  36. Nagata, M.; Yamashita, I. Simple Method for Simultaneous Determination of Chlorophyll and Carotenoids in Tomato Fruit. Nippon Shokuhin Kogyo Gakkaishi 1992, 39, 925–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cumplido-Nájera, C.F.; González-Morales, S.; Ortega-Ortíz, H.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. The application of copper nanoparticles and potassium silicate stimulate the tolerance to Clavibacter michiganensis in tomato plants. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 245, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shahdadi, F.; Mirzaei, H.O.; Daraei Garmakhany, A. Study of phenolic compound and antioxidant activity of date fruit as a function of ripening stages and drying process. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 1814–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gupta, R.K.; Gawad, F.A.E.; Ali, E.A.E.; Karunanithi, S.; Yugiani, P.; Srivastav, P.P. Nanotechnology: Current applications and future scope in food packaging systems. Meas. Food 2024, 13, 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Javaid, A.; Hameed, S.; Li, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Rahman, M.U. Can nanotechnology and genomics innovations trigger agricultural revolution and sustainable development? Funct. Integr. Genom. 2024, 24, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. El-Moneim, D.A.; Dawood, M.F.A.; Moursi, Y.S.; Farghaly, A.A.; Afifi, M.; Sallam, A. Positive and negative effects of nanoparticles on agricultural crops. Nanotechnol. Environ. Eng. 2021, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Singh, T.; Singh, A.; Wang, W.; Yadav, D.; Kumar, A.; Singh, P.K. Biosynthesized Nanoparticles and Its Implications in Agriculture. In Biological Synthesis of Nanoparticles and Their Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rehmanullah; Muhammad, Z.; Inayat, N.; Majeed, A. Application of nanoparticles in agriculture as fertilizers and pesticides: Challenges and opportunities. In New Frontiers in Stress Management for Durable Agriculture; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ahmad, A.; Javad, S.; Iqbal, S.; Shahid, T.; Naz, S.; Shah, A.A.; Shaffique, S.; Gatasheh, M.K. Efficacy of soil drench and foliar application of iron nanoparticles on the growth and physiology of Solanum lycopersicum L. exposed to cadmium stress. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 27920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. El-Batal, A.I.; Sidkey, N.M.; Ismail, A.A.; Arafa, R.A.; Fathy, R.M. Impact of Silver and Selenium Nanoparticles Synthesized by Gamma Irradiation and Their Physiological Response on Early Blight Disease of Potato. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2016, 8, 934–951. [Google Scholar]
  46. Domokos-Szabolcsy, E.; Marton, L.; Sztrik, A.; Babka, B.; Prokisch, J.; Fari, M. Accumulation of red elemental selenium nanoparticles and their biological effects in Nicotinia tabacum. Plant Growth Regul. 2012, 68, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sariñana-Navarrete, M.d.l.Á.; Morelos-Moreno, Á.; Sánchez, E.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Preciado-Rangel, P. Selenium Nanoparticles Improve Quality, Bioactive Compounds and Enzymatic Activity in Jalapeño Pepper Fruits. Agronomy 2023, 13, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lv, Q.; Liang, X.; Nong, K.; Gong, Z.; Qin, T.; Qin, X.; Wang, D.; Zhu, Y. Advances in Research on the Toxicological Effects of Selenium. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 106, 715–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Johnson, J.; Shanmugam, R.; Lakshmi, T. A review on plant-mediated selenium nanoparticles and its applications. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. J. Ther. Popul. Pharmacol. Clin. 2022, 28, e29–e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zahedi, S.M.; Hosseini, M.S.; Daneshvar Hakimi Meybodi, N.; Peijnenburg, W. Mitigation of the effect of drought on growth and yield of pomegranates by foliar spraying of different sizes of selenium nanoparticles. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 5202–5213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Zhou, X.; Yang, J.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Shi, W. Selenium Biofortification and Interaction With Other Elements in Plants: A Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 586421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gui, J.Y.; Rao, S.; Huang, X.; Liu, X.; Cheng, S.; Xu, F. Interaction between selenium and essential micronutrient elements in plants: A systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 853, 158673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Luo, Y.; Wei, Y.; Sun, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, W.; Han, D.; Shao, H.; Jia, H.; Fu, Y. Selenium Modulates the Level of Auxin to Alleviate the Toxicity of Cadmium in Tobacco. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Batista-Silva, W.; de Paiva Gonçalves, J.; Siqueira, J.A.; Martins, A.O.; Ribeiro, D.M.; Nunes-Nesi, A.; Zsögön, A.; Araújo, W.L. Auxin metabolism and the modulation of plant growth. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2024, 226, 105917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shah, S.H.; Houborg, R.; McCabe, M.F. Response of Chlorophyll, Carotenoid and SPAD-502 Measurement to Salinity and Nutrient Stress in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agronomy 2017, 7, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zsiros, O.; Nagy, V.; Párducz, Á.; Nagy, G.; Ünnep, R.; El-Ramady, H.; Prokisch, J.; Lisztes-Szabó, Z.; Fári, M.; Csajbók, J.; et al. Effects of selenate and red Se-nanoparticles on the photosynthetic apparatus of Nicotiana tabacum. Photosynth. Res. 2019, 139, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hussein, H.A.A.; Darwesh, O.M.; Mekki, B.B. Environmentally friendly nano-selenium to improve antioxidant system and growth of groundnut cultivars under sandy soil conditions. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 18, 101080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Morales-Espinoza, M.C.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Pérez-Alvarez, M.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; Cabrera de la Fuente, M.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Valdés-Reyna, J.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Se Nanoparticles Induce Changes in the Growth, Antioxidant Responses, and Fruit Quality of Tomato Developed under NaCl Stress. Molecules 2019, 24, 3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tryfon, P.; Sperdouli, I.; Moustaka, J.; Adamakis, I.D.S.; Giannousi, K.; Dendrinou-Samara, C.; Moustakas, M. Hormetic Response of Photosystem II Function Induced by Nontoxic Calcium Hydroxide Nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 8350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Lu, C.; Li, L.; Liu, X.; Chen, M.; Wan, S.; Li, G. Salt Stress Inhibits Photosynthesis and Destroys Chloroplast Structure by Downregulating Chloroplast Development–Related Genes in Robinia pseudoacacia Seedlings. Plants 2023, 12, 1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Rahman, M.M.; Mostofa, M.G.; Keya, S.S.; Siddiqui, M.N.; Ansary, M.M.U.; Das, A.K.; Rahman, M.A.; Tran, L.S.P. Adaptive Mechanisms of Halophytes and Their Potential in Improving Salinity Tolerance in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Saeedi, R.; Seyedi, A.; Esmaeilizadeh, M.; Seyedi, N.; Morteza Zahedi, S.; Malekzadeh, M.R. Improving the performance of the photosynthetic apparatus of Citrus sinensis with the use of chitosan-selenium nanocomposite (CS + Se NPs) under salinity stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Barrera-Ayala, D.; Tapia, G.; Ferrio, J.P. Leaf Carbon and Water Isotopes Correlate with Leaf Hydraulic Traits in Three Solanum Species (S. peruvianum, S. lycopersicum and S. chilense). Agriculture 2023, 13, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Skelton, R.P.; West, A.G.; Dawson, T.E. Predicting plant vulnerability to drought in biodiverse regions using functional traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 5744–5749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Scoffoni, C.; Chatelet, D.S.; Pasquet-Kok, J.; Rawls, M.; Donoghue, M.J.; Edwards, E.J.; Sack, L. Hydraulic basis for the evolution of photosynthetic productivity. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. McKown, A.D.; Cochard, H.; Sack, L. Decoding leaf hydraulics with a spatially explicit model: Principles of venation architecture and implications for its evolution. Am. Nat. 2010, 175, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Xu, X.; Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Yuan, Q.; Wang, J.; Cui, J.; Lin, A. Effects of selenium fertilizer application and tomato varieties on tomato fruit quality: A meta-analysis. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 304, 111242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhu, F.; Wen, W.; Cheng, Y.; Fernie, A.R. The metabolic changes that effect fruit quality during tomato fruit ripening. Mol. Hortic. 2022, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Egea, I.; Estrada, Y.; Flores, F.B.; Bolarín, M.C. Improving production and fruit quality of tomato under abiotic stress: Genes for the future of tomato breeding for a sustainable agriculture. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 204, 105086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pinedo-Guerrero, Z.H.; Delia Hernández-Fuentes, A.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Cu Nanoparticles in Hydrogels of Chitosan-PVA Affects the Characteristics of Post-Harvest and Bioactive Compounds of Jalapeño Pepper. Molecules 2017, 22, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Saffan, M.M.; Koriem, M.A.; El-Henawy, A.; El-Mahdy, S.; El-Ramady, H.; Elbehiry, F.; Omara, A.E.D.; Bayoumi, Y.; Badgar, K.; Prokisch, J. Sustainable Production of Tomato Plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) under Low-Quality Irrigation Water as Affected by Bio-Nanofertilizers of Selenium and Copper. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dumanović, J.; Nepovimova, E.; Natić, M.; Kuča, K.; Jaćević, V. The Significance of Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidant Defense System in Plants: A Concise Overview. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 552969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Paciolla, C.; Fortunato, S.; Dipierro, N.; Paradiso, A.; De Leonardis, S.; Mastropasqua, L.; de Pinto, M.C. Vitamin C in Plants: From Functions to Biofortification. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Miyaji, T.; Kuromori, T.; Takeuchi, Y.; Yamaji, N.; Yokosho, K.; Shimazawa, A.; Sugimoto, E.; Omote, H.; Ma, J.F.; Shinozaki, K.; et al. AtPHT4;4 is a chloroplast-localized ascorbate transporter in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Kołton, A.; Długosz-Grochowska, O.; Wojciechowska, R.; Czaja, M. Biosynthesis Regulation of Folates and Phenols in Plants. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 291, 110561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 11 00876 g001
Figure 1. Nanoparticle size comparison with other established items. Source: Hughes [24] Biorender (CC by 4.0).
Figure 1. Nanoparticle size comparison with other established items. Source: Hughes [24] Biorender (CC by 4.0).
Horticulturae 11 00876 g001
Horticulturae 11 00876 g002
Figure 2. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on plant growth parameters of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Stem diameter, (b) stem weight, (c) root length, (d) root weight, (e) leaf weight, and (f) plant height. DAT = Days After Transplanting. Control = Deionized Water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Figure 2. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on plant growth parameters of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Stem diameter, (b) stem weight, (c) root length, (d) root weight, (e) leaf weight, and (f) plant height. DAT = Days After Transplanting. Control = Deionized Water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Horticulturae 11 00876 g002
Horticulturae 11 00876 g003
Figure 3. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on flowering and fruit yield parameters of Tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Flowers per plant, (b) fruits per plant, (c) fruit diameter, and (d) yield. Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Figure 3. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on flowering and fruit yield parameters of Tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Flowers per plant, (b) fruits per plant, (c) fruit diameter, and (d) yield. Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Horticulturae 11 00876 g003
Horticulturae 11 00876 g004
Figure 4. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on Chlorophyll content of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). DAT = Days After Transplanting, Control = Deionized Water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Figure 4. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on Chlorophyll content of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). DAT = Days After Transplanting, Control = Deionized Water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Horticulturae 11 00876 g004
Horticulturae 11 00876 g005
Figure 5. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on leaf gas exchange parameters of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Net photosynthetic rate (A), (b) transpiration rate (E), (c) stomatal conductance (gs), (d) intercellular concentration of CO2 (Ci), (e) water use efficiency (WUE), and (f) leaf–air vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Figure 5. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on leaf gas exchange parameters of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Net photosynthetic rate (A), (b) transpiration rate (E), (c) stomatal conductance (gs), (d) intercellular concentration of CO2 (Ci), (e) water use efficiency (WUE), and (f) leaf–air vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Horticulturae 11 00876 g005
Horticulturae 11 00876 g006
Figure 6. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on leaf osmotic adjustment of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Water potential (Ψw), (b) osmotic potential (Ψπ), (c) turgor pressure (ΨP), and (d) total leaf hydraulic conductance (KL). Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Figure 6. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on leaf osmotic adjustment of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) Water potential (Ψw), (b) osmotic potential (Ψπ), (c) turgor pressure (ΨP), and (d) total leaf hydraulic conductance (KL). Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Horticulturae 11 00876 g006
Horticulturae 11 00876 g007
Figure 7. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on fruit quality parameters and bioactive compounds of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) pH, (b) total soluble solids (TSS), (c) titratable acidity (TA), (d) Vitamin C, (e) β-Carotene, and (f) phenols. Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Figure 7. Effect of Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs; 5, 15, and 30 mg L−1) on fruit quality parameters and bioactive compounds of tomato (S. lycopersicum cv. ‘Pomodoro’). (a) pH, (b) total soluble solids (TSS), (c) titratable acidity (TA), (d) Vitamin C, (e) β-Carotene, and (f) phenols. Control = deionized water. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are represented by different letters in treatment bars. Black vertical lines with caps represent ±standard error.
Horticulturae 11 00876 g007
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

Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Rivas-García, T.; Llerena-Ramos, L.T.; Ramos-Remache, R.A.; Vásquez Cortez, L.H.; Preciado-Rangel, P.; Martínez-Camacho, R.A. Selenium Nanoparticles Improve Morpho-Physiological and Fruit Quality Parameters of Tomato. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 876. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080876

AMA Style

Reyes-Pérez JJ, Rivas-García T, Llerena-Ramos LT, Ramos-Remache RA, Vásquez Cortez LH, Preciado-Rangel P, Martínez-Camacho RA. Selenium Nanoparticles Improve Morpho-Physiological and Fruit Quality Parameters of Tomato. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(8):876. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080876

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reyes-Pérez, Juan José, Tomás Rivas-García, Luis Tarquino Llerena-Ramos, Rommel Arturo Ramos-Remache, Luis Humberto Vásquez Cortez, Pablo Preciado-Rangel, and Rubí A. Martínez-Camacho. 2025. "Selenium Nanoparticles Improve Morpho-Physiological and Fruit Quality Parameters of Tomato" Horticulturae 11, no. 8: 876. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080876

APA Style

Reyes-Pérez, J. J., Rivas-García, T., Llerena-Ramos, L. T., Ramos-Remache, R. A., Vásquez Cortez, L. H., Preciado-Rangel, P., & Martínez-Camacho, R. A. (2025). Selenium Nanoparticles Improve Morpho-Physiological and Fruit Quality Parameters of Tomato. Horticulturae, 11(8), 876. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080876

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