Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 263-275

Influence of foliar fertilization on the growth and yield of chia (Salvia hispanica) plant


1 Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour, Egypt
2 Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research Department, National Research Centre, Giza, Egypt

Date of Submission13-Mar-2019
Date of Acceptance05-May-2019
Date of Web Publication26-Sep-2019

Correspondence Address:
Ahmed M Salman
Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/epj.epj_13_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background Salvia hispanica plant is a new introduced crop to the Egyptian cultivation system to enrich it with new species or varieties of medicinal and aromatic plants. S. hispanica commonly known as chia is an annual herbaceous plant belongs to the mint family (Lamiaceae) and is native to southern Mexico and Northern Guatemala. Chia seeds are a promising source of antioxidants owing to their content of omega-3 and the presence of polyphenols, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acids, myricetin, quercetin, and kaempferol. This study was carried out to evaluate the effect of different doses and portions of NPK and/or mixture of biofertilizer (Azotobacter chroococcum+Bacillus megaterium+Bacillus subtilis) on the growth and yield of chia (S. hispanica) plant.
Materials and methods This investigation was carried out in the Hawareya location, Beheira Governorate, Egypt (North West of the Nile Delta), during the two successive seasons 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. The experimental layout was randomly distributed in a split-plot design with three replicates. The 10 treatments of NPK (1.5, 3, and 4.5 g/l in 1, 2, or three portions and control) were randomly distributed in the main plots, whereas the two foliar applications, namely, control and biofertilizers, were randomly distributed in the subplots to study the influence of foliar application treatments, Nitrophoska foliar fertilizer (1.5, 3, and 4.5 g/l) in 1, 2, or three portions (as control) and a mixture of A. chroococcum 10 g/l+B. megaterium 10 g/l+B. subtilis 10 g/l on the growth and yield of chia plant. Data were recorded for the plant height (cm), number of branches/plant, number of inflorescence/plant, herb fresh weight (g/plant and ton/fed), herb dry weight (g/plant and ton/fed), and seeds weight (g/plant and kg/fed).
Results The results showed that different doses and portions of NPK and/or mixture of biofertilizer significantly increased the vegetative growth and yield of chia plant. The results of the 2 years indicated that the highest values of plant height (199.33 cm/plant), number of branches (22.56 branches/plant), number of inflorescence (58.89 inflorescence/plant), fresh herb weight (1053.33 g/plant and 24.58 ton/fed), dry herb weight (352 g/plant and 8.22 ton/fed), seeds weight (24.22 g/plant), and seeds yield (565 kg/fed) of S. hispanica were recorded with NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer.
Conclusion From these results, we may conclude that the recommended treatment to obtain the best growth characteristics and yield of S. hispanica are the application of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer.

Keywords: biofertilizer, chia (Salvia hispanica), foliar fertilization, NPK


How to cite this article:
Salman AM, Omer EA, Hussein MS, Sewedan E, Osman AR. Influence of foliar fertilization on the growth and yield of chia (Salvia hispanica) plant. Egypt Pharmaceut J 2019;18:263-75

How to cite this URL:
Salman AM, Omer EA, Hussein MS, Sewedan E, Osman AR. Influence of foliar fertilization on the growth and yield of chia (Salvia hispanica) plant. Egypt Pharmaceut J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 11];18:263-75. Available from: http://www.epj.eg.net/text.asp?2019/18/3/263/263700


  Introduction Top


Salvia hispanica plant is a new introduced crop to the Egyptian cultivation system to enrich it with new species or varieties of medicinal and aromatic plants. S. hispanica, commonly known as chia, is an annual herbaceous plant that belongs to the mint family (Lamiaceae) and is native to southern Mexico and Northern Guatemala [1],[2],[3]. It grows up to 1-m tall and has opposite arranged leaves. Chia flowers are purple or white, produced in numerous clusters in a spike at the end of each stem; moreover, they have small flowers (3–4 mm) with small corollas and fused flower parts that contribute to a high self-pollination rate. The seed color varies from black, grey and black spotted to white, and the shape is oval with size ranging from 1 to 2 mm [1],[2],[4],[5],[6]. S. hispanica grows naturally in tropical and subtropical environments; it is optimally established from 400 to 2500 m and considered to be a short-day plant with a threshold of 12–14 h [7]. Chia seedlings emerged after 3 days and had slow initial growth, which was also verified by Waisle [8]. Its minimum and maximum growth temperatures are 11 and 36°C, respectively, with an optimum range of 16–26°C [9]. Chia requires less water than cereals or other oil seeds to grow, so it is also investigated as future crop for more diversity in Argentina and the USA [10],[11],[12],[13]. Owing to the fact that it can grow in arid environments, it has been highly recommended as an alternative crop for the field crop industry [14]. The duration of the crop cycle in most cases ranges from 140 to 180 days [11],[15], S. hispanica L. seeds were harvested mechanically. In low-input conditions, the average yield is ∼600 kg/ha, but can be up to 1200 kg/ha, whereas in high-input conditions with irrigation and fertilization, yields as high as 2500 kg/ha have been shown in some experimental trials in Argentina [16]. Chia is also an interesting forage crop in Greek [17] and the Mediterranean and desert climates of Chile [7],[18]. Chia seeds were traditionally one of the four basic elements in the diet and also a source of energy in Aztec civilization of Central American and southern civilizations in the pre-Columbian era [1],[7],[19]. Chia is currently commercially cultivated for its seeds in Australia, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, and Argentina [20]. Mexico is the largest production center of chia and currently exports seeds to Japan, USA, and Europe [7]. Heavy metal analysis showed that chia seed contains heavy metals at safe levels, not exceeding the maximum metal levels for food safety, and the seed is also free from mycotoxins [21]. Chia has potential roles in reducing the risk of chronic degenerative diseases [22]. The lipid content in chia seeds varies from 25 to 40%, with 60% of the total lipids made up of ALA (n=3) and 20% composed of linoleic acid (n=6) [21]. When the oil is extracted from the chia seed, what remains is a significant concentration of dietary fiber (33.9/100 g) and protein (17/100 g) [23],[24]. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are macronutrients that were involved in many plant processes. Nitrogen is the main yield-limiting mineral nutrient. Nitrogen takes part in many physiological and biochemical plant processes and is a structural component of amino acids, nucleic acids, enzymes and proteins, chlorophyll, and cell wall. Phosphorus is also a highly required macronutrient, playing vital roles in energy transfer, cell membranes, nucleic acids phospholipids, and co-enzymes, and potassium increases plant resistance to diseases and prevents excessive water loss and other key compounds. N, P and K fertilizers provide plants with macro-elements necessary for growth and yield [25],[26],[27].

Application of P and K fertilizers at different growth stages on the root growth and bioactive compounds were shown to vary greatly on Salvia miltiorrhiza production [28].

A mixture of biofertilizers (Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum lipoferum, and Bacillus megaterium) with chemical fertilizer increased the measured traits in comparison with biofertilizer or chemical fertilizer alone on fennel plant [29]. In addition, Majorana hortensis L. plant recorded the maximum values of herb fresh and dry yield by using biofertilizers (Nitraboein and Halex-2 at a rate of 988 g/ha of each) as well [30].

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the influence of some foliar fertilization treatments on the growth and yield on chia (S. hispanica) plant to increase the quantity of the yield.


  Materials and methods Top


This study was carried out in the Hawareya location, Beheira Governorate, Egypt, during two successive seasons (2016/2017 and 2017/2018(.The soil was carefully prepared, and initial soil samples from a depth of 0 to 30 cm were analyzed. The physical and chemical properties were presented in [Table 1], which indicated that the soil texture was clay soil. Chemical analysis of water irrigation is shown in [Table 2].
Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of soil in the two seasons (2016/2017 and 2017/2018)

Click here to view
Table 2 Chemical composition of water used for irrigation

Click here to view


The 10 NPK treatments were randomly distributed in the main plots and are presented in [Table 3], whereas the two foliar applications, namely, control and A. chroococcum10 g/l+B. megaterium 10 g/l+Bacillus subtilis 10 g/l were randomly distributed in the subplots to study the influence of foliar application treatments (NPK and/or bio) on the growth and yield of chia plant.
Table 3 The NPK treatments

Click here to view


The seeds of chia (S. hispanica) were imported from Original Hanoju Deutschland UG Company (Zum Rennplatz 6, 49401 Damme, Germany). All treatments received 15 m3/fed of manure+300 kg/fed superphosphate during preparing and hoeing the soil. Moreover, 200 kg/fed of ammonium nitrate was added after 21 days from sowing. Chia seeds were directly sown in hills at distance of 30 cm between hills and intro-row spacing of 60 cm on 15 October in both seasons (2016–2017 and 2017–2018). After 5 weeks of planting, some plots were sprayed with Nitrophoska foliar fertilizer from Shoura Chemical Company (Egypt), with different levels added at different portions at different dates of application for the same level of fertilizer. Three different amounts of foliar fertilizer (1.5, 3, and 4.5 g/l) were used. Each dose of foliar fertilizer was applied either once (at 50 days from sowing) or was divided into two equal portions (added at 35 and 50 days after sown) or was divided into three equal portions (added at 35, 50, and 65 days after sown). The chemical composition of the used foliar fertilizer is presented in [Table 4]. After 45 days from sowing, some plots were sprayed with a mixture of biofertilizers from National Research Center, Egypt, consisting of A. chroococcum10 g/l+B. megaterium 10 g/l+B. subtilis 10 g/l on two portions, and the second portions was applied after 75 days from sowing date. Mixed cultures of bacterial species containing 1×106 colony forming units/ml were used for plant inoculation. The herb fresh weight was measured after reaching 60–70% of flowering; finally, plants were harvested by hand cutting after 160 days from sowing date in first season, and after 175 days in second season.
Table 4 The chemical composition of the used foliar fertilizer (Nitrophoska)

Click here to view


The data of the different parameters were measured during both seasons

Plant height (cm) was measured as the main plant stem at the date of harvest. Number of branches/plant (the main lateral branches were counted). Herb fresh and dry weights (g/plant and ton/fed), number of inflorescences/plant, and seeds weight (g/plant and kg/fed) were also assessed.

The yield per feddan was obtained according to the equation:

(The mean value of the treatment×number of plants/fed).

Number of plants/fed=(100×100×4200)/(30×60)=23 333 plant/fed.

All the obtained results were statistically analyzed according the design using CoStat program (version 6.4; CoHort Company, Birmingham, UK, 1998–2008). Least significant difference test was applied at 0.05 probability level to compare means of different treatments as illustrated by Williams and Abdi [31].


  Results and discussion Top


Plant height (cm)

Effect of interaction between NPK and biofertilizer

Plant height responded significantly to interaction between NPK and biofertilizer in both seasons, as shown in [Table 5].
Table 5 Effect of foliar fertilization and/or biofertilizer on some growth parameters of Salvia hispanica plant in two seasons (2016/2017 and 2017/2018)

Click here to view


Application of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer resulted in the tallest plants (181.79 cm/plant for first season and 199.33 cm/plant for second one), whereas the untreated plants gave the lowest plant height (145.11 and 157.22 cm/plant for first and second seasons, respectively) compared with other treatments. So, the increment in plant height as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer treatment reached to 25.28% than the control for first season and 26.78% for second one. These results were consistent with Azzaz and Hassan [32] on fennel plants, who revealed that applications of different mineral and organic fertilizers augmented the vegetative growth parameters. Abdelraouf et al. [33] on Nigella sativa L. plants and Larimi et al. [34] on sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) revealed that the enhancement of plant height may be owing to the beneficial effect of NPK, compost, bacteria, and mycorrhiza on the soil properties, in addition to the role of increasing nitrogen in the initiation of new cells. The beneficial effect of N2-fixers and P-dissolving bacteria on the plants development can be attributed not only to the N2-fixation and dissolving phosphate process but also to the production of growth-promoting substances. Rademacher [35] reported that several soil microorganisms possess the capability to synthesize gibberellins.

Effect of NPK fertilizer

All foliar NPK treatments significantly increased plant height in both seasons compared with control (sprayed with water) plants as shown in [Table 6].
Table 6 Mean values of plant height, number of branches, and inflorescences as affected by foliar fertilization doses and number of applied portions on Salvia hispanica in two seasons (2016/2017 and 2017/2018)

Click here to view


Dividing the first dose (1.5 g/l) of NPK into two or three portions did not show any significant differences from its application once on the plant height compared with control. The same was true with the third dose (4.5 g/l). However, dividing the second dose (3 g/l) into two portions significantly increased plant height in both seasons. Dividing the dose of 3 g/l into two portions was more effective than the other treatments and resulted in the highest plant growth in both seasons. Foliar application of NPK at 3 g/l and divided into two portions showed the tallest plants for first season at 174.49 cm/plant and for second one at 191.33 cm/plant. It is clear from the data in [Table 6] that control plants gave the mean value of 153.83 cm/plant for first season and 166.67 cm/plant for second one. So, the increment of plant height as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions) treatment reached to 13.43% than the control for first season and 14.80% for second season. The mean value of doses showed the best dose was 169.95 cm/plant for first season and 181.98 cm/plant for second season from the dose 3 g/l and did not show any significant differences between portions in both seasons as shown in [Table 6]. These results are in accordance with those of Yeboah et al. [2] and Capitani et al. [36] on S. hispanica who reported that the plant height ranged from 60 to 180 cm. Moreover, Lu et al. [28] on S. miltiorrhiza, Sonmez and Bayram [37] on sage plant, and finally Ramara and Garofalo [38] on S. hispanica found the plants cultivated without phosphorus application had the lowest values of plant height (17.63 and 37.33 cm/plant at 30 and 60 days after sowing, respectively) and number of leaves (7.67/plant).

Effect of biofertilizer

Biofertilizer application significantly increased plant height in both seasons, as shown in [Table 6]. The mean increment values in plant height were 8.61 and 7.59% for first season and second season, respectively, compared with the control plants. These results are in consistent with Mahfouz and Sharaf-Eldin [29] on fennel plants and Gharib et al. [39] on M. hortensis by using Azospirillun brasiliense, Azotobactor chroocccum and Bacillus polymyxa, and Bacillus circulans, and Maleki et al. [40] stated that it is possible that the favorable effect of microorganisms on growth characteristics will be owing to their ability to enhance the physical chemical and biological properties of the soil.

Number of branches and number of inflorescence/plant

Effect of interaction between NPK and biofertilizer

Number of branches responded significantly to interaction between NPK and biofertilizer in both seasons as shown in [Table 5]. NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer treatment gave the best or highest mean value (21.77 and 22.56/plant for first and second, respectively), whereas the lowest number of branches (16.11 and 17.89/plant for first and second seasons, respectively) were obtained from untreated plants comparing with treated plants.

The increment in number of branches as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer treatment reached to 35.13 and 26.10% than the control for first season and second seasons, respectively.

On the contrary, the number of inflorescence responded significantly to interaction between NPK and biofertilizer in both seasons as shown in [Table 5], where NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer caused the highest mean values of 52.66 and 58.89/plant for first and second seasons, respectively, against the control plants, which resulted in the lowest inflorescence number (18.44 and 19.89/plant for first and second seasons, respectively) compared with other treatments. The increment in number of inflorescence as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+bio fertilizer treatment reached to 185.57 and 196.08% than the control for first and second seasons, respectively.

These results are in accordance with those of Wange and Patil [41] on tuberose who found that, applying nitrogen at the rate of 100 kg/ha alone or inoculating with Azotobacter plus Azospirillum mixtures significantly increased number of flowers/stalk and number of flowering stems. El-Kashlan [42] on roselle recorded significant increases in plant height and number of branches/plant. There was an increase in the number of fruits and fresh and dry weights of sepals as a result of using three commercial biofertilizers (Biogene, Netrobene, and Phosphorene). Farouk et al. [43] on fennel plants found that combining phosphorein with low NPK rate was effective than the high NPK alone in producing better growth and yield of fruits per plant/fed. The obvious results are in the same line with Matter [44] on Hibiscus sabdariffa plant who reported that the treatment of 75% NPK in combination with biofertilizer was given the best results of a number of flowers, quality and the dry weight of yield sepals/fed. Jafari et al. [45] studied the effect of chemical and biological fertilizers on sage (Salvia officinalis L.) and replacing biofertilizers instead of high doses of chemical fertilizers.

Effect of NPK fertilizer

Dividing the first dose (1.5 g/l) of NPK into two or three portions had no significant effect on the number of branches and inflorescence compared with the application once. The same was true with the third dose (4.5 g/l). However, dividing the second dose (3 g/l) into two portions significantly increased the number of branches and inflorescences in both seasons. Dividing the dose of 3 g/l into two portions was more effective than the other treatments and resulted in the maximum number of branches and inflorescences/plant in both seasons. Foliar application of NPK at 3 g/l and divided into two portions showed the maximum number of branches/plant (21.55 and 22.33/plant season and for first and second seasons, respectively) and number of inflorescence in both season (36.72 and 40.89/plant for first and second seasons, respectively). The mean value of doses showed the best dose of number of branches was 20.83/plant for first season and 21.92/plant for second season, whereas the best dose of number of inflorescences was 34.33/plant for first season and 37.00/plant for second season from the dose 3 g/l and did not show any significant difference between portions in both seasons as shown in [Table 6]. The promotive effect of NPK on number of branches/plant was reported by many investigators such as Jacoub [46] who fertilized O. basilicum L. and Thymus vulgaris L. plants with NPK at the rates of 400, 800, and 1200 kg/fed/season. NPK fertilization increased number of branches for both plants. Yebouh et al. [2] reported the mean value of branches number ranged from 18.3 to 21.2 branches/plant. Mary et al. [47] on chia (S. hispanica L.) found that the level of 90 : 60 : 75 kg NPK/ha produced significantly highest yield (18.42 branches/plant).

Moreover, these results were in harmony with those reported by Ramara and Garofalo [38] on S. hispanica, who found fertilization with 125 : 100 : 40 kg/ha of N : P : K. was the best results for parameters of biomass growth.

Effect of biofertilizer

Biofertilizer application resulted in significant increment in number of branches and number of inflorescence in both seasons as shown in [Table 6]. The mean increment values in number of branches recorded 6.84 and 4.83% for first and second seasons, respectively, compared with the untreated plants, whereas the mean increment values in number of inflorescence/plant were 38.33 and 40.30% for first and second season, respectively, compared with the untreated plants. These results are consistent with Shaalan [48] on Nigella sativa L. and El-Sherbeny et al. [49] on Ruta graveolens who reported that number of inflorescence and branches/plant showed significant affect, whereas Omran et al. [50] on S. officinalis found that the maximum number of child branches (53/19) in combining bacteria and manure.

Herb fresh and dry weight (g/plant) and (ton/fed)

Effect of interaction between NPK and biofertilizer

Herb fresh and dry weights of plant responded significantly to interaction between NPK and biofertilizer in both seasons as shown in [Table 7] and [Table 8].
Table 7 Effect of foliar fertilization and/or biofertilizer on herb fresh weight of Salvia hispanica plant in the first season (2016/2017)

Click here to view
Table 8 Effect of foliar fertilization and/or biofertilizer on herb dry weight of Salvia hispanica plant in the second season (2017/2018)

Click here to view


In the first season, herb fresh and dry weight responded significantly to interaction between NPK and biofertilizer in the first season (2016/2017), as shown in [Table 7]. NPK at 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer gave the highest mean values of herb fresh weight (951.64 g/plant and 22.20 ton/fed) and herb dry weight (318.23 g/plant and 7.43 ton/fed), whereas the untreated plants resulted in the lowest mean value of herb fresh weight (283.79 g/plant and 6.62 ton/fed) and herb dry weight (85.18 g/plant and 1.99 ton/fed). The increment in herb fresh weight as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer treatment reached to 235.35 and 273.37% for herb dry weight than the untreated plants.

Data of second season (2017/2018) gave the same trend of the first season as shown in [Table 8], where NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer gave the highest mean values of herb fresh weight (1053.33 g/plant and 24.58 ton/fed) and herb dry weight (352.22 g/plant and 8.22 ton/fed), whereas the untreated plants gave the lowest mean value of herb fresh weight (317.22 g/plant and 7.40 ton/fed) and herb dry weight (95.56 g/plant and 2.23 ton/fed). The increment in herb fresh weight as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+bio fertilizer treatment reached to 232.16% than the control plants and 268.59% for herb dry weight.

These results are in harmony with those reported by some studies [51],[52],[53],[54],[55]. They reported that the vegetative growth (plant height, number of leaves or branches as well as fresh and dry weight of plant organs) increased by using organic fertilizer application. Improving the vegetative growth of plants is in turn on increasing yield and improving yield quality. These results were in accordance with those reported by some studies [53],[56],[57],[58]. Increasing the vegetative growth of plants with biofertilizers application may be owing to the role of biofertilizer on increasing soil fertility and increasing the availability and uptake of many nutrients element such as N, P, K and S to plant absorption, which led to improving the vegetative growth of plants. Some application of bio-fertilizer (Azospirillum and Azotobacter) increased plant height and dry weight of shoots of the plant S. hispanica in China [59].

Effect of NPK fertilizer

Herb fresh and dry weights (g/plant and ton/fed) responded significantly to NPK fertilizer in both seasons compared with control (sprayed with water), as shown in [Table 9] and [Table 10].(Table 9}
Table 10 Mean values of the dry weight of herb as affected by foliar fertilization doses and number of applied portions in two seasons

Click here to view


Dividing the first dose (1.5 g/l) of NPK into two or three portions did not show any significant effect on the fresh weight of herb compared with its application once. The same was true with the third dose (4.5 g/l). However, dividing the second dose (3 g/l) into two portions significantly increased fresh weight of herb in both seasons. Dividing the dose of 3 g/l into two portions was more effective than the other treatments and resulted in the best mean value in both seasons. Foliar application of NPK at 3 g/l and divided into two portions showed the maximum mean values of the herb weight of plants (756.57 g/plant and 17.65 ton/fed) for the first season and (839.44 g/plant and 19.59 ton/fed) for the second one. It is clear from the data in [Table 9] that untreated plants gave the mean value of 439.93 g/plant and 10.26 ton/fed for first season and 486.39 g/plant and 11.35 ton/fed for second season. Concerning the effect of doses, [Table 9] showed that the greatest mean values of herb weight were 575.32 g/plant and 15.75 ton/fed for first season and 734.72 g/plant and 17.15 ton/fed for second one from the dose (3 g/l) and did not show any significant differences between portions in both seasons. For the dry weight of herb, dividing the first dose (1.5 g/l) of NPK into two or three portions did not show any significant differences from its application once on the fresh weight of herb. The same was true with the third dose (4.5 g/l). However, dividing the second dose (3 g/l) into two portions significantly increased fresh weight of herb in both seasons. Dividing the dose of 3 g/l into two portions was more effective than the other treatments and resulted in the better mean value in both seasons. Foliar application of NPK at 3 g/l and divided into two portions showed the better weight of plants (229.56 g/plant and 5.36 ton/fed) for first season and (255 g/plant and 5.95 ton/fed) for second season. It is clear from data in [Table 10] that untreated plants gave the mean value of 112.68 g/plant and 2.63 ton/fed for first season and 129.72 g/plant and 3.03 ton/fed for second season. The mean value of doses showed the best dose of weight of plants was 225.71 g/plant and 5.27 ton/fed for first season and 245.14 g/plant and 5.72 ton/fed for second season from the dose 3 g/l and did not show any significant between portions in both seasons, as shown in [Table 10].

These results were in accordance with Sakr [60], who studied the effect of NPK fertilization at rates of 300, 600, and 900 kg/fed on growth and yield on Mentha arvensis. He found that all NPK doses caused significant increases on plant growth and total yield over control in both cuts of the two seasons. Application of 900 kg NPK/fed/season was the most efficient treatment. Increasing NPK levels correspondingly increased the dry weight of herb. Mahmoud [61] found that, Grindelia plants that received high doses of NPK achieved the maximum fresh and dry weight of mass production. Moreover, these results were in harmony with those reported by Yeboah et al. [2] who found the mean value of fresh biomass yield ranged from 1700 to 2100 kg/ha and Ramara and Garofalo [38] on S. hispanica, who found fertilization with 125 : 100 : 40 kg/ha of N : P : K. was the best results for parameters biomass growth. Mary et al. [47] reported that fertilization with 90 : 60 : 75 kg NPK/ha gave the best result of total dry matter accumulation (g/plant).

Effect of biofertilizer

Biofertilizer application resulted in a significant increment in fresh and dry weight of herb in both seasons as shown in [Table 9] and [Table 10]. The mean increment values in fresh weight (g/plant and ton/fed) were 26.60 and 27.16% for first season and second season, respectively, compared with the control plants, whereas the mean increment values in dry weight (g/plant and ton/fed) were 44.83 and 42.76% for first and second season, respectively, compared with the control plants. Biofertilizers are increasingly used in modern agriculture owing to the extensive knowledge in rhizosphere biology and the discovery of the promoter function of special groups of microorganisms such as Azotobacter known as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. They appear to be frequent colonizers of important medicinal crops [62]. Meanwhile, Subba Rao [63] stated that the favourable effect of biofertilizers on growth parameters might be ascribed to its important role in fixing atmospheric N as well as increasing the secretion of natural hormones, namely, IAA, GA3, and cytokinins, antibiotic, and possibly raising the availability of various nutrients. These results were in harmony with those reported by some other studies [63],[64],[65]. Moreover, Khater [66] reported that inoculation of phosphorein produced taller plants and heavier fresh and dry weights of Coriandrum sativum L. herb than the control plant.

Seeds weight (g/plant and kg/fed)

Effect of interaction between NPK and biofertilizer

Seed weight/plant responded significantly to interaction between NPK and biofertilizer in both seasons as shown in [Table 11].
Table 11 Effect of foliar fertilization and/or biofertilizer on seed production of Salvia hispanica plant in two seasons (2016/2017 and 2017/2018)

Click here to view


NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer gave the maximum mean values (12.88 g/plant and 300.53 kg/fed for first season and 24.22 g/plant and 565.13 kg/fed for second season). The increment in seeds weight as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer treatment reached to 122.73% for first season and 303.67% for second season than the control plants. Aly et al. [67] studied the effect of mineral and biofertilizer and found the medium rate of different mineral fertilizers with amixture of Azospirillum lipoferium+A. chroococcum+B. polymyxa increased number and fresh weight of fruits/plant, sepals fresh and dry weight per/plant, and seed yield per plant and per fed. Abdeiraouf et al. [33] revealed that fertilization with mineral NPK exhibited the best vegetative growth parameters on Nigella sativa L, and the highest number of capsule/plant, seed yield/plant and/fed. Moreover, Gharib et al. [39] found that the use of combined treatment of biofertilizers (compost+mixture of N fixers) (A. brasiliense, A. chroocccum and B. polymyxa and B. circulans) on M. nahortensis gave the best results for all growth parameters than those obtained from N fixers or B. circulans alone. Jafari et al. [45] found significant effect of chemical fertilizer on all measured traits studied in S. officinalis except for the number of tillers. Biofertilizer application had also significant effect on all measured traits except for essential oil percentage. The interaction of the two factors had only a significant effect on leaf area and leaf yield. Moreover, these results were in harmony with those reported by Coates [16] that S. hispanica L. in low-input conditions had average seed yield of around 600 kg/ha, but can be up to 1200 kg/ha, whereas in high-input conditions with irrigation and fertilization, yields as high as 2500 kg/ha have been shown in some experimental trials in Argentina and Mary et al. [47] on chia (S. hispanica L.), where they found the treatment combination of 60×45 cm spacing and fertilizer level of 90 : 60 : 75 kg NPK/ha produced significantly higher yield (676.58 kg/ha).

Effect of NPK fertilizer

NPK foliar fertilizer application resulted in significant increase in seeds weight in both seasons as shown in [Table 12].
Table 12 Mean values of seed production as affected by foliar fertilization doses and number of applied portions in two seasons

Click here to view


Dividing the first dose (1.5 g/l) of NPK into two or three portions did not show any significant difference from its application once on the fresh weight of herb. The same was true with the third dose (4.5 g/l). However, dividing the second dose (3 g/l) into two portions significantly increased seeds weight in both seasons. Dividing the dose of 3 g/l into two portions was more effective than the other treatments and resulted in the better mean value in both seasons. Foliar application of NPK at 3 g/l and divided into two portions showed the better weight of plants (11.37 g/plant and 265.30 ton/fed for first season and 16.22 g/plant and 378.46 ton/fed for second season). It is clear from data in [Table 12] that control plants gave the mean value of 6.16 g/plant and 143.73 ton/fed for first season and 7.50 g/plant and 174.99 ton/fed for second season. The increment in seeds weight (g/plant) and seeds weight (kg/fed) as a result of NPK 3 g/l (two portions) treatment reached to 116.27% than the control for second season whereas first season was reached to 84.58%. The values of doses showed the best mean values of seeds weight recorded were 10.47 g/plant and 244.30 kg/fed for first season and 12.63 g/plant and 294.62 kg/fed for second season from the dose 3 g/l and did not show any significant between portions in both seasons as shown in [Table 12].

These results are in harmony with those reported by Yeboah et al. [2] who found the mean value of seed yield ranged from 1927 to 2790 kg/ha and Mary et al. [47] who found fertilization with 90:60:75 kg NPK/ha gave the best result of seed yield (623.60 kg/ha) and reported the variation in yield was associated with variation in plant population and number of spikes produced as well as difference in the amount of nutrients available in the rhizosphere of plant system.

Effect of biofertilizer

Biofertilizer application resulted in a significant increase in seeds weight in both seasons as shown in [Table 12]. The mean increment values in seeds weight (g/plant and ton/plant) were 25.25% for first season and 52.27% second season compared with the control plants. These results were in harmony with those reported by Yadav and Khurana [68] on fennel, which reported that seed treatment with Azotobacter improved umbels/plant, seeds/umbel, and total seed yield. Gad [69] found a significant increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh and dry weight of vegetative growth, number of branches, number of umbels, and fruit weight/plant as a result of using biofertilizers on Foeniculum vulgare and Anethum graveolens. Khandeel et al. [70] recorded a significant increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh and dry weights of vegetative growth, number of branches, number of umbels, and fruits weight/plant as a result of using biofertilizers (Biogene, Netrobene and Serialene) on A. graveolens and F. vulgare. Also, El-Gendy et al. [71] studied the effect of different levels of cattle manure and biofertilizers (phosphorein and/or nitrobein) as well as their interactions and treatments on the growth, sepals, and seed yields on roselle plants and found the interactions and treatments between cattle manure (30 m3/fed) combined with biofertilizers alone or mixture gave the highest values of sepals yield.

Results of our experiment showed significant effect of chemical fertilizers on the measured traits. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are macronutrients that are involved in many plant processes. Nitrogen is the main yield-limiting mineral nutrient. Nitrogen takes part in many physiological and biochemical plant processes and is a structural component of amino acids, nucleic acids, enzymes and proteins, chlorophyll, and cell wall. Phosphorus is also a highly required macronutrient; playing vital roles in energy transfer, cell membranes, nucleic acids, and other key compounds. Potassium has been reported to be involved in rapid cell division [25],[26],[27],[72],[73].


  Conclusion Top


From the mentioned and discussed results, we may recommend fertilization of chia plant with NPK 3 g/l (two portions)+biofertilizer for the best growth and yield of S. hispanica under the mentioned soil conditions.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Ali NM, Yeap SK, Ho WY, Beh BK, Tan SW, Tan SG. Review article: the promising future of chia, Salvia hispanica L. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012; 17:1–9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Yeboah S, Danquah EO, Lamptey JNL, Mochiah MB, Lamptey S, Oteng-Darko P et al. Influence of planting methods and density on performance of chia (Salvia hispanica) and its suitability as an oilseed plant. Agric Sci 2014; 2:14–26.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Silva C, Garcia VAS, Zanette CM. Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) oil extraction using different organic solvents: oil yield, fatty acids profile and technological analysis of defatted meal. Int Food Res J 2016; 23:998–1004.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Cahill JP, Provance MC. Genetics of qualitative traits in domesticated chia (Salvia hispanica L.). J Hered 2002; 93:52–55.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Peiretti PG, Meineri G. Effects on growth performance, carcass characteristics and the fat and meat fatty acid profile of rabbits fed diets with chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seed supplements. Meat Sci 2008; 80:1116–1121.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Reyes-Caudillo E, Tecante A, Valdivia-López MA. Dietary fibre content and antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds present in Mexican chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds. Food Chem 2008; 107:656–663.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Baginsky CC, Arenas J, Escobar H, Garrido M, Valero N, Tello D et al. Growth and yield of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) in the Mediterranean and desert climates of Chile. Chilean J Agric Res 2016; 76:255–264.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Waisle LP. Effect of sowing date on yields seeds of chia in the azapa valley. Chile: Universidade de Tarapacá; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ayerza R, Coates W. Influence of environment on growing period and yield, protein, oil and α-linolenic content of three chia (Salvia hispanica L.) selections. Ind Crops Prod 2009; 30:321–324.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Gentry HS, Mittleman M, Mc Crohan PR. Introduction of Chia and Gum Tragacanth in the U.S. In: Janick J, Simon JE, editors. Advances in new crops. Portland: Timber Press 1990. pp. 252–256.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Coates W, Ayerza R. Production potential of chia in Northwestern Argentina. Ind Crops Prod 1996; 5:229–233.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Coates W, Ayerza R. Commercial production of chia in Northwestern Argentina. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1998; 10:1417–1420.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Estilai A, Baameur A, Hill AB, Mc Crohan PR. Developing chias and other salvia species as sources of industrial and cooking oils.in:association for the advancement of industrial crops (ed.), proceedings of the ninth international conference on jojoba and its uses and of the third international conference on new industrial crops and products. High Point All-Media Productions, Peoria 1996; 9:365–367.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Peiretti PG, Gai F. Fatty acid and nutritive quality of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds and plant during growth. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2009; 148:267–275.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
De Kartzow A. Technical-economic pre-feasibility study of Chia cultivation (Salvia hispanica L.) in Chile. (Inf. Tec.), FIA. Santiago, Chile. 2013;102.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Coates W. Whole and ground chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds, chia oil effects on plasma lipids and fatty acids. In: Patel VR, Preedy RR, Watson VB editors. Nuts and seeds in health and disease prevention. San Diego: Academic 2011. pp. 309–314.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Bilalis D, Tabaxi I, Zervas G, Tsiplakou E, Travlos IS, Kakabouki I, Tsioros S. Chia (salvia hispanica) fodder yield and quality as a affected by sowing rates and organic fertilization. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal, 2016; 47:1764–1770.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ulbricht C, Chao W, Nummy K, Rusie E, Tanguay-Colucci S, Iannuzzi C et al. Chia (salvia hispanica); A systematic review by the natural standard research collaboration. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 2009; 4:168–174.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Cort’es D, Silva H, Baginsky C, Morales L. Climatic zoning of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) in chile using a species distribution model. Spanish J Agric Res 2017; 15:e0302.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Jamboonsri W, Phillips T, Geneve R, Cahill J, Hildebrand D. Extending the range of an ancient crop, Salvia hispanica L. − a new ω3 source. Genet Resour Crop Evol 2012; 59:171–178.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Bresson JL, Flynn A, Heinonen M, Hulshof K, Korhonen H, Lagiou P et al. Scientific opinion: opinion on the safety of Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica L.) and ground whole chia seeds, as a food ingredient. Eur Food Saf Authority J 2009; 996:1–26.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Da Rosa E, Queila DFA, Jonathaline AD, Jéssica TL, Pamella EEC, Luísa Z et al. Antigenotoxic, antimutagenic and cytoprotective potential of Salvia hispanica L. seed extract on human leukocytes exposed to oxidative damage. J Funct Food 2017; 38:505–509.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ayerza R, Coates W. Dietary levels of chia: Influence on hen weight, egg production and sensory quality, for two strains of hens. Br Poult Sci 2002; 43:283–290.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Craig R. Application for approval of whole Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seed and ground whole seed as novel food ingredient. Northern Ireland: Food Standard Agency, UK., Company Representative Mr. D. Amstrong; 2004. p. 29.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Wiedenhoeft AC. Plant nutrition. USA: Chelsea House Publishers 2006.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Fageria NK. The use of nutrients in crop plants. USA: CR Press 2009.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Ezz El-Din AA, Hendawy SF. Effect of dry yeast and compost tea on growth and oil content of (Borago Officinalis) plant. Res J Agric Biol Sci 2010; 6:424–430.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Lu L, Chun-e H, Yue J, Xingling ZJ. Effects of the applications of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers at different growth stages on the root growth and bioactive compounds of Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge. Aust J Crop Sci 2013; 7:1533–1543.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Mahfouz SA, Sharaf-Eldin MA. Effect of mineral vs. bio fertilizer on growth, yield, and essential oil content of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare mill). Int Agrophys 2007; 1:361–366.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Al-Fraihat AH, Al-dalain SYA, Al-Rawashdeh ZB, Abu-Darwish MS, Al-Tabbal JA. Effect of organic and biofertilizers on growth, herb yield and volatile oil of marjoram plant grown in Ajloun region, Jordan. J Med Plant Res 2011 5:2822–2833.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Williams LJ, Abdi H. Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test. In Neil Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA 2010; 1–5.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Azzaz NA, Hassan EA, Hamad EH. The chemical constituents and vegetative and yielding characteristics of fennel plants treated with organic and bio-fertilizer instead of mineral fertilizer. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2009; 3:579–587.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Abdelraouf RE, El-Habbasha SF, Taha MH, Refaie KM. Effect of irrigation water requirements and fertigation levels on growth, yield and water use efficiency in wheat. Middle-East J Sci Res 2013; 4:441–450.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Larimi SB, Shakiba M, Dabbagh A, Vahed MM. Changes in nitrogen and chlorophyll density and leaf area of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) affected by bio fertilizer and nitrogen application. Int J Bio Sci 2014; 5:256–265.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Rademacher W. Gibberelln formation in microorganisms. Plant Growth Regul 1994; 15:303–314.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Capitani MI, Ixtaina VY, Nolasco SM, Tomas MC. Microstructure, chemical composition and mucilage exudation of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) nutlets from Argentina. J Sci Food Agric 2013; 93:3856–3862.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Sonmez C, Bayram E. The influence of different water and nitrogen applications on some yield parameters and antioxidant activity in sage (Salvia officinalis L.). Turk J Field Crops 2017; 22:96–103.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Ramara SS, Garófalo LH. Initial growth of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) submitted to nitrogen, phosphoru and potassium fertilization. Aust J Crop Sci 2017; 11:610–615.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Gharib FA, Moussa LA, Massoud ON. Effect of compost and biofertilizers on growth, yield and essential oil of sweet marjoram (Majorana hortensis) plant. Int J Agric Biol 2008; 10:381–386.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Maleki V, Ardakani MR, Rejali F, Taherpour AA. Physiological responses of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) to triple inoculation with Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Glomus intraradices and foliar application of citric acid. Ann Biol Res 2013; 4:62–71.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Wange SS, Patil PL. Response of tuberose to bio fertilizers and nitrogen. J Maharshata Agric. Uni 1994; 3:484–485.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
El-Kashlan SH. Physiological studies on roselle (Hibiscus subdariffa L.). PhD. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Tanta University, 2001.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Farouk SB, Nadia AM, Mohamed KA, Soad MI. Response of fennel plants to seeding rate and partial replacement of mineral. Afric Crop Sci Conf Proc 2007; 8:417–422.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Matter FMA. Response of roselle plants (Hibiscus sabdariffa, L.) to chemical and biofertilizers. J. Agric. Sci Mahsoura unir 2009; 34:1129–1139.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Jafari MG, Abbaszadeh B, Oraei M. Effects of chemical and biological fertilizers on growth, yield and essential oil of Salvia officinalis. J Med Plants By-Prod 2015; 1:31–37.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Jacoub WR. Effect of chemical fertilization on growth and oil yield of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum, L.) plants. MSc. Thesis, Fac. of Agric. Cairo University, Egypt, 1999.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Mary J, Veeranna HK, Girijesh GK, Dhananjaya BC, Gangaprasad S. Effect of different spacings and fertilizer levels on growth parameters and yield of chia (Salvia hispanica L.). Int J Pure App Biosci 2018; 6:259–263.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Shaalan MN. Influence of biofertilization and chicken manure on growth, yield and seeds quality of Nigella sativa, L. plants. Egypt J Agric Res 2005; 83:811–828.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
El-Sherbeny SE, Hassein MS, Khalil M. Improving the production of Ruta graveolens L. plants cultivated under different compost levels and various sowing distance. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 2007; 2:271–281.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Omran T, Amelie H, Niknejad Y, Marashi J, Jokar AM. A study on the use of organic fertilizer and the biological process of the development of medicinal plant fnologikhtmi. National Conference on medicinal plants. Islamic Azad University, Ayatollah Amelie − Amol. 2014.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Mona AMM, Aisha AH, Fatma RA. Potato yield as affected by the interaction between bio and organic fertilizers. Egypy J Appl Sci 2001; 16:267–286.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Awad EM. Effect of compost and some bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of potato crops (Solanum tubersum, L.). J Agric Sci Mansoura Univ 2002; 27:5525–5537.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
EL-Etr WT, Ali LKM, EL-Khatib EL. Comparative effects of bio-compost and compost on growth, yield and nutrients content of pea and wheat plants grown on sandy soils. Egypt J Agric Res 2004; 82:73–94.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Magda HM, Asmaa MR. Response of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to nitrogen fertilizer source. Ann Agric Sci 2004; 42:261–270.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Abdo MA, Abeer MH. Growth and oil production of Foeniculum vulgare Mill.2. The effect of number of irrigation and organic fertilizers. J Agric Sci Mansoura Univ 2003; 28:3868–3888.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Ali AF, Osman E, Khater MR. Effect of phosphorene and potassium sulphate on guar,Cyamopsistetra gonoloba L. Egypt J Appl Sci 2001; 16:217–228.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Solaiman ARM, Rabbani MG. Effect of rhizobium inoculant, compost and nitrogen on nodulation, growth and yield of pea. Korean J Crop Sci 2006; 51:534–538.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Susheela Negi, Dwivedi GK, Singh RV. Integrated nutrient management through bio fertilizers, fertilizers organic manure and lime for vegetable pea in an acid inceptisol of temperate region of Uttaranchal. Legume Res 2007; 30:37–40.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Youssef AA, Edris AE, Gomaa AM. A Comparave between some plant growth regulators and certain growth hormone microorganisms of Salvia officinalis L. plant. Ann Agric Sci 2004; 49:299–311.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Sakr WRA. Effect of some organic and inorganic fertilizers on Mentha piperita. Egypt; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Mahmoud SM. Effect of water stress and NPK fertilization on growth and resin content of Grindelia camporum green. Acta Hort 2002; 576:289–294.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Harridy LMA, Soliman SGI, Amara MA. Physiological, chemical and biological studies on lemongrass ‘Cymbopogan citratus’ (DC) Stapf in response to diazotrophic bacteria. J Agric Sci Mansoura Univ 2001; 26:6131–6154.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Subba Rao NS. Biofertilizers in agriculture. 3rd ed. New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta: Oxford, BH Publishing Co. Lit.; 1993. p. 219.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Fatma RA, Shafeek MR. Response of growth and yield of vicia faba plants to foliar and bio fertilizers. Egypt J Appl Sci 2000; 15:652–670.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Sharma J, Namdeo KN, Shrivastava KBL, Patel AK, Tiwar OP. Effect of fertility levels, growth regulators and bio fertilizers on nutrient contents and uptake of field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Crop Res Hisar 2006; 32:192–195.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Khater RMR. Effect of some fertilizers treatments on the growth and volatile oil yield on Carum carvi plants. Egypt; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Aly MK, El-Sayed AA, Zayed AA, Kenawy AG. Bio fertilizers as partial alternative of chemical fertilizers for Hibiscus sabdariffa, L. cv. sabahia 17 plants. The 1st Inter. Conf. on Desert Cultivation, Minia, Egypt, 2007; 27–29  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Yadav BD, Khurana SC. Effect of plant growth substances and Azotobacteron yield and yield attributing characters in fennel. Haryana Agric Univ Res 2000; 30:71–77.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Gad WM. Physiological studies on Foeniculum vulgare, Mill., and Anethum graveolens L. M. Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh Univ, Egypt, 2001.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Kandeel YM, Menesy FA, Khalafalla MM, Gad WM. Effect of some commercial biofertilizers on growth, seed, volatile oil yield and chemical composition of Anethum graveolens and Foeniculum vulgare,Mill. J Agric Res Tanta Univ 2004; 30:721–737.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
El-Gendy ASH, Said-Al Ahl HAH, Abeer MA. Growth productivity and chemical constituents of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffaL.) plants as influenced by cattle manure and bio fertilizers treatments. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2012; 6:1–12.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Belorkar PV, Patel BN, Golliwar VJ, Kothare AJ. Effect of nitrogen and spacing on growth, flowering and yield of African mari gold. J Soil Crops 1992; 2:62–64.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Tiessen H. Phosphorus in the global environment. In: White PJ, Hammond JP, editors. The ecophysiology of plant-phosphorus interactions. USA: Springer 2008. pp. 1–8.  Back to cited text no. 73
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10], [Table 11], [Table 12]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and me...
Results and disc...
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed205    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded34    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]