Next Article in Journal
Maintaining Canopy Density under Summer Stress Conditions Retains PSII Efficiency and Modulates Must Quality in Cabernet Franc
Previous Article in Journal
An Academic and Technical Overview on Plant Micropropagation Challenges
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mitigation of Salinity Stress Effects on Broad Bean Productivity Using Calcium Phosphate Nanoparticles Application
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 8
Issue 8
10.3390/horticulturae8080678
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improving the Quality and Production of Philodendron Plants Using Nanoparticles and Humic Acid

by
Ghada M. R. El-Shawa
1,
Khadiga Alharbi
2,*,
Muneera AlKahtani
2,
Latifa AlHusnain
2,
Kotb A. Attia
3,4 and
Khaled Abdelaal
5
1
Ornamental Plants and Landscape Gardening Research Department, Hort. Res. Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza 12619, Egypt
2
Department of Biology, College of Science, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
3
Center of Excellence in Biotechnology Research, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
4
Rice Biotechnology Lab., Rice Department, Field Crops Research Institute, ARC, Sakha 33717, Egypt
5
Plant Pathology and Biotechnology Laboratory, Excellence Center (EPCRS), Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr Elsheikh 33516, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2022, 8(8), 678; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080678
Submission received: 17 May 2022 / Revised: 13 July 2022 / Accepted: 20 July 2022 / Published: 25 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Nanoparticles on Horticultural Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A pot experiment was conducted during the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons to evaluate the effect of silver nanoparticles (SNPs), iron nanoparticles (FeNPs), zinc nanoparticles (ZnNPs), and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium nanoparticles (NPK NPs) and humic acid (HA) in improving the growth of Philodendron plants. Our findings indicated that the highest increase in plant height and leaf width was recorded with 60 mg/L SNPs. Additionally, the highest values in the number of leaves/plant were recorded with 60 mg/L SNPs compared to the control. FeNPs at 150 mg/L treatment gave the best result of total chlorophyll and carotenoid content, followed by SNPs at 60 mg/L and then NPK NPs at 2 mL/L in the two seasons. Furthermore, ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, SNPs at 20 mg/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, and SNPs at 60 mg/L gave the best results of enzyme activity (catalase, peroxidase, and polyphenol oxidase). However, the treatments with 40 and 60 mg/L SNPs led to improve the anatomical characters of leaves and stem such as thickness of the blade, mesophyll tissue, xylem vessel diameter, vascular bundle dimension, stem diameter, and epidermis cell dimension compared with other treatments and the control.

1. Introduction

The Philodendron (Philodendron bipinnatifidum Schott ex Endl.syn. Philodendron selloum K. Koch.), popularly known as “lacy tree philodendron”, is a member of the family Araceae. It is a tropical plant native to South America. It is widely used as a potted plant in the interior arrangement of plants and is highly valuable for its attractive dark green leaves, large and shiny with deeply lobed foliage, and tolerance to indoor environments. Recently, nanoparticles (NPs) and nanotechnology have been used significantly in the horticulture field as bio stimulators that improve plant propagation, growth, development, productivity, and health in the form of agrochemicals, use in the genetic engineering of plants, the bioremediation of contaminated soil, and improving plant tolerance to stress [1,2]. The mechanism of nanoparticle action is due to the fact that NPs can easily enter plant cells by the stomata and trichomes because they have fewer diameters smaller than the diameter of pores of the cell wall, then transferred to other plant parts by the transfer tissues [3]. Moreover, NPs react with plants at the cellular and subcellular planes after entry, promoting changes in physiological and morphological cases [4]. On the other hand, some studies reported that the application of nano fertilizer leads to an increase in the efficiency of the elements, decreases the toxicity of the soil caused by the consumption of excessive fertilizers, and decreases the frequency of the application of fertilizers [5]. Nano fertilizers improve the availability of nutrients for the plants that improve photosynthesis rate, chlorophyll formation, total plant growth, and production of dry matter [6,7]. Additionally, a previous study revealed that nano fertilizer NPK at 4.5 g/L gave the best growth of Codiaeum plants [7]. Additionally, nano NPK increased the leaf area, shoot length, and the number of leaves of pea plants [8]. The foliar nanotechnology liquid fertilizer improves the yield and all-over plant growth of cucumbers [9]. Micronutrient shortages in plants led to a decrease in growth characters; Fe and Zn shortage is the most injurious to the growth of plants between the micronutrients [10]. Iron NPs have a great surface area and higher reactivity. Furthermore, it is constant, inexpensive, and less toxic compared to numerous other metallic NPs [11]. Iron is one of the main elements for the development and growth of the plant; it plays a substantial role in the photosynthetic reactions, including chloroplast evolution and the synthesis of chlorophyll and thylakoid [12]. Fe is a cofactor for activating several enzymes [13]. It contributes to the synthesis of RNA and promotes the representation of photosystems. It also shares several physiologic processes comprising redox reactions and respiration [14]. Recent studies have reported that FeNPs are more efficient in supplying plants with Fe than commonly used Fe chemical fertilizers in agricultural production [15,16]. Elfeky et al. [12] reported that Fe NPs significantly affects iron content, total carbohydrate, total chlorophyll, and the plant growth of sweet basil. Nano zinc oxide particles (ZnNPs) have a small size and a large surface area, ideal for use as a fertilizer for plants as a Zn fertilizer. Additionally, zinc plays a major role in plant resistance to drought and salinity stress [17,18]. It plays a substantial role in stomata control through its capability to maintain membrane safety and keep the potassium content in the cells, as well as its role in the water relations of the plant [19]. Moreover, it has an important role in the synthesis of auxin or indole acetic acid (IAA) from tryptophan, as well as in biochemical reactions needed for the formation of carbohydrates and chlorophyll [20]. Zinc is used as a cofactor for several enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase and catalase, to prevent plant cells from oxidative damage [4]. The better results in the plant growth were observed when plants were treated with ZnNPs [21] on cowpea and okra. Silver nanoparticles have a high overall surface area due to their small size. So, the adherence of SNPs to the cell surface is powerful, which leads to high efficiency [22]. SNPs release Ag+ ions, which react with cytoplasmic organelles and nucleic acids to prevent respiratory enzymes and intervene with cellular functions like membrane leakage [23]. In addition, SNPs affect respiration, metabolism, and the proliferation of microorganisms [24]. Additionally, a previous study indicated that SNPs at 60 ppm increase leaf surface area, shoot and root lengths, chlorophyll, protein, and carbohydrate contents in common bean and corn plants [6]. Hatami and Ghorbanpour [22] reported that the application of SNPs reduces the degradation of leaf chlorophyll and carotenoids, decreases petal abscission, maintains antioxidative enzyme activity, and improves the longevity of pelargonium. Nowadays, bio-organic fertilizer is used to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and hence reduce environmental pollution, as well as reduce the production cost of many crops [25,26,27,28,29]. Humic acid (HA) is a natural polymer containing phenolic and carboxyl positions for the exchange process [30]. The mode of action of HA on plant growth can be split into direct and indirect effects as it increases cell membrane permeability resulting in an improved transfer of nutrients, promoted photosynthesis, promoted protein synthesis, solubilization of micronutrients, reduced active levels of poisonous elements, enhanced microbe population, promoted soil structure, incremented water retention and cation interchange capacity [31], and improved formalization of ATP and amino acids resulting in the best growth and development [31]. Additionally, Piccolo et al. [32] reported that it can be utilized as a growth regulator to organize hormone levels, promote plant growth, and increase stress toleration. Nanoparticles can provide effective solutions to reduce the cost of production, and reduce environmental pollution, consequently leading to the achievement of some sustainable development goals in agriculture. Hence, our study aimed to evaluate the effect of silver nanoparticles, iron nanoparticles, zinc nanoparticles, NPK nanoparticles, and humic acid as a new strategy for improving the growth and physiological as well as anatomical characteristics of the Philodendron plant compared with the control treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

A pot experiment was conducted at Sahl El-Husseinieh Research Station, Agriculture Research Center, Sharqia Governorate, Egypt in an uncontrolled plastic house, and the laboratory investigations were conducted in PPBL lab. and EPCRS excellence center, Department of Agricultural Botany, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, during the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.

2.1. Plant Materials and Experimental Design

Seedlings of Philodendron were obtained from Elzoharia garden, Hort. Res. Inst., ARC, Egypt. The plants were transplanted individually in 15 cm pots in diameter filled with peat moss, vermiculite, and perlite (2:1:1, v/v) on September 4th in both seasons. All plants were sprayed with NPK (19:19:19) fertilizer at 2 g/L every one month during experiments, starting after 21 days from transplanting, then the plants were watered as needed. The six-month-old plants (the average number of leaves was 3 ± 1 leaves/plantlet and the average height was 15 ± 1 cm) were sprayed with different treatments as follows:
  • Control.
  • 1 ml/L humic acid (HA)
  • 2 ml/L humic acid (HA)
  • 1.5 ml/L nano fertilizer NPK (NPK NPs)
  • 2 ml/L nano fertilizer NPK (NPK NPs)
  • 100 mg/L iron nanoparticles (FeNPs)
  • 150 mg/L iron nanoparticles (FeNPs)
  • 150 mg/L zinc nanoparticles (ZnNPs)
  • 200 mg/L zinc nanoparticles (ZnNPs)
  • 20 mg/L Silver nanoparticles (SNPs)
  • 40 mg/L Silver nanoparticles (SNPs)
  • 60 mg/L Silver nanoparticles (SNPs)
Nano fertilizer NPK (Fast tri volume 7:6:7) and humic acid (10% humic and 6% potassium) were obtained from Bio Nano Technology company at Mansoura-Dakahlia-Egypt. Iron and Zinc oxide nanoparticles used in experiments were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Company. The size of particles for FeNPs was about (50–100 nm) with 99% purity, while the size of particles for ZnNPs was <50 nm with a purity of 97%. SNPs with diameters ranging from 8–20 were prepared according to Hebeish et al. [33].
The treatments were sprayed on the foliage of Philodendron plants until the fall of the first drop from the leaf each time one month after transplanting in October in both seasons (2019/2020 and 2020/2021) and were repeated four times at 2-week intervals. The pots were arranged in a completely randomized block design. The experimental treatments were 12 treatments, with three replicates; each replicate had four pots and one plant in each pot. The plant height, plant width, the number of leaves, and the leaf dimensions (length and width of leaf blades, length of petioles) were determined to evaluate the quality and the production of Philodendron plants.

2.2. The Growth Parameters

After 6 months (April 2020) and 12 months (October 2020) from starting treatments in both seasons, the data were recorded of the plant height (cm), plant width (cm), the number of leaves/plant, and the leaf dimensions (length and width of leaf blades, length of petioles).
At the end of the experiment (after 12 months), the measurements taken of the leaf area (cm2) were specified according to the method of Matthew et al. [34] of the 4th leaf from the top, root length (cm), stem diameter (cm) at a height 4 cm from the soil surface, and the fresh and dry weight of leaves, stems, and roots (g/plant).

2.3. Physiological Characters

The samples were collected at the end of the experiments to determine the following characters:
-
Total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents in leaves were determined according to Allel et al. [35].
-
Activities of the catalase (CAT) enzyme were measured according to Giannopolitis and Ries [36]. POX was measured according to Hammerschmidt et al. [37]. PPO activity was measured according to Malik and Singh [38].
-
Nitrogen (N) (%) was determined by micro Kjeldahl as per the method described by the A.O.A.C. [39]. Phosphorus (P) (%) was determined by spectrophotometer as per the method described by Jackson [40]. Potassium (K) (%) was determined by flame emission spectrometry according to Page et al. [41]. Iron (Fe mg/kg) and zinc (Zn mg/kg) were specified by using inductively coupled spectrometry plasma (ICP) Model Ultimate-Jobin Yvonzz.e.

2.4. Anatomical Studies

The samples of leaves and stems (5 mm length) were taken at the end of the second season (2019/2020). Samples were fixed in fixation solution, consisting of formalin, alcohol, and acetic acid mixture (1:18:1 v/v). They were washed and dehydrated in alcohol series and embedded in paraffin wax (62–64 °C m. p.). Samples were sectioned using a rotary microtome (Leica RM 2125) with 15 µm of thickness. The sections were launched on slides and dipped in xylene to remove the wax. Then the sections were stained using safranine and light green [42]. The slides were cleared in xylene and mounted in Canada balsam [43]. The sections were examined and photographed with an electric microscope (Lieca DM LS) with a digital camera (Leitz Wetzler, Wetzler, Germany) at 100× magnification.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The data were the mean of two seasons (2019/2020 and 2020/2021). The experiment includes 12 treatments with three replicates, each replicate had four pots and one plant in each pot. The data were subjected to statistical analysis of variance using CoStat Computer Software version 6.303. The mean was compared by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test [44] (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05) [45].

3. Results

3.1. Morphological Growth Characters

3.1.1. Plant Height, Plant Width and Number of Leaves/Plants

From this investigation, it is clear that the impact of SNPs, FeNPs, ZnNPs, NPK NPs, and HA on vegetative growth traits of Philodendron bipinnatifidum had significant effects in comparison to the control plants. The data showed that SNPs at (40 and 60 mg/L) resulted in better growth parameters compared with any treatments followed by NPK NPs at 2 mL/L, while the control treatment was the least. The highest increase in plant height and plant width after six and twelve months was achieved by plants sprayed with 60 mg/L SNPs (Table 1). Additionally, 60 mg/L SNPs were found to be more effective in increasing the number of leaves after 6 and 12 months. The highest values in the number of leaves after 6 and 12 months were recorded at 60 mg/L SNPs (5.00 and 11.67 leaf/plant, respectively), while the lowest values (3.75 and 6.42 leaf/plant respectively) were recorded with the control.

3.1.2. The Leaf Dimensions (Length and Width of Leaf Blades, Length of Petioles)

The data in Table 2 revealed that the response of Length and Width of leaves blade and Length of petiole to the treatments followed a similar direction as in height and width of plant and number of leaves/plant. Plants treated with SNPs at (20, 40, and 60 mg/L), ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, NPK NPs at (1.5 and 2 mL/L), and HA at (1 and 2 mL/L) had significantly higher lengths compared to control plants after 6 months and 12 months. Most treatments had significantly increased the width of the leaf blade and length of the petiole more than the untreated control plants in both periods. Here also, the application of SNPs at 60 mg/L was the more effective treatment in increasing leaf parameters, giving the greatest mean blade length, blade width, and length of petiole in both periods.

3.1.3. Leaf Area, Stem Diameter, and Root Length

The data presented in Table 3 showed that most of the nanoparticle treatments and humic acid caused a significant increase in leaf area, stem diameter, and root length of Philodendron plants compared with control plants. The application of 60 mg/L SNPs resulted in significant increases in these parameters compared with other treatments and the control. The highest values were recorded with 60 mg/L SNPs (295.22 cm2 for leaf area, 2.30 cm for stem diameter, and 54.33 cm for root length). The lowest values were recorded with the control plants (91.06 cm2 for leaf area, 1.14 cm for stem diameter, and 32.38 cm for root length).

3.1.4. The Fresh and Dry Weights of Leaves, Stems, Roots, and the Whole Plant

In the context of the presented data, it should be underlined that the application of most of the nanomaterials and humic acid led to an increase in the fresh and dry weights of the leaves, stems, roots, and the whole plant when compared to the control plants (Table 4). There were no significant differences in the fresh and dry weights of leaves, stems, roots, and the whole plant between 100 mg/L FeNPs and the control. The most significant effective treatment on the fresh and dry weights of leaves, stems, and the whole plant was the application of SNPs at 60 mg/L. The highest fresh weight of the whole plant (176.15 g/plant) and the highest dry weight of the whole plant (15.57 g/plant) were obtained by the application of 60 mg/L SNPs. The lowest values of the fresh weight of whole plant (77.47 g/plant) and the lowest dry weight of the whole plant (5.66 g/plant) were recorded with the control treatment.

3.2. Physiological Characters

3.2.1. Photosynthetic Pigments

The data in Figure 1A,B reveal a significant effect of SNPs, NPK NPs, FeNPs, ZnNPs, and humic acid at all concentrations on leaf pigments of Philodendron plants compared to the control. It is clear that the best total chlorophyll content was obtained under FeNPs at 150 mg/L and SNPs at 60 mg/L treatments. Additionally, the highest value in chlorophyll content was obtained under FeNPs at 150 mg/L treatment. Moreover, the highest values in carotenoid content were obtained under NPK NPs at 2 mL/L, FeNPs at 150 mg/L, and SNPs at 60 mg/L treatments. The lowest concentration of all leaf pigments was obtained from the untreated plants. The highest values (1.14 mg/g FW for chlorophyll and 0.181 mg/g FW for carotenoid) were recorded when plants were sprayed with 150 mg/L FeNPs.

3.2.2. Mineral Contents

The results of our present study depicted that NPs (Ag, Fe, Zn, and NPK) and humic acid had significantly increased Fe (except for the SNPs at 20 mg/L treatment) and Zn contents in leaves of Philodendron plants compared to the control (Figure 2A,B). The foliar application FeNPs had significantly increased the Fe content in leaves compared with other treatments and the control plants (Figure 2A). The highest content of iron (1.75 mg/kg dry matter) was achieved when the plants were sprayed with 150 mg/L FeNPs, and the unsprayed plants recorded the lowest values of Fe content (0.80 mg/kg dry matter). As seen in Figure 2B, the recorded data revealed that plants treated with ZnNPs had significantly increased Zinc content in plant leaves compared to other treatments and the control plants. The highest mean values of Zn content were recorded for the treatment of 200 mg/L ZnNPs (0.68 mg/kg dry matter) while the lowest ones were recorded with the control plants (0.53 mg/kg dry matter).
Regarding the effect of nanoparticles (Ag, Fe, Zn, and NPK) and humic acid on N, P, and K contents, the results in Figure 3A–C revealed that all treatments led to a great increase in N, P and K elements (%) in the leaves of Philodendron compared to control plants. The highest values of N (%) in the leaves were obtained with 2 mL/L NPK NPs followed by 1.5 mL/L NPK NPs, then SNPs at 60 mg/L. The highest value of nitrogen (4.44%) content in leaves was obtained with 2 mL/L NPK NPs, while the control recorded the lowest value (Figure 3A). As shown in Figure 3B, there were non-significant differences in phosphorus (%) between 2 mL/L NPK NPs, 1.5 mL/L NPK NPs, SNPs at 60 mg/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, and HA at 2 mL/L. The highest value of P (%) was obtained with 2 mL/L NPK NPs, while the control treatment achieved the lowest values. The highest content of potassium was recorded in the leaves of the plants sprayed with NPK NPs treatments followed by Humic acid treatments; the highest values were recorded at 2 mL/L NPK NPs (Figure 3C). The lowest values of K contents were obtained in the control plants (2.72%).

3.2.3. Enzymes Activities

The obtained results indicated that humic acid and NPs (Ag, Fe, Zn, and NPK) treatments led to improvements in the up-regulation of enzyme activities, mainly catalase, peroxidase, and polyphenol oxidase in the leaves of Philodendron plants (Figure 4). The plants showed a higher CAT activity than the control when treated with SNPs at 60 and 40 mg/L, ZnNPs at 150 mg/L, FeNPs at 100 mg/L, and NPK NPs at 2 mL/L. Additionally, a higher POX activity was recorded in treated plants compared to the control when treated with HA at 2 mL/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, SNPs at 60 mg/L, and ZnNPs at 150 mg/L nanoparticles. However, the plants showed a higher PPO activity compared to the control when treated with SNPs at 60 mg/L nanoparticles.

3.3. Anatomical Structure of Leaves and Stems

The obtained results showed that humic acid and NPs (Ag, Fe, Zn, and NPK) treatments led to improved anatomical characteristics of the leaves and stems of Philodendron plants (Figure 5 and Figure 6) compared to the control without treatments. The anatomical structure of the leaf of Philodendron, as a monocotyledonous plant, showed the upper and lower epidermis as well as mesophyll tissue (Figure 5). The treatments with NPK NPs at 2 mL/L (nano fertilizer NPK), ZnNPs at 200 mg/L (zinc nanoparticles), SNPs at 20 mg/L (Silver nanoparticles), SNPs at 40 mg/L (Silver nanoparticles), and SNPs at 60 mg/L (Silver nanoparticles) caused an improvement in the thickness of the blade, the thickness of mesophyll tissue, xylem vessel diameter, and vascular bundles dimension. The best results were obtained with SNPs at 40 mg/L and 60 mg/L (Silver nanoparticles). Additionally, the anatomical characters of treated Philodendron stems with NPK NPs at 2 mL/L, ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, SNPs at 20 mg/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, and SNPs at 60 mg/L exhibited an increment in stem diameter and epidermis cell dimension. The best result was recorded with 40 and 60 mg/L Silver nanoparticles compared with other treatments and the control (Figure 6A).

4. Discussion

The present investigation demonstrated that all nutrition treatments had positive effects on the Philodendron growth and chemical and physiological parameters. Our results clearly indicated that the plant quality characters such as plant height and width, number of leaves, leaf parameters, leaf area, stem diameter, fresh and dry weights, as well as root length were improved with the application of SNPs at 60 mg/L compared with the other treatments. Ghorbanpour and Hatami [46] reported that the plant growth parameters of pelargonium increased with increasing concentrations of SNPs up to 40 mg/L. Additionally, the results of this investigation were in conformity with the previous results on the fenugreek plants. Growth parameters of fenugreek plants (e.g., shoot length, number of leaves/plant, and shoot dry weight) were significantly activated by silver nanoparticles [47]. Moreover, the stimulation effect of SNPs on the morphological growth of Oriental Lilies was observed with silver nanoparticles [1]. SNPs promoted root length and the number of roots in tomato seedlings [48]. Our current study recorded that the application of SNPs improves the morphological parameters due to the highly developed surface area of SNPs which makes them more reactive. Moreover, their Physico-chemical properties allow them to interact with living cells [49]. Syu et al. [50] showed that SNPs can promote root growth and increase the accumulation of proteins that are linked to the cell cycle, carbohydrate metabolism, and chloroplast biogenesis, and stimulate the biosynthesis of auxins associated with ROS Scavenging. Additionally, NPK NPs led to improvements in the morphological characters of Philodendron, especially in higher concentrations. Our findings were in accordance with the results of AL-Gym and Al-Asady [51] who indicated that spraying with NPK NPs 1.5 g/L and 7.5 kg/ha mixing with soil significantly increased vegetative growth and yield in yellow corn. The application of a mixture of N, P, and K recorded high growth characteristics and chemical composition of the sage plant [52]. NPK NPs play an important role in increasing plant growth due to the stimulating effect of nitrogen on Auxin production, which encourages cell division and elongation in the vegetative growth stage of the plant. Additionally, it is an essential element to construct the amino acid Tryptophan, which is the main constructing material for constructing indole acetic acid (IAA) as a major hormone in the plant [51]. Sun et al. [53] reported that nitrogen may have a positive effect on the amount of IAA in rice plants. The same trend was recorded by Xu et al. [54] in rice plants. The importance of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for plant production was studied by some researchers in several economic crops such as rice [55,56], maize [57,58], wheat [59,60], and sugar beet [61].
In this investigation, spraying Philodendron plants with NPs treatments and humic acid led to increasing photosynthetic pigments (Figure 1). The highest values of chlorophyll and carotenoids were obtained when plants were sprayed with 150 mg/L FeNPs. This increase may be a result of stimulating the activity of some specific enzymes which play an important role in chlorophyll synthesis [12], such as NADPH protochlorophyllide oxidoreductase (POR), which is the main enzyme of chlorophyll synthesis in flowering plants. It can catalyze the light-requiring step of the C5 pathway [62]. Additionally, iron functions in the synthesis of a specified type of RNA that regulates chlorophyll synthesis through a series of unbeknownst reactions [63,64]. Approximately, iron atoms were found in photosynthetic apparatus per electron transport chain in different heme- and [Fe–S] cluster-containing proteins where it was essential for the photosynthetic activities [62]. The same trend was recorded by Elfeky et al. [12] on basil and Dawa et al. [65] on tomato. They reported that the foliar application of FeNPs increased photosynthetic pigments. Additionally, SNPs at 60 mg/L significantly increased photosynthetic pigments in Philodendron. A similar result was obtained by Salachna [1] on Oriental Lilies, by Ghorbanpour and Hatami [21,46] on pelargonium, and by Sadak [47] on the fenugreek plant. They showed that SNPs increased photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids). This might be because Ag+ can replace Co3+ in protein receptors, resulting in a slowdown of ethylene action in plant cells due to the fact that Co3+ plays a significant role in ethylene binding to its receptors [66]. Moreover, Purvis [67] reported that the activity of chlorophyllase induced by ethylene leads to the destruction of the internal membrane of the chloroplast.
In the current study, spraying with NPs (Ag, Fe, Zn, and NPK) and humic acid enhanced the mineral contents in the plants compared to the control (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Spraying with FeNPs at 150 mg/L recorded the highest values in iron in Philodendron leaves, however, the application of ZnNPs at 200 mg/L achieved the highest Zn concentrations in leaves. The application of 2 mL/L NPK NPs recorded the highest % of N, P, and K in Philodendron leaves. Previous studies have depicted that NPs could significantly increase nutrients in plants. Manzoor et al. [68] (on wheat) and Elfeky et al. [12] (on basil) reported that FeNPs increased iron concentration in the shoot system. Rizwan et al. [69] reported that using FeNPs increased the Fe concentrations and ZnNPs increased the Zn concentrations in wheat. Munir et al. [70] indicated that ZnO NPs could transport in wheat and increase the Zn contents in plants. The ZnO NPs applied in the soil increased the Zn concentrations in maize [71]. The increase in Zinc content in Philodendron plants by spraying with ZnNPs may be due to the role of Zinc in enhancing the cation exchange capacity of the roots, which in turn enhances the absorption of essential nutrients [72]. Moreover, the application of nano-NPK mixture led to an increase in macro and microelement content in sage plants [52]. AL-Gym and Al-Asady [51] reported that spraying with NPK nanoparticles recorded the highest averages of nutrient contents (NPK) in the roots and leaves of corn. The increase in the contents of N, P, and K may be due to the role of nano fertilizer in increasing bioavailability which leads to an increase in the absorption of the elements [73] and increased efficiency of nutrients by the controlled supply of nutrients [74]. Similarly, nano fertilizers give more area for various metabolic reactions which increase the photosynthetic rate and nutrient contents, resulting in an increase in dry matter and yield production [75].
Additionally, the improvement of enzyme activity in Philodendron plants due to the treatments with NPK NPs at 2 ml/L (nano fertilizer NPK), ZnNPs at 200 mg/L (zinc nanoparticles), SNPs at 20 mg/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, and SNPs at 60 mg/L (Silver nanoparticles) might be attributed to the role of NPK nanoparticles in increasing the availability and the uptake of the necessary elements for plant growth and development [70], consequently improving the upregulation of catalase, peroxidase, and polyphenol oxidase activity. The positive effects of ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, SNPs at 20 mg/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, and SNPs at 60 mg/L could be due to their small size that helps in easy penetration into the plant cells and regulates stomatal movement and increases the leaf length and width [76]. Additionally, nanoparticles have a significant role in the formation of lateral roots [77], root biomass [78,79], increasing water uptake, improving the soil nutrient availability, and membrane stability, as well as the water status of Philodendron plants. The helpful impact of AgNPs was recorded by Khan et al. [80] who reported that AgNPs at 60 mg/L significantly increased the growth and biomass of pearl millet seedlings when compared with control plants. These results are in accordance with those recorded by Rashwan and Abdelaal [81], Ragab et al. [82], and Abdelaal et al. [83,84].
Furthermore, the anatomical characters of leaves and stems such as the upper and lower epidermis, mesophyll tissue, the thickness of the blade, the thickness of mesophyll tissue, xylem vessel diameter and vascular bundle dimension, stem diameter, and epidermis cell dimension were improved due to the application of NPK NPs at 2 ml/L (nano fertilizer NPK), ZnNPs at 200 mg/L (zinc nanoparticles), SNPs at 20 mg/L, SNPs at 40 mg/L, and SNPs at 60 mg/L (Silver nanoparticles). This helpful effect of this treatment may be due to the role of NPK NPs, ZnNPs, and SNPs in improving shoot length, the number of leaves/plants, shoot dry weight, cell membrane stability, nutrient status, and chlorophyll content consequently increasing the anatomical features of the leaf such as the thickness of the blade, mesophyll tissue, xylem vessel diameter, and vascular bundle dimension, as well as the anatomical structure of Philodendron stems, such as stem diameter and epidermis cell dimension. These results are in agreement with the results of Rashwan et al. [85] and El-Flaah et al. [86].

5. Conclusions

Generally, the results obtained from this investigation reveal that all nanoparticles and humic acid treatments stimulated morphological growth such as plant height, the number of leaves/plant and leaf width, photosynthetic pigments such as total chlorophyll and carotenoid content, as well as mineral contents. Additionally, the anatomical characteristics of Philodendron bipinnatifidum leaves and stems such as the stem diameter and epidermis cell dimension, upper and lower epidermis, mesophyll tissue, the thickness of mesophyll tissue, xylem vessel diameter, and vascular bundle dimension were improved with nanoparticles and humic acid treatments. In most characteristics, the best effects were achieved for SNPs at 60 mg/L. It recommends silver nanoparticle treatments as a new strategy for improving the quality and production of Philodendron pot plants. As far as we know, this is the first record of using nanoparticles and humic acid in improving the quality and production of philodendron plants associated with the anatomical structure of stems and leaves.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); methodology, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); software, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); validation, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); formal analysis, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); investigation, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); resources, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); data curation, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); writing—original draft preparation, G.M.R.E.-S., K.A. (Khadiga Alharbi), M.A., L.A., K.A.A. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); writing—review and editing, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); supervision, G.M.R.E.-S. and K.A. (Khaled Abdelaal); funding acquisition, K.A. (Khadiga Alharbi), M.A., L.A. and K.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project Number (PNURSP2022R188), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project Number (PNURSP2022R188), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Additonally, the authors would like to thank all members of Ornamental Plants and Landscape Gardening Research Department, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt, and all members of PPB Lab., and EPCRS Excellence Centre (Certified according to ISO/9001, ISO/14001 and OHSAS/18001), Department of Agricultural Botany, Faculty of Agricul-ture, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr-Elsheikh, Egypt.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salachna, P.; Byczy, A.Z.; Zawadzi, A.; Piechocki, R.; Mizieli, M. Stimulatory effect of silver nanoparticles on the growth and flowering of potted oriental lilies. Agronomy 2019, 9, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Manzoor, A.; Bashir, M.A.; Hashmi, M.M. Nanoparticles as a preservative solution can enhance postharvest attributes of cut flowers. Italus Hortus 2020, 27, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kamiab, F.; Fahreji, S.S.; Bahramabadi, E.Z. Antimicrobial and Physiological Effects of Silver and Silicon Nanoparticles on Vase Life of Lisianthus (Eustoma grandiflora cv. Echo) Flowers. Int. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 2017, 4, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ali, S.; Mehmood, A.; Khan, N. Uptake, translocation, and consequences of nanomaterials on plant growth and stress adaptation. J. Nanomater. 2021, 2021, 6677616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Harsinia, M.G.; Habibib, H.; Talaeic, G.H. Study the effects of iron nano chelated fertilizers foliar application on yield and yield components of new line of wheat cold region of kermanshah provence. Agric. Adv. 2014, 3, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Salama, H.M.H. Effects of silver nanoparticles in some crop plants, Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and corn (Zea mays L.). Int. Res. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 3, 190–197. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zaghloul, M.; El-Fattah, Y.M.A.; Mohamed, M.; Khedr, M.M.; Elsadek, M.A. Effect of different ratios nano-Fertilizer and gibberellic acid on the vegetative growth and chemical compositions of Codiaeum variegatum (L.) cv. Gold Dust. Hort. J. Suez Canal Univ. 2020, 9, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  8. El-Hefnawy, S.F.M. Nano NPK and growth regulator promoting changes in growth and mitotic index of pea plants under salinity stress. J. Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. Mansoura Univ. 2020, 11, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ekinci, M.; Dursun, A.; Yildirim, E.; Parlakova, F. Effects of nanotechnology liquid fertilizers on the plant growth and yield of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2014, 13, 135–141. [Google Scholar]
  10. Alloway, B.J. Soil factors associated with zinc deficiency in crops and humans. Environ. Geochem. Health 2009, 31, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wannoussa, W.; Masy, T.; Lambert, S.D.; Heinrichs, B.; Tasseroul, L.; Al-Ahmad, A.; Weekers, F.; Thonart, P.; Hiligsmann, S. Effect of Iron Nanoparticles Synthesized by a Sol-Gel Process on Rhodococcus erythropolis T902.1 for Biphenyl Degradation. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2005, 7, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Elfeky, S.A.; Mohammed, M.A.; Khater, M.S.; Osman, Y.A.H.; Elsherbini, E. Effect of magnetite Nano-Fertilizer on Growth and yield of Ocimum basilicum L. Int. J. Indig. Med. Plants 2013, 46, 1286–1293. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brittenham, G.M. New advances in iron metabolism, iron deficiency, and iron overload. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 1994, 1, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  14. Rui1, M.; Ma, C.; Hao, Y.; Guo, J.; Rui, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Fan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Hou, T.; et al. Iron oxide nanoparticles as a potential iron fertilizer for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.; Chang, P.R.; Huang, J.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, H.; Ren, H. Physiological effects of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles towards watermelon. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2013, 13, 5561–5567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. El-Desouky Heba, S.; Islam, K.R.; Bergefurd, B.; Gary, G.; Harker, T.; Abd-El-Dayem, H.; Ismail, F.; Mady, M.; Zewail, R.M.Y. Nano iron fertilization significantly increases tomato yield by increasing plants’ vegetable growth and photosyntciency. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 1649–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cakmak, I. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: Agronomic or genetic biofortification? Plant Soil 2008, 302, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hafez, Y.; Elkohby, W.; Mazrou, Y.S.A.; Ghazy, M.; Elgamal, A.; Abdelaal, K.A. Alleviating the detrimental impacts of salt stress on morpho-hpysiological and yield characters of rice plants (Oryza sativa L.) using actosol, Nano-Zn and Nano-Si. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 6882–6897. [Google Scholar]
  19. Khan, H.R.; McDonald, G.K.; Rengel, Z. Zinc fertilization and water stress affects plant water relations, stomatal conductance and osmotic adjustment in chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.). Plant Soil 2004, 267, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghidan, A.Y.; Al Antary, T.M. Applications of Nanotechnology in Agriculture. In Applications of Nanobiotechnology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alabdallah, N.M.; Alzahrani, H.S. Impact of ZnO nanoparticles on growth of cowpea and okra plants under salt stress conditions. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res. Asia 2020, 17, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hatami, M.; Ghorbanpour, M. Effect of nanosilver on physiological performance of pelargonium plants exposed to dark storage. J. Horti. Res. 2013, 21, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lü, P.; Caoa, J.; Hea, S.; Liua, J.; Li, H.; Chenga, G.; Dinga, Y.; Joycec, D.C. Nano-silver pulse treatments improve water relations of cut rose cv. Movie Star flowers. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2010, 57, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lok, C.N.; Ho, C.M.; Chen, R.; He, Q.Y.; Yu, W.Y.; Sun, H.; Tam, P.K.H.; Chiu, J.F.; Ch, C.M. Silver nanoparticles: Partial oxidation and antibacterial activities. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2007, 12, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Abou-Attia, F.A.M.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Effect of Bio and Mineral fertilization on the main insect pests and some characters of sugar beet plants. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 2007, 32, 1471–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abdelaal, K.A.A.; Badawy, S.A.; Abdel Aziz, R.M.; Neana, S.M.M. Effect of mineral nitrogen levels and biofertilizer on morphophysiological characters of three sweet sorghum varieties (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2015, 6, 189–203. [Google Scholar]
  27. Abdelaal, K.A.A.; Tawfik, S.F. Response of Sugar Beet Plant (Beta vulgaris L.) to Mineral Nitrogen Fertilization and Bio-Fertilizers. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2015, 4, 677–688. [Google Scholar]
  28. Abdelaal, K.A. Pivotal Role of Bio and Mineral Fertilizer Combinations on Morphological, Anatomical and Yield Characters of Sugar Beet Plant (Beta vulgaris L.). Middle East J. Agric. Res. 2015, 4, 717–734. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mohamed, A.A.; Mazrou, Y.; El-Henawy, A.S.; Awad, N.M.; Abdelaal, K.; Hafez, Y.; Hantash, R.M.A. Effect of sulfur applied and foliar spray of yeast on growth and yield of sugar beet under irrigation deprivation conditions. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2022, 31, 4199–4209. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hayes, M.; Malcolm, R.L. Considerations of Compositions and Aspects of the Structures of Humic Substances. In Humic Substances and Chemical Contaminats; Clapp, C.E., Hayes, M.H.B., Senesi, N., Bloom, P.R., Jardine, P.M., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2001; pp. 3–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. MacCarthy, P.; Clapp, C.E.; Malcolm, R.L.; Bloom, P.R. Humic Substances in Soil and Crop Sciences: An Overview. In Humic Substances in Soil and Crop Sciences: Selected Readings; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1990; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cavalcante, Í.H.L.; Silva-Matos, R.R.S.; Albano, F.G.; Silva, G.B., Jr.; Silva, A.M.; Costa, L.S. Foliar spray of humic substances on seedling production of yellow passion fruit. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 301–304. [Google Scholar]
  33. Piccolo, A.; Nardi, S.; Concheri, G. Structural characteristics of humic substances as regulated tonitrate uptake and growth regulation in plant systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1992, 24, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hebeish, A.; El-Rafie, M.H.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; El-Naggar, M.E. Nanostructural features of SNP powder synthesized through concurrent formation of the nanosized particles of both starch and silver. J. Nanotechnol. 2013, 2013, 201057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Matthew, E.O.; Douglas, A.L.; Isaacs, R. An inexpensive accurate method for measuring leaf area and defoliation through digital image analysis. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 1190–1194. [Google Scholar]
  36. Allel, D.; Ben-Amar, A.; Abdelly, C. Leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and ion content of barley (Hordeum vulgare) in response to salinity. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 41, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Giannopolitis, C.N.; Ries, S.K. Superoxide dismutases: I. Occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiol. 1977, 59, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hammerschmidt, R.; Nuckles, E.M.; Kuc, J. Association of enhanced peroxidase activity with induced systemic resistance ofcucumber to Colletotrichum lagenarium. Physiol. Plant Pathol. 1982, 20, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malik, C.P.; Singh, M.B. Plant Enzymology and Histoenzymology; Kalyani Publishers: Delhi, India, 1980; pp. 54–56. [Google Scholar]
  40. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 16th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jackson, M.B. Interactions between nitrogen and growth regulators in the control of plant development. In Proceedings of a Meeting/Organized by the British Plant Growth Regulator Group and the Agriculture Group of the Society of Chemical Industry; The SCI Lecture Theatre, Belgrave Square: London, UK, 1983; p. 110. [Google Scholar]
  42. Page, A.L.; Miller, R.H.; Keeney, D.R. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gutmann, M. Improved staining procedures for photographic documentation of phenolic deposits in semi thin sections of plant tissue. J. Microsc. 1995, 179, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ruzin, S.E. Plant Micro Techniques and Microscopy, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, MS, USA, 1999; p. 322. [Google Scholar]
  45. Duncan, B.D. Multiple ranges and multiple F-test. Biometria 1955, 11, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; Wiley Inter Science: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 1–690. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ghorbanpour, M.; Hatami, M. Changes in growth, antioxidant defense system and major essential oils constituents of Pelargonium graveolens plant exposed to nano-scale silver and thidiazuron. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 20, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sadak, M.S. Impact of silver nanoparticles on plant growth, some biochemical aspects, and yield of fenugreek plant (Trigonella foenumgraecum). Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Guzman-Baez, G.A.; Trejo-Tellez, L.I.; Ramırez-Olvera, M.; Salinas-Ruız, J.; Bello-Bello, J.J.; Alcantar-Gonzalez, G.; Hidalgo-Contreras, J.V.; Gómez-Merino, F.C. Silver nanoparticles increase nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium concentrations in leaves and stimulate root length and number of roots in tomato seedlings in a hormetic manner. Dose-Response Int. J. 2021, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kedziora, A.; Speruda, M.; Krzy’zewska, E.; Rybka, J.; Łukowiak, A.; Bugla-Płosko, G. Similarities and Differences between Silver Ions and Silver in Nanoforms as Antibacterial Agents. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Syu, Y.-Y.; Hung, J.-H.; Chen, J.-C.; Chuang, H.-W. Impacts of size and shape of silver nanoparticles on Arabidopsis plant growth and gene expression. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 83, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. AL-Gym, A.J.K.; Al-Asady, M.H.S. Effect of the method and level of adding NPK nanoparticles and mineral fertilizers on the growth and yield of yellow corn and the content of mineral nutrient of some plant parts. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mahmoud, A.W.M.; Swaefy, H.M. Comparison between commercial and nano NPK in presence of nano zeolite on sage plant yield and its components under water stress. Agriculture 2020, 66, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sun, H.; Tao, J.; Liu, S.; Huang, S.; Chen, S.; Xie, X.; Yoneyama, K.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, G. Strigolactones are involved in phosphate- and nitrate-deficiency-induced root development and auxin transport in rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6735–6746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xu, J.; Zha, M.; Li, Y.; Ding, Y.; Chen, L.; Ding, C.; Wang, S. The interaction between nitrogen availability and auxin, cytokinin, and strigolactone in the control of shoot branching in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Cell Rep. 2015, 34, 1647–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Elkhoby, W.M.; El-khtyar, A.M.; Hassan, H.M.; Mikhael, B.B.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Effect of spilt application of nitrogen fertilizer on morpho-physiological attributes and grain yield of broadcast seeded Egyptian hybrid rice (1). J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2013, 4, 1259–1280. [Google Scholar]
  57. Omar, A.; AboYoussef, M.; Shoughy, A.; Abd El-Aty, M.S.; Abdelaal, K.; Hafez, Y.; Kamara, M. Response of Egyptian Yasmin rice cultivar to different seeding number per hill and different nitrogen levees. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2022, 31, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hafez, E.M.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Impact of Nitrogen fertilization levels on morphophysiological characters and yield quality of some Maize hybrids (Zea mays L.). Egyption J. Agron. 2015, 37, 35–48. [Google Scholar]
  59. Majid, M.A.; Saiful Islam, M.; EL Sabagh, A.; Hasan, M.K.; Saddam, M.O.; Barutcular, C.; Ratnasekera, D.; Abdelaal, K.A.A.; Islam, M.S. Influence of varying nitrogen levels on growth, yield and nitrogen efficiency of hybrid maize (Zea mays). J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2017, 5, 134–142. [Google Scholar]
  60. Abou Khadrah, S.; Gharib, H.S.; Mohamed, A.A.; Elhosary, M.A.; Abdelaal, K.A.; Hafez, Y.M. Combination of nitrogen and potassium fertilizers improve physiological and yield characters of two wheat cultivars. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 8998–9004. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mosalem, M.; Mazrou, Y.; Badawy, S.; Abd Ullah, M.A.; Mubarak, M.G.; Hafez, Y.M.; Abdelaal, K.A. Evaluation of sowing methods and nitrogen levels for grain yield and components of durum wheat under arid regions of Egypt. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2021, 26, 3031–3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zalat, S.S.; EL-Sayed, A.A.; Elkhoby, R.A.; Hafez, Y.; Ali, E.; Abdelaal, K.A. Effect of method and time of micronutrients application on sugar beet productivity under two nitrogen fertilizer sources. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2021, 30, 9135–9141. [Google Scholar]
  63. Apel, K.; Santel, H.-J.; Redlinger, T.E.; Falk, H. The protochlorophyllide holochrome of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Isolation and characterization of the NADPH protochlorophyllide oxidoreductase. Eur. J. Biol. Chem. 1980, 111, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ma, J.; Haldar, S.; Khan, M.A.; Sharma, S.D.; Merrick, W.C.; Elizabeth, C.; Theil, E.C.; Goss, D.J. Fe2þ binds iron responsive element-RNA, selectively changing protein-binding affinities and regulating mRNA repression and activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 8417–8422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Briat, J.-F.; Curie, C.; Gaymard, F. Iron utilization and metabolism in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 10, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dawa, K.K.; Zaghloul, M.M.; Ahmed, H.M.I.; Hamad, K.H.M. Impact of foliar application with iron, zinc, silicon nano particles and yeast on growth, yield and water use efficiency of tomato plants under water stress conditions. J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2020, 11, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Strader, L.C.; Beisner, E.R.; Bartel, B. Silver ions increase auxin efflux independently of effects on ethylene response. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 3585–3590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Purvis, A.C. Sequence of chloroplast degreening in calamondin fruit as influenced by ethylene and AgNO3. Plant Physiol. 1980, 66, 624–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Anzoor, N.; Ahmed, T.; Noman, M.; Shahid, M.; Nazir, M.M.; Ali, L.; Alnusaire, T.S.; Li, B.; Rainer, S.R.; Gang, W.G. Iron oxide nanoparticles ameliorated the cadmium and salinity stresses in wheat plants, facilitating photosynthetic pigments and restricting cadmium uptake. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 145221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Ali, B.; Adrees, M.; Arshad, M.; Hussain, A.; Rehman, M.Z.; Abdul Waris, A. Zinc and iron oxide nanoparticles improved the plant growth and reduced the oxidative stress and cadmium concentration in wheat. Chemosphere 2019, 214, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Munir, T.; Rizwan, M.; Kashif, M.; Shahzad, A.; Ali, S.; Amin, N.; Zahid, R.; Alam, M.F.E.; Imran, M. Effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on the growth and Zn uptake in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by seed priming method. Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostruct. 2018, 13, 315–323. [Google Scholar]
  72. Liu, X.; Wang, F.; Shi, Z.; Tong, R.; Shi, X. Bioavailability of Zn in ZnO nanoparticle-spiked soil and the implications to maize plants. J. Nanopart. Res. 2015, 17, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fageria, N.K.; Baligar, V.C.; Clark, R.B. Micronutrients in crop production. Adv. Agron. 2002, 77, 185–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tarafdar, J.C.; Sharma, S.; Raliya, R. Nanotechnology: Interdisciplinary science of applications. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Solanki, P.; Bhargava, A.; Chhipa, H.; Jain, N.; Panwar, J. Nano-fertilizers and their smart delivery system. In Nanotechnologies in Food and Agriculture; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Qureshi, A.; Singh, D.K.; Dwivedi, S. Nano-fertilizers: A novel way for enhancing nutrient use efficiency and crop productivity. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 3325–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wasaya, A.; Shabir, M.S.; Hussain, M.; Ansar, M.; Aziz, A.; Hassan, W.; Ahmad, I. Foliar application of zinc and boron improved the productivity and net returns of maize grown under rainfed conditions of Pothwar plateau. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 17, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ahmad, J.; Bashir, H.; Bagheri, R.; Baig, A.; Al-Huqail, A.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Qureshi, M.I. Drought and salinity induced changes inecophysiology and proteomic profile of Parthenium hysterophorus. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dimkpa, C.O.; Singh, U.; Bindraban, P.S.; Elmer, W.H.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; White, J.C. Zinc oxide nanoparticles alleviate drought-induced alterations in sorghum performance, nutrient acquisition, and grain fortification. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 926–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Khan, I.; Raza, M.; Awan, S.A.; Khalid, M.H.; Raja, N.I.; Min, S.; Zhang, A.; Naeem, M.; Meraj, T.A.; Iqbal, N.; et al. In vitro effect of metallic silver nanoparticles (AgNPs): A novel approach toward the feasible production of biomass and natural antioxidants in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 12877–12892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rashwan, E.A.A.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Effect of Nano Zink-oxide foliar application on some flax cultivars under different irrigation treatments. Egypt. J. Plant Breed. 2019, 23, 119–145. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ragab, A.Y.; Geries, L.S.M.; Abdelaal, K.A.A.; Hanna, S.A. Growth and productivity of onion plant (Allium cepa L.) as affected by transplanting method and NPK fertilization. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2019, 28, 7777–7786. [Google Scholar]
  83. Abdelaal, K.A.; Ragab, A.Y.; El-Hag, D.A.; Osman, M.F. Effect of nitrogen and potassium fertilization on productivity and quality sugar beet plants at North Delta Region, Egypt. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2019, 28, 7833–7839. [Google Scholar]
  84. Abdelaal, K.A.; EL-Shawy, E.A.; Hafez, Y.M.; Abdel-Dayem, S.M.; Chidya, R.C.G.; Saneoka, H.; El Sabagh, A. Nano-Silver and non-traditional compounds mitigate the adverse effects of net blotch disease of barley in correlation with up-regulation of antioxidant enzymes. Pak. J. Bot. 2020, 52, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rashwan, E.; Alsohim, A.S.; El-Gammaal, A.; Hafez, Y.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Foliar application of nano zink-oxide can alleviate the harmful effects of water deficit on some flax cultivars under drought conditions. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 8889–8904. [Google Scholar]
  86. El-Flaah, R.F.; El-Said, R.A.R.; Nassar, M.A.; Hassan, M.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Effect of rhizobium, nano silica and ascorbic acid on morpho-physiological characters and gene expression of POX and PPO in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) Under salinity stress conditions. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2021, 30, 5751–5764. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 08 00678 g001a 550Horticulturae 08 00678 g001b 550
Figure 1. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on total chlorophyll (A) and carotenoid (B) (mg/g FW) content in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Figure 1. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on total chlorophyll (A) and carotenoid (B) (mg/g FW) content in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Horticulturae 08 00678 g001aHorticulturae 08 00678 g001b
Horticulturae 08 00678 g002a 550Horticulturae 08 00678 g002b 550
Figure 2. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on Iron (A) and Zinc content (B) (mg/Kg DW) content in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Figure 2. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on Iron (A) and Zinc content (B) (mg/Kg DW) content in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Horticulturae 08 00678 g002aHorticulturae 08 00678 g002b
Horticulturae 08 00678 g003a 550Horticulturae 08 00678 g003b 550
Figure 3. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on nitrogen (A), phosphorus (B), and potassium (C) contents (% dry matter) in Philodendron bipinnatifidum. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Figure 3. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on nitrogen (A), phosphorus (B), and potassium (C) contents (% dry matter) in Philodendron bipinnatifidum. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Horticulturae 08 00678 g003aHorticulturae 08 00678 g003b
Horticulturae 08 00678 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on catalase, peroxidase, and polyphenol oxidase activities in Philodendron bipinnatifidum leaves in the second season. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean (±SE) of three replicates.
Figure 4. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on catalase, peroxidase, and polyphenol oxidase activities in Philodendron bipinnatifidum leaves in the second season. The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean (±SE) of three replicates.
Horticulturae 08 00678 g004
Horticulturae 08 00678 g005 550
Figure 5. Anatomical structure of Philodendron bipinnatifidum leaves in the second season. (A): control, (B): NPK NPs at 2 ml/L, (C): ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, (D): SNPs at 20 mg/L, (E): SNPs at 40 mg/L, (F): SNPs at 60 mg/L, UE: Upper epidermis, MT: Mesophyll tissue, VB: Vascular bundle, XT: Xylem tissue, PT: Phloem tissue, LE: Lower epidermis (Magnification 100×).
Figure 5. Anatomical structure of Philodendron bipinnatifidum leaves in the second season. (A): control, (B): NPK NPs at 2 ml/L, (C): ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, (D): SNPs at 20 mg/L, (E): SNPs at 40 mg/L, (F): SNPs at 60 mg/L, UE: Upper epidermis, MT: Mesophyll tissue, VB: Vascular bundle, XT: Xylem tissue, PT: Phloem tissue, LE: Lower epidermis (Magnification 100×).
Horticulturae 08 00678 g005
Horticulturae 08 00678 g006 550
Figure 6. Anatomical structure of Philodendron bipinnatifidum stems in the second season. (A): control, (B): NPK NPs at 2 ml/L, (C): ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, (D): SNPs at 20 mg/L, (E): SNPs at 40 mg/L, (F): SNPs at 60 mg/L, E: Epidermis, GT: Ground tissue, VB: Vascular bundle, XT: Xylem tissue, PT: Phloem tissue (Magnification 100×).
Figure 6. Anatomical structure of Philodendron bipinnatifidum stems in the second season. (A): control, (B): NPK NPs at 2 ml/L, (C): ZnNPs at 200 mg/L, (D): SNPs at 20 mg/L, (E): SNPs at 40 mg/L, (F): SNPs at 60 mg/L, E: Epidermis, GT: Ground tissue, VB: Vascular bundle, XT: Xylem tissue, PT: Phloem tissue (Magnification 100×).
Horticulturae 08 00678 g006
Table
Table 1. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on plant height, plant width and number of leaves/plant of Philodendron bipinnatifidum after 6 months and 12 months during the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
Table 1. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on plant height, plant width and number of leaves/plant of Philodendron bipinnatifidum after 6 months and 12 months during the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
TreatmentsPlant Height (cm)Plant Width (cm)Number of Leaves/Plant
6 Months12 Months6 Months12 Months6 Months12 Months
Control22.63 i37.62 f24.30 f28.67 g3.75 d6.42 g
HA at 1 mL/L29.17 defg46.25 cd30.38 cde44.33 cde4.17 bcd8.00 ef
HA at 2 mL/L29.42 def46.62 cd31.25 cde47.00 bcde4.25 bcd8.55 de
NPK NPs at 1.5 mL/L30.18 cde47.03 cd31.98 cd47.83 bcd4.42 abcd9.11 cd
NPK NPs at 2 mL/L32.63 bc50.24 bc35.73 bc51.41 abc4.67 ab9.67 bc
FeNPs at 100 mg/L25.97 h40.04 ef25.83 ef35.13 fg3.83 cd7.17 fg
FeNPs at 150 mg/L26.67 fgh44.93 cde30.27 cde41.50 def4.08 bcd7.58 f
ZnNPs at 150 mg/L26.29 gh43.92 de29.20 def39.21 ef3.83 cd7.25 fg
ZnNPs at 200 mg/L27.81 efgh45.49 cde31.08 cde46.68 bcde4.33 abcd7.67 ef
SNPs at 20 mg/L31.18 cd48.85 bcd35.38 bc51.33 abc4.50 abc9.22 cd
SNPs at 40 mg/L34.22 ab53.49 b38.33 b53.25 ab4.75 ab10.17 b
SNPs at 60 mg/L36.63 a60.75 a51.04 a59.25 a5.00 a11.67 a
The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Table
Table 2. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on length and width of leaves blade and length of petiole in Philodendron bipinnatifidum after 6 months and 12 months during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
Table 2. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on length and width of leaves blade and length of petiole in Philodendron bipinnatifidum after 6 months and 12 months during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
TreatmentsLength of Leaves Blade (cm)Width of Leaves Blade
(cm)		Length of Petiole
(cm)
6 Months12 Months6 Months12 Months6 Months12 Months
Control7.67 f10.12 f6.31 e9.76 g15.63 f23.60 g
HA at 1 mL/L9.80 de13.09 cde8.03 d13.06 cdef18.94 cd29.55 de
HA at 2 mL/L9.99 d13.48 cde8.10 d13.35 cde19.68 cd31.25 cd
NPK NPs at 1.5 mL/L12.17 c14.12 bcd9.03 c13.47 cd20.45 c31.51 cd
NPK NPs at 2 mL/L13.49 bc14.38 bc9.89 c14.29 bc22.66 b33.08 c
FeNPs at 100 mg/L8.46 ef10.66 f7.18 de11.71 f15.70 f24.34 fg
FeNPs at 150 mg/L8.68 def11.48 ef7.64 d11.92 ef16.71 ef28.72 e
ZnNPs at 150 mg/L8.86 def12.08 def7.85 d12.32 def17.98 de26.06 f
ZnNPs at 200 mg/L9.50 de13.09 cde7.88 d12.94 cdef18.78 cd29.26 de
SNPs at 20 mg/L13.42 bc14.24 bc9.22 c14.20 bc20.75 c32.02 c
SNPs at 40 mg/L13.86 b16.14 b11.65 b15.27 b24.65 a36.63 b
SNPs at 60 mg/L15.66 a18.17 a13.19 a17.62 a26.51 a41.77 a
The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Table
Table 3. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on leaf area, stem diameter, and root length in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
Table 3. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on leaf area, stem diameter, and root length in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
TreatmentsLeaf Area
(cm2)		Stem Diameter (cm)Root Length
(cm)
Control91.06 g1.14 g32.38 g
HA at 1 mL/L158.20 cde1.55 e44.00 cd
HA at 2 mL/L166.75 cd1.59 de45.25 c
NPK NPs at 1.5 mL/L173.18 c1.70 de46.75 c
NPK NPs at 2 mL/L187.34 c2.00 bc51.17 ab
FeNPs at 100 mg/L117.14 fg1.22 g34.92 g
FeNPs at 150 mg/L125.96 ef1.28 g35.50 fg
ZnNPs at 150 mg/L137.90 def1.32 fg39.00 ef
ZnNPs at 200 mg/L156.37 cde1.53 ef41.25 de
SNPs at 20 mg/L186.64 c1.80 cd47.67 bc
SNPs at 40 mg/L228.28 b2.21 ab54.08 a
SNPs at 60 mg/L295.22 a2.30 a54.33 a
The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Table
Table 4. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on fresh and dry weights of leaves, stems, and roots in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
Table 4. Effect of nanoparticles and humic acid on fresh and dry weights of leaves, stems, and roots in Philodendron bipinnatifidum during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
TreatmentsFresh Weight (g/Plant)Dry Weight (g/Plant)
Leaves Stems Roots TotalLeaves Stems Roots Total
Control48.94 f14.92 f13.67 e77.47 f3.44 g0.81 f1.40 f5.66 h
HA at 1 mL/L65.50 de17.48 cd19.86 cd102.83 de5.01 def1.17 def2.50 cde8.83 def
HA at 2 mL/L71.61 cd18.98 c22.55 bc113.14 d5.75 cde1.21 cde2.60 bcde9.40 de
NPK NPs at 1.5 mL/L78.83 c27.25 b26.66 ab132.74 c6.30 cd1.25 cde2.79 bcd10.33 cd
NPK NPs at 2 mL/L92.67 b28.00 b28.42 a149.08 b6.91 bc1.53 bc3.08 bc11.32 c
FeNPs at 100 mg/L58.70 ef15.05 ef15.05 de89.61 ef3.86 fg0.97 ef1.71 ef6.54 gh
FeNPs at 150 mg/L63.86 de16.52 def16.19 de96.57 e4.84 ef1.00 ef2.07 cdef7.91 efg
ZnNPs at 150 mg/L59.51 ef15.97 def15.60 de90.27 ef4.82 ef0.99 ef1.76 def7.57 fg
ZnNPs at 200 mg/L65.10 de16.65 de17.90 cde99.65 e5.00 def1.07 def2.48 cde8.57 ef
SNPs at 20 mg/L92.04 b27.52 b27.17 ab146.72 b6.81 bc1.43 bcd2.85 bc11.29 c
SNPs at 40 mg/L97.33 b28.07 b28.80 a154.20 b7.79 ab1.70 b3.58 ab13.07 b
SNPs at 60 mg/L111.70 a34.267 a30.18 a176.15 a9.01 a2.19 a4.37 a15.57 a
The same letters show no significant differences between the treatments according to ANOVA, Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level. Data are the mean of both seasons (±SE) of three replicates.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

El-Shawa, G.M.R.; Alharbi, K.; AlKahtani, M.; AlHusnain, L.; Attia, K.A.; Abdelaal, K. Improving the Quality and Production of Philodendron Plants Using Nanoparticles and Humic Acid. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080678

AMA Style

El-Shawa GMR, Alharbi K, AlKahtani M, AlHusnain L, Attia KA, Abdelaal K. Improving the Quality and Production of Philodendron Plants Using Nanoparticles and Humic Acid. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(8):678. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080678

Chicago/Turabian Style

El-Shawa, Ghada M. R., Khadiga Alharbi, Muneera AlKahtani, Latifa AlHusnain, Kotb A. Attia, and Khaled Abdelaal. 2022. "Improving the Quality and Production of Philodendron Plants Using Nanoparticles and Humic Acid" Horticulturae 8, no. 8: 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080678

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