The Exogenous Application of Micro-Nutrient Elements and Amino Acids Improved the Yield, Nutritional Status and Quality of Mango in Arid Regions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Vegetative Growth and Nutritional Status
2.2. Yield and Quality
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Study Site, Design and Agronomic Practices
4.2. Measurements
4.2.1. Vegetative Growth, Nutritional Status, and Yield
4.2.2. Fruit Quality (Physical and Chemical Properties)
4.3. Statistical Analysis
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ahmad, I.; Bibi, F.; Ullah, H.; Munir, T.M. Mango fruit yield and critical quality parameters respond to foliar and soil applications of zinc and boron. Plants 2018, 7, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masroor, H.M.; Anjum, M.A.; Hussain, S.; Ejaz, S.; Ahmad, S.; Ercisli, S.; Zia-Ul-Haq, M. Zinc ameliorates fruit yield and quality of mangoes cultivated in calcareous soils. Erwerbs Obstbau 2016, 58, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNCTAD. Mango: An Infocomm Commodity Profile; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; p. 21. [Google Scholar]
- Munir, T.M.; Perkins, M.; Kaing, E.; Strack, M. Carbon dioxide flux and net primary production of a boreal treed bog: Responses to warming and water-table-lowering simulations of climate change. Biogeosciences 2015, 12, 1091–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maldonado-Celis, M.E.; Yahia, E.M.; Bedoya, R.; Landázuri, P.; Loango, N.; Aguillón, J.; Restrepo, B.; Guerrero Ospina, J.C. Chemical composition of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit: Nutritional and phytochemical compounds. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsheery, N.I.; Helaly, M.N.; El-Hoseiny, H.M.; Alam-Eldein, S.M. Zinc oxide and silicone nanoparticles to improve the resistance mechanism and annual productivity of salt-stressed mango trees. Agronomy 2020, 10, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zargar, M.; Tumanyan, A.; Ivanenko, E.; Dronik, A.; Tyutyuma, N.; Pakina, E. Impact of foliar fertilization on apple and pear trees in reconciling productivity and alleviation of environmental concerns under arid conditions. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2019, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raimi, A.; Adeleke, R.; Roopnarain, A. Soil fertility challenges and biofertiliser as a viable alternative for increasing smallholder farmer crop productivity in sub-Saharan Africa. Cogent Food Agric. 2017, 3, 1400933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alloway, B.J. Soil factors associated with zinc deficiency in crops and humans. Environ. Geochem. Health 2009, 31, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegde, V.L.; Venkatesh, Y.P. Anaphylaxis following ingestion of mango fruit. J. Investig. Allergol. Clinical Immunol. 2007, 17, 341–344. [Google Scholar]
- Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Synergistic biostimulatory action: Designing the next generation of plant biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rouphael, Y.; Spíchal, L.; Panzarová, K.; Casa, R.; Colla, G. High-throughput plant phenotyping for developing novel biostimulants: From lab to field or from field to lab? Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maeda, H.; Dudareva, N. The shikimate pathway and aromatic amino acid biosynthesis in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2012, 63, 73–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.; Yu, H.; Li, Q.; Gao, Y.; Sallam, B.N.; Wang, H.; Liu, P.; Jiang, W. Exogenous application of amino acids improves the growth and yield of lettuce by enhancing photosynthetic assimilation and nutrient availability. Agronomy 2019, 9, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Y. Auxin biosynthesis and its role in plant development. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2010, 61, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calvo, P.; Nelson, L.; Kloepper, J.W. Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant Soil 2014, 383, 3–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, A.J.; Fan, X.; Shen, Q.; Smith, S.J. Amino acids and nitrate as signals for the regulation of nitrogen acquisition. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walch-Liu, P.; Forde, B.G. L-Glutamate as a novel modifier of root growth and branching. Plant Signal. Behav. 2007, 2, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weiland, M.; Mancuso, S.; Baluska, F. Signalling via glutamate and GLRs in Arabidopsis thaliana. Func. Plant Biol. FPB 2015, 43, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, W.F.; Fagan, E.B.; Soares, L.H.; Soares, J.N.; Reichardt, K.; Neto, D.D. Seed and foliar application of amino acids improve variables of nitrogen metabolism and productivity in soybean crop. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ertani, A.; Pizzeghello, D.; Altissimo, A.; Nardi, S. Use of meat hydrolyzate derived from tanning residues as plant biostimulant for hydroponically grown maize. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koukounaras, A.; Tsouvaltzis, P.; Siomos, A.S. Effect of root and foliar application of amino acids on the growth and yield of greenhouse tomato in different fertilization levels. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 644–648. [Google Scholar]
- El-Aal, M.A.; Eid, R.S.P.B. Effect of foliar spray with lithovit and amino acids on growth, bioconstituents, anatomical and yield features of soybean plant. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Biotechnology Applications in Agriculture (ICBAA), Benha University, Hurghada, Egypt, 4–7 April 2018; pp. 187–201. [Google Scholar]
- Sh Sadak, M.; Abdelhamid, M.T.; Schmidhalter, U. Effect of foliar application of aminoacids on plant yield and some physiological parameters in bean plants irrigated with seawater. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2014, 20, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helaly, M.N. Impact of treated wastewater and salicylic acid on physiological performance, malformation and yield of two mango cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 233, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubey, A.K.; Sharma, R.M.; Deepak Kumar, A. Long term performance of mango varieties on five polyembryonic rootstocks under subtropical conditions: Effect on vigour, yield, fruit quality and nutrient acquisition. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 280, 109944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shainika, S.K.; Tambe, T.B. Effect of plant growth regulators and micronutrients on flower and fruit retention in mango (Mangifera indica. L) CV. Kesar. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2020, 8, 3716–3719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, P.; Singh, J.P.; Arora, I.; Singh, R.K. Flowering, fruiting, yield and physical character of fruit of mango cv. Dashehari as influenced by pre-harvest foliar spray of nutrients and plant bio-regulators. Asian J. Hort. 2014, 9, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsomu, T.; Patel, H.C. Effect of foliar spray of plant growth regulatorsand micronutrients on yield and physical parameters of mango cv. Mallika. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 4968–4973. [Google Scholar]
- Sankar, C.; Saraladevi, D.; Parthiban, S. Influence of pre-harvest foliar application of micronutrients and sorbitol on pollination, fruit set, fruit drop and yield in mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Alphonso. Asian J. Hortic. 2013, 8, 635–640. [Google Scholar]
- Colla, G.; Nardi, S.; Cardarelli, M.; Ertani, A.; Lucini, L.; Canaguier, R.; Rouphael, Y. Protein hydrolysates as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.-J.; Wu, L.-H.; Wang, M.-Y.; Zhu, Y.-H.; Tao, Q.-N.; Zhang, F.-S. Effects of amino acids replacing nitrate on growth, nitrate accumulation, and macroelement concentrations in pak-choi (Brassica chinensis L.). Pedosphere 2007, 17, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mobini, M.; Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H.; Ghasemi, S. The effect of partial replacement of nitrate with arginine, histidine, and a mixture of amino acids extracted from blood powder on yield and nitrate accumulation in onion bulb. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 176, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perchlik, M.; Tegeder, M. Improving plant nitrogen use efficiency through alteration of amino acid transport processes. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rossato, L.; Lainé, P.; Ourry, A. Nitrogen storage and remobilization in Brassica napus L. during the growth cycle: Nitrogen fluxes within the plant and changes in soluble protein patterns. J. Exp. Bot. 2001, 52, 1655–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanders, A.; Collier, R.; Trethewy, A.; Gould, G.; Sieker, R.; Tegeder, M. AAP1 regulates import of amino acids into developing Arabidopsis embryos. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2009, 59, 540–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, A.M.; Tegeder, M. Increasing nitrogen fixation and seed development in soybean requires complex adjustments of nodule nitrogen metabolism and partitioning processes. Curr. Biol. CB 2016, 26, 2044–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santiago, J.P.; Tegeder, M. Connecting source with sink: The role of arabidopsis AAP8 in phloem loading of amino acids. Plant Physiol. 2016, 171, 508–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palacio-Márquez, A.; Ramírez-Estrada, C.A.; Gutiérrez-Ruelas, N.J.; Sánchez, E.; Barrios, D.L.O.; Chávez-Mendoza, C.; Sida-Arreola, J.P. Efficiency of foliar application of zinc oxide nanoparticles versus zinc nitrate complexed with chitosan on nitrogen assimilation, photosynthetic activity, and production of green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 288, 110297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vishekaii, Z.R.; Soleimani, A.; Fallahi, E.; Ghasemnezhad, M.; Hasani, A. The impact of foliar application of boron nano-chelated fertilizer and boric acid on fruit yield, oil content, and quality attributes in olive (Olea europaea L.). Sci. Hortic. 2019, 257, 108689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davarpanah, S.; Tehranifar, A.; Davarynejad, G.; Abadía, J.; Khorasani, R. Effects of foliar applications of zinc and boron nano-fertilizers on pomegranate (Punica granatum cv. Ardestani) fruit yield and quality. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 210, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arigony, A.L.; de Oliveira, I.M.; Machado, M.; Bordin, D.L.; Bergter, L.; Prá, D.; Henriques, J.A. The influence of micronutrients in cell culture: A reflection on viability and genomic stability. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 597282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muengkaew, R.; Chaiprasart, P.; Wongsawad, P. Calcium-boron addition promotes pollen germination and fruit set of mango. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2017, 17, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasaya, A.; Shabir, M.S.; Hussain, M.; Ansar, M.; Aziz, A.; Hassan, W.; Ahmad, L. 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, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shireen, F.; Nawaz, M.A.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Q.; Zheng, Z.; Sohail, H.; Sun, J.; Cao, H.; Huang, Y.; Bie, Z. Boron: Functions and approaches to enhance its availability in plants for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magwaza, L.S.; Opara, U.L. Analytical methods for determination of sugars and sweetness of horticultural products—A review. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 184, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sáez-Plaza, P.; Navas, M.J.; Wybraniec, S.; Michałowski, T.; Asuero, A.G. An overview of the Kjeldahl method of nitrogen determination. Part II. Sample preparation, working scale, instrumental finish, and quality control. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2013, 43, 224–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, T.E.; Wollmann, I.; You, Y.; Müller, T. Sensitivity of three phosphate extraction methods to the application of phosphate species differing in immediate plant availability. Agronomy 2019, 9, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rosen, C.J.; Errebhi, M.; Wang, W. Testing petiole sap for nitrate and potassium: A comparison of several analytical procedures. Hortscience 1996, 1, 1173–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hill, S.J.; Fisher, A.S. Atomic absorption, methods and instrumentation. In Encyclopedia of Spectroscopy and Spectrometry, 3rd ed.; Lindon, J.C., Tranter, G.E., Koppenaal, D.W., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 37–43. [Google Scholar]
- Mansfield, S.D. Determination of Total Carbohydrates; Bärlocher, F., Gessner, M., Graça, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snedecor, G.W.; Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods, 7th ed.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Pisoschi, A.M.; Danet, A.F.; Kalinowski, S. Ascorbic acid determination in commercial fruit juice samples by cyclic voltammetry. J. Autom. Methods Manag. Chem. 2008, 2008, 937651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Total Chlorophyll (mg/100 g Fresh Weight) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 7.98 | 8.29 | 8.85 | 8.37 | 8.36 | 8.70 | 9.20 | 8.75 |
M1 (Conc.) | 9.28 | 9.89 | 10.07 | 9.75 | 9.79 | 10.28 | 10.54 | 10.20 |
M2 (Conc.) | 10.01 | 10.33 | 10.86 | 10.40 | 10.85 | 10.98 | 11.50 | 11.11 |
Mean | 9.09 | 9.50 | 9.93 | 9.67 | 9.98 | 10.41 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.05 A = 0.05 M × A = 0.08 | M = 0.13 A = 0.13 M × A = ns | ||||||
Total carbohydrates %/stem | ||||||||
Micro nutrient mixture rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 10.99 | 11.27 | 11.41 | 11.22 | 11.30 | 11.63 | 11.73 | 11.55 |
M1 (Conc.) | 11.93 | 12.18 | 12.45 | 12.19 | 12.25 | 12.49 | 12.81 | 12.52 |
M2 (Conc.) | 12.36 | 12.85 | 13.17 | 12.79 | 12.81 | 13.19 | 13.52 | 13.17 |
Mean | 11.76 | 12.10 | 12.35 | 12.12 | 12.43 | 12.69 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.04 A = 0.04 M × A = 0.06 | M = 0.06 A = 0.06 M × A = 0.10 | ||||||
C/N ratio/stem | ||||||||
Micro nutrient mixture rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 0.785 | 0.770 | 0.749 | 0.768 | 0.777 | 0.782 | 0.737 | 0.765 |
M1 (Conc.) | 0.759 | 0.757 | 0.753 | 0.756 | 0.736 | 0.746 | 0.743 | 0.742 |
M2 (Conc.) | 0.757 | 0.764 | 0.763 | 0.761 | 0.755 | 0.753 | 0.750 | 0.753 |
Mean | 0.767 | 0.764 | 0.755 | 0.756 | 0.760 | 0.743 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.003 A = 0.003 M × A = 0.006 | M = 0.01 A = 0.01 M × A = 0.02 |
Fruit Set (%) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 12.29 | 12.69 | 13.11 | 12.70 | 12.18 | 12.55 | 12.99 | 12.57 |
M1 (Conc.) | 13.62 | 13.87 | 14.04 | 13.85 | 13.52 | 13.73 | 13.95 | 13.73 |
M2 (Conc.) | 14.20 | 14.42 | 14.76 | 14.46 | 14.11 | 14.34 | 14.65 | 14.37 |
Mean | 13.37 | 13.66 | 13.97 | 13.27 | 13.54 | 13.87 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.03 A = 0.03 M × A = 0.06 | M = 0.05 A = 0.05 M × A = 0.08 | ||||||
Fruit retention/panicle | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 2.14 | 2.30 | 2.44 | 2.29 | 2.06 | 2.22 | 2.37 | 2.22 |
M1 (Conc.) | 2.60 | 2.94 | 3.10 | 2.88 | 2.54 | 2.88 | 3.02 | 2.81 |
M2 (Conc.) | 2.98 | 3.18 | 3.22 | 3.13 | 2.89 | 3.10 | 3.14 | 3.04 |
Mean | 2.57 | 2.81 | 2.92 | 2.50 | 2.73 | 2.84 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.03 A = 0.03 M × A = 0.05 | M = 0.03 A = 0.03 M × A = 0.06 | ||||||
No. of fruits/tree | ||||||||
Micro nutrient mixture rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 59.33 | 61.33 | 63.33 | 61.33 | 59.00 | 61.67 | 64.33 | 61.67 |
M1 (Conc.) | 65.67 | 68.67 | 71.33 | 68.56 | 66.67 | 70.00 | 72.67 | 69.78 |
M2 (Conc.) | 69.67 | 74.00 | 76.67 | 73.44 | 70.33 | 73.67 | 78.00 | 74.00 |
Mean | 64.89 | 68.00 | 70.44 | 65.33 | 68.44 | 71.67 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.53 A = 0.53 M × A = ns | M = 0.76 A = 0.76 M × A = ns |
Fruit Weight (g) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 513.7 | 528.3 | 534.7 | 525.6 | 501.7 | 514.7 | 526.0 | 514.1 |
M1 (Conc.) | 548.0 | 552.7 | 554.0 | 551.6 | 536.7 | 543.7 | 546.3 | 542.2 |
M2 (Conc.) | 555.7 | 560.7 | 564.3 | 560.2 | 547.7 | 550.7 | 556.7 | 551.7 |
Mean | 539.1 | 547.2 | 551.0 | 528.7 | 536.3 | 543.0 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 3.94 A = 3.94 M × A = ns | M = 4.32 A = 4.32 M × A = ns | ||||||
Firmness (Lb/inch2) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 2.29 | 2.34 | 2.37 | 2.34 | 2.32 | 2.37 | 2.40 | 2.36 |
M1 (Conc.) | 2.41 | 2.50 | 2.53 | 2.48 | 2.45 | 2.54 | 2.58 | 2.52 |
M2 (Conc.) | 2.52 | 2.59 | 2.62 | 2.58 | 2.60 | 2.63 | 2.67 | 2.64 |
Mean | 2.41 | 2.48 | 2.51 | 2.46 | 2.51 | 2.55 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.007 A = 0.007 M × A = 0.013 | M = 0.01 A = 0.01 M × A = 0.02 | ||||||
Pulp weight (g) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 424.3 | 440.3 | 447.3 | 437.3 | 421.0 | 437.0 | 443.7 | 433.9 |
M1 (Conc.) | 452.7 | 458.0 | 461.0 | 457.2 | 447.7 | 452.0 | 456.7 | 452.1 |
M2 (Conc.) | 456.0 | 462.3 | 466.0 | 461.4 | 451.0 | 457.3 | 461.0 | 456.4 |
Mean | 444.3 | 453.6 | 458.1 | 439.9 | 448.8 | 453.8 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 1.14 A = 1.14 M × A = 1.97 | M = 1.56 A = 1.56 M × A = 2.71 |
Yield/Tree (kg) | ||||||||
Micro nutrient mixture rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 30.50 | 32.41 | 33.89 | 32.27 | 29.62 | 31.74 | 33.86 | 31.74 |
M1 (Conc.) | 36.01 | 37.97 | 39.54 | 37.84 | 35.80 | 38.07 | 39.71 | 37.86 |
M2 (Conc.) | 38.72 | 41.50 | 43.27 | 41.16 | 38.53 | 40.58 | 43.43 | 40.85 |
Mean | 35.08 | 37.29 | 38.90 | 34.65 | 36.80 | 39.00 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.40 A = 0.40 M × A = ns | M = 0.45 A = 0.45 M × A = 0.84 | ||||||
Yield (Mg ha−1) | ||||||||
Micro nutrient mixture rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 12.20 | 12.96 | 13.55 | 12.90 | 11.84 | 12.69 | 13.54 | 12.69 |
M1 (Conc.) | 14.40 | 15.18 | 15.81 | 15.13 | 14.32 | 15.22 | 15.88 | 15.14 |
M2 (Conc.) | 15.48 | 16.59 | 17.30 | 16.46 | 15.40 | 16.23 | 17.36 | 16.33 |
Mean | 14.03 | 14.91 | 15.55 | 13.85 | 14.71 | 15.59 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.16 A = 0.16 M × A = ns | M = 0.20 A = 0.20 M × A = 0.34 |
T.T.S. (%) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 17.64 | 18.15 | 18.18 | 17.99 | 17.92 | 18.32 | 18.49 | 18.24 |
M1 (Conc.) | 18.32 | 18.41 | 18.48 | 18.40 | 18.56 | 18.73 | 18.74 | 18.68 |
M2 (Conc.) | 18.48 | 18.61 | 18.73 | 18.61 | 18.78 | 18.83 | 18.88 | 18.83 |
Mean | 18.15 | 18.39 | 18.47 | 18.42 | 18.63 | 18.71 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.03 A = 0.03 M × A = 0.05 | M = 0.06 A = 0.06 M × A = 0.11 | ||||||
Acidity (%) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.59 |
M1 (Conc.) | 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.54 |
M2 (Conc.) | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.50 |
Mean | 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.53 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.003 A = 0.003 M × A = 0.005 | M = 0.009 A = 0.009 M × A = ns | ||||||
T.T.S./acid ratio | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 27.43 | 29.93 | 30.82 | 29.39 | 28.60 | 31.23 | 32.45 | 30.76 |
M1 (Conc.) | 31.08 | 33.08 | 34.03 | 32.73 | 33.06 | 34.95 | 35.89 | 34.63 |
M2 (Conc.) | 34.46 | 35.58 | 37.24 | 35.76 | 36.89 | 37.44 | 38.57 | 37.64 |
Mean | 30.99 | 32.87 | 34.03 | 32.85 | 34.54 | 35.64 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.23 A = 0.23 M × A = 0.39 | M = 0.68 A = 0.68 M × A = ns |
Total Sugar (%) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 12.06 | 12.80 | 13.00 | 12.63 | 12.26 | 12.95 | 13.21 | 12.81 |
M1 (Conc.) | 13.10 | 13.39 | 13.51 | 13.33 | 13.34 | 13.59 | 13.71 | 13.55 |
M2 (Conc.) | 13.59 | 13.73 | 13.75 | 13.69 | 13.82 | 13.89 | 13.99 | 13.90 |
Mean | 12.92 | 13.31 | 13.42 | 13.14 | 13.48 | 13.64 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.03 A = 0.03 M × A = 0.06 | M = 0.07 A = 0.07 M × A = 0.12 | ||||||
Ascorbic acid (mg 100 mL−1) | ||||||||
Mix rate (g L−1) | 1st Season | 2nd Season | ||||||
Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | Amino acids rate (mg L−1) | Mean | |||||
A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | A0 (without) | A1 (Conc.) | A2 (Conc.) | |||
M0 (without) | 24.50 | 26.05 | 26.60 | 25.72 | 24.83 | 26.19 | 26.88 | 25.97 |
M1 (Conc.) | 27.56 | 27.88 | 28.14 | 27.86 | 27.83 | 28.02 | 28.33 | 28.06 |
M2 (Conc.) | 28.07 | 28.54 | 28.73 | 28.45 | 28.26 | 28.67 | 28.89 | 28.61 |
Mean | 26.71 | 27.49 | 27.82 | 26.97 | 27.63 | 28.03 | ||
LSD (0.05) | M = 0.07 A = 0.07 M × A = 0.13 | M = 0.09 A = 0.09 M × A = 0.15 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kheir, A.M.S.; Ding, Z.; Gawish, M.S.; Abou El Ghit, H.M.; Hashim, T.A.; Ali, E.F.; Eissa, M.A.; Zhou, Z.; Al-Harbi, M.S.; El-Gioushy, S.F. The Exogenous Application of Micro-Nutrient Elements and Amino Acids Improved the Yield, Nutritional Status and Quality of Mango in Arid Regions. Plants 2021, 10, 2057. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102057
Kheir AMS, Ding Z, Gawish MS, Abou El Ghit HM, Hashim TA, Ali EF, Eissa MA, Zhou Z, Al-Harbi MS, El-Gioushy SF. The Exogenous Application of Micro-Nutrient Elements and Amino Acids Improved the Yield, Nutritional Status and Quality of Mango in Arid Regions. Plants. 2021; 10(10):2057. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102057
Chicago/Turabian StyleKheir, Ahmed M. S., Zheli Ding, Mohamed S. Gawish, Hanan M. Abou El Ghit, Taghred A. Hashim, Esmat F. Ali, Mamdouh A. Eissa, Zhaoxi Zhou, Mohammad S. Al-Harbi, and Sherif Fathy El-Gioushy. 2021. "The Exogenous Application of Micro-Nutrient Elements and Amino Acids Improved the Yield, Nutritional Status and Quality of Mango in Arid Regions" Plants 10, no. 10: 2057. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102057