MJPPF_Volume 8_Issue 4_Pages 47-84

Menoufia J. Plant Prod.
, Volume 8 Issue 4 (2023): 47 – 84
MENOUFIA JOURNAL OF PLANT PRODUCTION
https://mjppf.journals.ekb.eg/
ALLEVIATION SALINITY STRESS ON TOMATO PLANTS BY

SOME ORGANIC AND BIO - FERTILIZERS APPLICATION
Malash, N. M.; Khalil, Mona R.; Midan, Sally A. and Radwan, Ghada A.
Department of Horticulture. Faculty of Agriculture, Menoufia University,
Shebin El-Kom, Egypt.
Received: Apr. 16, 2023 Accepted: Apr. 29, 2023
ABSTRACT: A pot experiment was carried out in two summer seasons of 2020 and 2021, to study the
effect of organic {compost (COM) and humic acid (HA)} and biological {arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM)
and plant growth promotion rizobacteria (PGPB)} fertilization on mitigation salinity hazard of tomato
plants. Saline solutions were prepared by using NaCl to induce an EC of 3 and 6 dSm-1, in addition to tap
water (0.56 dSm-1) as a control. Data on plant growth and development, and leaf water, mineral and
chemical contents, and fruit yield and quality were determined. Comparable to un-saline treatment (tap
water), salinity (at 3.00 and 6.00 dSm-1) decreased plant growth, fruit set (%), water, and mineral nutrition
contents in leaves, as well as fruit yield. However, salinity increased water use efficiency, leaf proline
content, electrolyte leakage in leaves, and fruit contents of TSS and Vit.C. Also, salinity enhanced Na and
Cl contents in all leaves, particularly old ones. Treatments of alleviation salinity all mitigated salinity
detrimental effect as they enhanced growth, fruit set (%), water, N, P, K and Ca contents in leaves as well
as fruit yield. Also, these treatments reduced Na and Cl contents in both young and old leaves particularly
in former ones, beside leaf proline content and leaf electrolyte leakage. The combined treatments i.e.,
AM+PGPR and COM+HA both seems to be of a synergistic effect as they were the most effective
treatments in terms of alleviation salinity hazards on plants followed by AM and COM applied alone.
Kew words: Tomato, salinity alleviation treatments, plant growth, chemical contents and fruit yield,
organic and bio-fertilizers.
INTRODUCTION Therefore, salinity stress involves changes in

The continuous increase in the earth’s human various physiological and metabolic processes,
population, including the developing countries of depending on severity and duration of the stress,
the Mediterranean region, requires increasing and ultimately inhibits crop growth and
quantities of water for domestic, industrial and production (Rozema and Flowers, 2008, Rahnama
agricultural needs. The progressive requirement et al., 2010 and James et al., 2011). Osmotic stress
for more water to irrigate crops for food when causes various physiological changes, impairs the
water resources are limited has led to use low ability to detoxify reactive oxygen species (ROS),
quality water for irrigation, such as saline field decreased photosynthetic activity, and decrease in
drainage or brackish water, etc. Irrigation with stomatal aperture (Munns and Tester 2008 and
saline water has become necessary in parts of the Rahnama et al., 2010). Also, salinity altered the
world with limited supplies of good quality water. mineral nutrient composition by decreasing N,P,K
and Ca content and increased Na and Cl content
According to Gama et al. (2007), plants grown of the tomato plants compared to the unsalted
under salinity conditions are basically stressed in control (Tartoura et al., 2014 and Ors et al., 2021).
three ways. These are, (1) osmotic effect; The accumulation of proline in plants (Ali and
reduction of water potential in the root zone and Rab, 2017 and Torre-Gonzalez et al., 2018), and
causing water deficit, i.e. excess salts in the root increasing electrolyte leakage from plasma
zone hinder roots from withdrawing water from membranes proportionally in tomato leaves has
surrounding soil, (2) specific ion effect; been observed (Tartoura et al., 2014., and Ors et
phototoxicity of ions such as Na+ and Cl- , and (3) al., 2021) under salinity stress conditions. As a
nutrient imbalance by depression ion uptake. result, several studies showed that tomato plant
*Corresponding author: [email protected] 47

Malash, N. M.; et al.,
growth was reduced by salinity (Feigin et al., (Dursun et al., 2002, and Du Jardin, 2015), while
1987 and Magan et al., 2008), as well tomato yield it reduces the uptake of some toxic elements
is quite sensitive to salinity, i.e., at 3.0 dS m−1 and (Knicker et al., 1993, and Friedel and Scheller,
above (Malash et al., 2012, El-Mogy et al., 2018 2002), and reduces electrolyte leakage (EL) in
and Pengfei et al., 2019). While there was a clear plants that were grown in saline soil (Rady et al.,
reduction in yield, the fruit quality of tomato fruit 2016). Regarding, humic acid (HA) it was able to
(in most cases) including TSS and vitamin C., stimulate nutrient uptake such as N, Ca, P, K, Mg,
were enhanced with increasing salinity (Mizrahi Fe, Zn, and Cu (Padem et al., 1997, and Dursun et
et al., 1988, De Pascale et al., 2001, Malash et al., al., 2002), and their use efficiency by plants,
2002 and Maggio et al., 2004). Consequently, meanwhile reduced the uptake of some toxic
great effort has been devoted to overcome the elements (Knicker et al., 1993, and Friedel and
deleterious effects of salinity on crop plants. Bio- Scheller, 2002). Also, HA improved RWC in
fertilizers such as arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) strawberry plants (Saidimoradi et al., 2019)
and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) significantly reduced electrolyte leakage in bean
were mentioned to be have alleviation effect of (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants (Aydin et al.,
salt stress on crop plants. The symbiotic 2012), besides decreasing membrane damage
association of crop plants with AM fungi (Canellas et al., 2015) which can mitigate the
improves the uptake of almost essential nutrients deleterious effects of salt stress (Du Jardin, 2015).
by plants (Balliu et al., 2015), Whereas decrease
This study was undertaken to provide
the uptake of Na and Cl (Evelin et al., 2012), In
information about the possibility of organic and
addation AM increases water uptake bymaize
bio-fertilizers in enhancing salt tolerance in
plant roots (Ruiz-Lozano and Azcon, 1995 and
plants, thus we hypothesized that AM, PGPR,
Marulanda et al., 2003). reduced electrolyte
COM and HA can alleviate salinity hazard in
leakage in plant leaves (Ahmad et al., 2019 and
tomato plants grown under saline conditions.
Kaya et al., 2009). PGPB treatment can directly
fixing atmospheric nitrogen, producing some
MATERIALS AND METHODS
phytohormones, solubilizing minerals such as
phosphorus and synthesizing enzymes that can A pot experiment was carried out in two
modulate plant growth and development (Mayak successive years in early summer seasons of 2020
et al., 2004a). Furthermore, PGPR reduced salt and 2021, under protected conditions (theram
toxicity in various plants by lowering the Na+ house), at the Agricultural Experimental farm,
concentration and increasing the K+ concentration Faculty of Agriculture Menofia University Shebin
in crop plants (Bano and Fatima, 2009 and Kohler EL-Kom, Egypt. This experiment was conducted
et al., 2009). The combined treatment of both to study the effect of two sources of fertilizers;
mycorrhiza and PGPR seems to be has a i.e., organic and biological fertilizers on reducing
synergistic effect that was confirmed by improved salinity hazard on tomato.
plant growth, nutrition, and yield as well as In this study, seeds of tomato "hybrid 186"
mitigated salinity stress than using one component were sown in seedling trays (209 holes) on the 10th
of them alone (Baradar et al., 2015, Calvo- and 8th of February in 2020 2021 yearsears,
Polanco et al., 2016 and Desai et al., 2020). respectively. The trays were filled with a mixture
Application of composted organic matter of peat moss, vermiculite and mineral
(OM) leads to improve soil physical, chemical and nutrients.The seedlings were transplanted (45
biological properties, increasing soil water- days after seed sowing) in perforated plastic pots
holding capacity and bulk density and improving 35cm in diameter, under theram house conditions.
plant nutrient use efficiency (Qadir and Oster Each pot contained 12kg mixture of field soil and
2004, Tejada et al., 2006, Clark et al., 2007, and washed sand (1: 2 by weight), some washed
Altome et al., 2015). Application of compost gravels (with different sizes) were added at the
increased the N, Ca, P, K, Mg, Fe, Zn, and Cu bottom of each pot to optimize the leaching
contents in plants grown under saline conditions process. The experiment was designed in a split
48
Alleviation salinity stress on tomato plants by some organic and bio-fertilizers application
plot design with 6 replicates. Each subplot CFU ml–1 for 5 min amended with Arabic gum
consisted of 6 pots and each pot contained 5 solution (1%) as a sticker.
seedlings. Salinity treatments (3 levels) were
devoted to main plots whereas, fertilization 1-3- Mycorrhiza + Plant growth
sources treatments were devoted to the sub- plots. promoting rhizobacteria
Unless otherwise indicated, fertilizers rates were Both of them (as a bilateral treatment) were
added as commonly used in tomato production added at dates previously mentioned for each, and
field i.e, 120 unit of N (600kg /fed as ammonium with the same quantities.
sulphate), 50 units of P (320 kg/fed as calcium
super phosphate), and 150 units of K (300kg/fed 2- Organic fertilizers
as potassium phosphate). In addition micro –
2-1-Compost (COM)
elements (iron –zinc –manganese) at a rate of 1- Compost contains 1% nitrogen, it was added
2g per liter of water were applied as spray on plant before planting in a rate of 6 ton/fed-1, which is
foliages, after a month of transplanting and
consider only as 50% of the necessary nitrogen
repeated three times every 15 days thereafter. needed for tomato production fields. The compost
At the beginning all pots were irrigated with was mixed well in the surface layer of the potted
fresh water, while salinity treatments started 20 soil.
days after transplanting. Saline solutions were
prepared by using NaCl to induce EC equal to 3 2-2-Humic acid (HA)
and 6 dSm-1, in addition to tap water (0.56 dSm-1) Humic acid “Agro Master” is a water soluble
as a control. To avoid salinity chock, saline potassium humate crystals (K2O) 10%W/W,
irrigation water was applied gradually; i.e., 2 dSm- Humic acid was added at 15- 20 days after
1
every 3 days till final concentration. Moisture transplanting at a rate of 1 kg /fed -1 (0.01 g / pot),
content of pots was determined by weigh pots at 2 and the application was done every 2 weeks
days intervals and irrigation was applied when during the growing season.
soil moisture depleted to 70% of field capacity,
2-3- Compost + humic acid
the amount of irrigation water added was enough
to raise moisture to 100% field capacity. In Compost and humic acid (as a bilateral
addition, excess of water (15% as leaching treatment) were added at the dates previously
fraction) was also applied (if needed). After each mentioned for each material and with the same
irrigation the drain water was gathered in the dish quantities.
below each pot and its EC was determined. The
15% leaching fraction was sufficient to keep Data recorded
salinity level in drain solution as in irrigation one, I. Vegetative growth characters
under condition of this experiment. A plant sample was taken at 50 days after
transplanting (after three weeks of reaching the
Salinity alleviation treatments were final concentration of salts) in both seasons of
1-Biological fertilizers study, whereas in the 2nd season two plant samples
were taken; at 50 and 60 days after transplanting
1-1- Endo-Mycorrhizae, (Arbuscular (DAT). The sample consisted of 2 plants from
mycorrhizal) (AM) each replicate (pot), then the following
The fungus was added (before transplanting) measurements were recorded:
to the soil in each pot at rate of 1g/kg soil, and
mixed thoroughly with the soil surface. 1-Plant height: was measured from cotyledon
leaves scar to terminal bud.
1-2-Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria 2- Total plant dry weight: dry weight was
(PGPR) determined by put all the plant organs in an
Roots of seedlings before transplanting were
oven at 70 C° till constant weight.
dipped in the Bacillus subtilis suspension of 108
49
Ⅱ- Flowering date and fruit setting 2) Proline content: Proline content was measured
at 50 days after transplanting in both seasons,
1- Flowering date (F50): is the date (number of
according to the method described by Bates et
days) at which 50% of plants produce the first
al. (1973).
flower.
Ⅴ- Electrolyte leakage (EL): Was determined
2- Fruit set (%): flowers of the 3rd and 4th clusters
at 50 days after transplanting in both seasons of
were tagged and fruits that set were calculated.
study. Electrolyte leakage is an index of
Ⅲ- Plant water relations physiological stresses which reflecting the
damage of cell membranes and stability results in
1-Relative water content (RWC): the 5th leaf leakage of cell contents. Electrolyte leakage was
from the plant top were taken from three determined as described by Sun et al., (2006).
randomly selected plants from each treatment at
50 day after transplanting in both seasons of Ⅵ- Yield and its components
study. The RWC was calculated by the
following equation as cited after Barrs and 1) Average fruit weight: Was obtained by
weatherly (1962). dividing total weight of the marketable fruits
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹−𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
(from each treatment) by their number.
RWC= ×100
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇−𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
2) Total yield: was the weight of the all harvested
Where: FW= fresh weight of leaflet. fruits (ripe fruits were harvested every 2-3
DW= dry weight of leaflet (leaflets were dried up days/week) throughout the entire harvesting
in an oven at 700C till constant weight) season
TW= full-turgor weight; i.e., turgor weight was
determined by floated leaflet on distilled water in
Ⅶ-Fruit quality was determined in
firm mature red fruits once at the
for 6h petri dishes under laboratory conditions,
harvesting
and then weighed every 15 minutes. At constant
1) Total soluble solids content (TSS) was
weight, leaflets were got out of the water and were measured using an abbe hand Refractometer.
blotted before reweighing. 2) Ascorbic acid content in tomato juice
2-Water use efficiency (WUE): It was measured (vitamin C): its determination was carried out
at the end of the season according to the using 2, 6, dichlorophenol indophenol dye and
following formula: WUE=Total Yield (kg)/ oxalic acid as extractor as described in AOAC
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 /𝑚𝑚3 (1995).
Ⅳ-Chemical composition of tomato leaves Data Statistical analysis

The data of the two seasons were statistically
1) Mineral elements contents: Total nitrogen
analyzed using the CoStat Package program,
(N), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), calcium
version 6.311(Cohort software, USA). The
(Ca), sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) were all
differences among the means of treatments were
determined in young active leaves (the 4th and
tested using the least significant differences
5th leaves from the tip of plants) and old
(L.S.D) at 0.05 level of probability according to
leaves (7th , 8th and 9th from the tip of plants).
the method described by Snedecor and Cochran
These elements were determined at 50 days
(1980).
after transplanting (DAT) in 2020 season and
at 50 days and 60 DAT in 2021. The methods
used in their determinations were according to
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
those mentioned by Pergel (1945) for N, Page 1-Plant vegetative growth
et al., (1982) for K, Ca and Cl, Chapman and 1-1- Plant height
Pratt (1961) for P, and Johanson and Ulrichs
Data in Table 1 show that increasing salinity
(1959) for Na.
level significantly decreased plant height of
50
tomato plants compared to those of un-salinized Concerning, the effect of salinity alleviation
plants, in both sampling dates and seasons. The treatments. Table (1) shows that all these
proportion of the reduction in plant height also treatments increased significantly plant height
was more pronounce by increasing time of than that of the untreated control, in both years of
exposure to salinity; i.e., at 60 DAT than at 50 study. Also, the most effective treatment in
DAT in 2021 season. Similar results were alleviation salinity’s detrimental effect on the
obtained by Malash et al. (2008), Oztekin and stem length of tomato plants was combined COM
Tuzel (2011) and El-Mogy et al. (2018) who and HA in both seasons. The second highest value
reported that salinity stress reduces the height of was recorded to plants treated with COM,
tomato plants. The reduction in plant height by followed by those treated by the combination of
salinity was mainly due to reduce water potential, AM+PGPR treatment in 2020 season, me,anwhile
which causes ion imbalance and ion toxicity the differences between these two particular
(Gama et al., 2007, Rahnama et al., 2010 and treatments were not significant (Table 1).
James et al., 2011).
Table (1): Effect of salinity levels (A), some salinity alleviation treatments (B) and their interactions
(A×B) on plant height of tomato plants determined at 50d (in 2020 & 2021) and 60d (in
2021 only) after transplanting.
Salinity alleviation treatments (B)
plant height (cm)
Salinity levels
dS/m Sample taken at 50 d after transplanting in 2020
(A) Mycorrhizal Humic Compost
Mycorrhizal B. subtilis Compost Untreated
+ Acid + Humic Mean A
Inoculation Inoculation Application Control
B. subtilis Application Acid
0.56* 71.40 68.71 74.46 76.33 70.58 76.58 66.63 72.10
3.00 68.67 67.25 69.17 69.25 67.92 74.17 60.58 68.14
6.00 66.17 62.50 66.25 66.71 65.83 69.75 55.00 64.60
Mean B 68.74 66.15 69.96 70.71 68.11 73.50 60.74
L.S.D A 0.390
L.S.D B 0.596
L.S.D AxB 1.032
Season 2021
1st sample taken at 50 d after transplanting
0.56* 69.00 58.25 73.25 68.25 67.25 82.75 50.75 67.07
3.00 60.66 56.25 64.75 63.50 59.75 67.25 44.00 59.45
6.00 53.50 52.50 56.25 52.50 53.00 59.50 37.50 52.11
Mean B 61.06 55.67 64.75 61.42 60.00 69.83 44.08
L.S.D A 1.898
L.S.D B 2.899
L.S.D A x B 5.022
Season 2021
2nd sample taken at 60 d after transplanting
0.56* 70.18 65.68 74.75 71.00 67.63 84.50 52.25 69.43
3.00 62.25 57.25 65.88 64.38 60.00 68.55 43.65 60.28
6.00 54.00 53.00 57.50 54.25 53.33 60.13 39.25 53.06
Mean B 62.14 58.64 66.04 63.21 60.32 71.06 45.05
L.S.D A 1.110
L.S.D B 1.695
L.S.D A x B 2.936
*= tap water (control)
51
However, using B.subtilis (which belongs to 55.0, 37.5 and 39.25 in the same order were
PGPR group) alone gave the lowest value of plant recorded to the untreated control with 6.0 dS/m.
height among the other treatments (Table 1).
These results are similar to the data obtained in an 1-2-Total plant dry weight
earlier studies regarding to the favorable effect of It is obvious from results presented in Table 2
these salinity alleviation treatments on stem that salinity, (regardless salinity alleviation
length of tomato plants, e.g., Basak et al. (2011) treatments) significantly decreased total plant dry
and Hadad et al. (2012) for using AM, Tank and weight with increasing salinity level in irrigation
Saraf (2010), Pandy and Gapta (2020) and Yilmaz water, in both seasons and sampling dates. The
et al. (2020) for using PGPR, Arancon et al. reduction in total plant dry weight of tomato by
(2003) and Tu et al. (2006) for using compost and salinity were 26.7 and 46.9% (as average of values
Ashraf and Mohamed (2008) and Feleafel and obtained in the two seasons at 50 DAT) at salinity
Mirdad (2014a), for using HA. The favorable levels 3 and 6 dSm-1 respectively compared to
effect of AM on plant height of tomato plants was those plants irrigated with tap water. The
mainly attributed to its efficiency in providing reduction was augmented when dry weight of
nutrition to the host plant, increasing water tomato plant was determined at 60 DAT in 2021
uptake, production of hormones and enhancing season as such reductions were 31.0 and 55.0 % at
adaptation to environmental stress including 3 and 6 dSm-1 levels of salinity respectively
salinity (Garg and chandel 2010). Moreover, (Table 2).These findings support the observations
PGPR as well, enhances biological N2 fixation, made by Cruz et al. (1990), Saranga et al., (1993),
increasing the availability of nutrients in the Malash et al., (2008), Eraslan et al. (2015) and
rhizosphere (Glick, 2012 and Vessey, 2003). In El.Mogy et al. (2018) who mentioned that dry
addition, Richardson et al. (2009) and Glick, weight of tomato plants was reduced in proportion
(2012) added that PGPR can enhancing other to the increase in salinity of the irrigation water.
beneficial symbioses of the host such as inhibition Also, De Pascale et al. (2003) found that irrigation
of cell wall-degrading enzymes, lowering plants pepper plants by saline water (EC of 4.4 dSm-1)
ethylene levels, by which abiotic stress tolerance resulted in 46% reduction in plant dry weight. The
increased in plants. reduction in plant dry weight due to increasing
It was also found that compost can improve salinity levels may be a result of a combination of
soil fertility and increase the crop accessibility to osmotic and specific ion effects of Cl and Na on
plants (Cruz et al., 1990 and Saranga et al., 1993).
nutrients, leading to good plant growth as well as
reducing the damaging effects of salt stress Salinity alleviation treatments used in this
(Cimrin et al., 2010) on pepper. HA application study all resulted in a significant increase in salt
also, has favorable effect on plants under stress tolerance of tomato plants as they enhanced total
conditions, as it increased nutrients uptake, plant dry weight than those of untreated control
(Adani et al., 1998 and Dursun et al., 2002), (Table 2). Also, salinity alleviation treatments
enhanced total plant dry weight in both saline and
changing ion balance, promoting plasma
non-saline conditions. The combined treatment
membrane proton pumps activity and enhancing
between COM+HA was the most effective
photosynthesis of tomato plants grown under salt
treatment in increasing the dry weight of tomato
stress (Souza et al., 2021). plants, grown under saline conditions, among
The highest value of plant height of tomato other treatments in both seasons and sampling
plants (Table1) was obtained by the combined dates i.e. at 50 and 60 DAT (Table 2). Also, the
treatment of COM+HA at 0.56 dS/m level of combined treatment of AM+PGPR gave the 2nd
salinity i.e. 76.6, 82.7 and 84.5 cm at 50 DAT in highest total plant dry weight in the 2021 season
2020 and 2021 seasons and at 60 DAT in 2021 in both sampling dates, but the such treatment
respectively, however the lowest values were gave the 3rd. highest value of plant dry weight at
50 DAT of the 2020 season.
52
(A×B) on total plant dry weight of tomato plants determined at 50 d (in 2020 & 2021) and
60 d (in 2021only) after transplanting.
Salinity Total plant dry weight g/plant
levels Sample taken at 50 d after transplanting in 2020
dS/m Humic Compost
(A) Mycorrhizal B. subtilis Mycorrhizal + Compost Untreated
Acid + Humic Mean A
Inoculation Inoculation B. subtilis Application control
Application Acid
0.56* 21.19 17.42 22.03 25.18 19.90 26.28 11.14 20.45
3.00 15.87 14.20 16.95 17.97 15.25 20.32 8.69 15.61
6.oo 13.31 12.48 14.30 14.89 11.56 15.91 6.05 12.64
Mean B 16.79 15.22 17.13 18.79 16.38 19.72 11.40
L.S.D A 0.362
L.S.D B 0.553
L.S.D AxB 0.957
Season 2021
1st sample taken at 50 d after transplanting
0.56* 24.52 20.07 32.84 31.48 23.33 38.38 16.33 26.71
3 .00 19.01 15.46 24.20 21.67 17.09 25.23 10.34 19.00
6 .00 12.60 9.45 15.56 14.21 10.81 17.67 6.44 12.39
Mean B 18.71 14.99 22.83 20.59 18.51 25.46 12.90
L.S.D A 1.038
L.S.D B 1.585
L.S.D. AxB 2.746
Season 2021
2nd sample taken at 60 d after transplanting
0.56* 35.07 29.01 41.04 38.14 32.25 47.11 21.84 34.92
3 .00 23.65 20.48 29.31 27.09 21.94 32.45 13.85 24.11
6 ,00 16.13 13.74 18.21 16.96 15.51 20.42 9.05 15.72
Mean B 24.95 21.07 29.52 27.40 23.23 33.33 14.91
L.S.D A 1.168
L.S.D B 1.785
L.S.D A xB 3.089
These findings suggest that such combined plants, and by Padem et al. (1997), Adani et al.
treatments had a synergistic effect as values of (1998) and Dursun et al. (2002) regarding the
plant dry weight obtained by these particular favorable effect of HA application on tomato
treatments, were higher than that obtained by each plant growth, which all were grown under saline
factor (one of its components) used alone (Table conditions. The role of both organic fertilizers i.e.
2). AM inoculation and COM application COM and HA in mitigation of salinity effect is
treatments gave also high values of plant dry to enrich the soil with organic matter and humic
weight. Similar results were obtained by Altome substances which improve soil physical, chemical
et al. (2015) regarding the favorable effect of and biological properties which enhances macro
COM application on shoot dry weight of tomato and micronutrients uptake (Walker and Bernal,
53
2008 and Wright et al., 2008) and increase 2- Flowering date and fruit set
moisture conservation which stimulates crop
2-1- Number of days from transplanting to
growth and quality (Zribi et al., 2011). Similarly,
appearance of the first flower in 50 %
the synergistic effect of the combined treatment of
of the plants (F50)
AM+PGPR was also observed by Desai et al.
(2020) who confirmed that both AM and PGPR According to the date given in Table 3,
applied together improved tomato plant growth, increasing salinity levels significantly decreased
grown under salinity conditions than used each of number of days required to first flower
them alone. Moreover, it was reported (Altunlu, appearance of 50% of plants. In other words,
2020) that PGPR enhanced AMF positive effect salinity enhanced early flowering in tomato plants
which positively improved plant growth and when compared with those grown under normal
physiological parameters of pepper plants under (non-saline) conditions.
all studied salinity stress levels. The favorable Such result seems to be logical outcome as
effect of AM on plant growth particularly under salinity dramatically affected vegetative growth,
saline conditions is mainly due to providing which predisposing to accelerate flowering.
nutrients to the host plant, increasing water Similar results were obtained by Mostafizar
uptake, production of hormones and enhancing Rahman et al. (2018) who found that salinity (i.e.
adaptation to environmental stresses (Garg and 2 to 8 dS/m) decreased number of days required
Chandel 2010). PGPR as well reduces synthesis to flowering of five tomato varieties, and the
of harmful ethylene which increases under stress effect was more pronounced with increasing
conditions (Glick, 2014), fixing atmospheric salinity levels up to 8 dS/m.
nitrogen, phytohormone production, solubilizing
minerals, modulate plant growth (Mayak et al., Because salinity alleviation treatments
2004a) and enhanced scavenging activities of improved water content, enhanced physiological
reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Jianmin et al., and biochemical processes and reduced toxic
2014). It was also observed that salinity elements in plant tissue which in turn promoting
alleviation treatments increased total tomato plant plant vegetative growth, all treatments increased
dry weight in both normal and saline conditions No of days required to F50 of tomato plants (Table
(Table 2), but it seems that these treatments were 3). Also, the treatments which gave highest
somewhat more effective in saline than in normal growth parameters under saline stress, previously
conditions. mentioned, also gave the longer period to F50, in
both seasons.
According to the data of the interaction
between salinity levels and salinity alleviation
treatments, Table 2 shows that the highest total
2-2- Fruit set (%)
plant dry weight obtained was a result of using the Fruit set (%) of tomato plants was significantly
combined treatment of COM+HA along with 0.56 decreased by salinity (Table 4), and the decrease
dS/m salinity level (un-saline), the 2nd highest was more pronounced at 6 dS/m than at 3dS/m-1
value of total plant dry weight was recorded to the compared to those of non-saline control. These
COM treatment at 50 DAT in 2020 season, but findings support the observations made by Adams
this ranked was recorded to the combined and Ho, (1992) who mentioned that fruit set % of
treatment of AM+PGPR at 50 and 60 DAT in tomato was reduced by extreme salinity. The
2021 season, all along with 0.56 dS/m salinity reduction in fruit set by salinity may owing to a
level. While, the lowest values of total plant dry reduction in number of flowers (Mostafizur
weight were due to those plants subjected to the Rahman et al., 2018), or to flower loss or drop as
highest salinity level (6.0 dS/m) and those a result of the restriction of water supply (Saito
untreated with any of salinity alleviation and Ito 1967) or for a reduction in potassium
treatments (Table 2). HA application and PGPR (Besford and Maw, 1975) and phosphorus uptake
inoculation along with the highest salinity level (Menary and Stalen 1976).
gave also lower total plant dry weight (Table 2).
54
(A×B) on number of days from transplanting to appearance of first flower in 50% of
plants (F50) in both seasons of study.
F50 (days)
Salinity
levels Season 2020
dS/m (A) Humic Compost
Mycorrizal B. subtilis Mycorrizal + Compost Untreated
Acid + Humic Mean A
Application Acid
0.56* 31.17 31.00 30.00 31.50 29.83 34.17 29.00 30.95
3.00 27.83 27.33 28.67 28.50 28.33 31.17 26.50 28.33
6.00 26.67 26.83 28.50 27.67 27.33 27.00 25.50 27.07
Mean B 28.56 28.39 29.06 29.22 28.50 30.78 27.00
L.S.D A 0.284
L.S.D B 0.434
L.S.D AxB 0.751
Season 2021
0.56* 34.75 33.75 37.25 36.50 35.00 40.50 31.50 35.61
3.00 33.75 31.75 36.50 35.25 32.25 37.50 25.50 33.21
6.00 28.50 27.00 31.00 29.50 27.50 32.75 21.50 28.25
Mean B 32.33 30.83 34.92 33.75 31.58 36.92 26.17
L.S.D A 0.985
L.S.D B 1.505
L.S.D A x B 2.607
(A×B) on tomato fruit set (%) of the 3rd, and 4th clusters in both seasons of study.
Salinity Fruit set (%)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Humic Compost
(A) Mycorrizal B. subtilis Mycorrizal + Compost Untreated
Acid + Humic Mean A
Application Acid
0.56* 65.51 61.72 69.70 78.39 64.35 91.12 57.75 69.79
3.00 60.14 56.95 60.97 61.74 58.48 63.65 47.00 58.42
6.00 50.02 42.82 50.90 52.82 47.13 53.87 36.47 47.72
Mean B 58.56 53.83 60.52 64.32 56.66 69.55 47.07
L.S.D A 0.845
L.S.D B 1.290
L.S.D AxB 2.235
Season 2021
0.56 * 77.48 71.67 87.26 83.75 83.75 92.26 46.67 77.55
3.00 56.25 52.50 62.92 56.65 50.00 74.98 31.72 55.00
6.00 43.33 31.09 50.00 46.67 37.30 56.65 27.97 41.86
Mean B 59.02 51.75 66.73 62.36 57.02 74.63 35.45
L.S.D A 4.817
L.S.D B 7.359
L.S.D A x B 12.745
55
Salinity alleviation treatments enhanced that humic substances improve a number of

tomato fruit set percent in plants either grown in clusters/plant and the number of flowers/clusters
normal or in saline conditions (Table 4). The of tomato plants grown under saline conditions,
combined treatment of COM+HA gave which is reflected on fruit set improvement.
significantly the highest fruit set (%) of tomato
plants either grown in normal cultural media i.e., 3- Plant water relations
non-saline (control treatment) or in both levels of 3-1- Relative water content (RWC)
salinity, in both seasons. The 2nd highest fruit set
As expected salinity reduced relative water
was due to COM application treatment in 2020
content (RWC) and the reduction was more
season and the combined treatment of AM+PGPR
pronounced with the highest salinity level i.e.
in 2021 one.
6dS/m in both seasons (Table 5). RWC is also
The favorable effect of salinity alleviation called relative turgidity and is perhaps the most
treatments on tomatoes was depend on enhancing widely accepted method of expressing the
water and mineral nutrition uptake, quantity of water in plant tissue (Boyer, 1969).
photosynthetic activity which improved The findings of this study are in agreement with
physiological and biochemical process, such as those reported by Yurtseven et al. (2005), Eraslan
photosynthetic activity and subsequently improve et al. (2015) and Pengfei et al. (2019) who
male and female gametophyte viability and reported that RWC in tomato plants was
increase number of clusters /plant and number of decreased by NaCl salinity. Psarras et al. (2008)
flowers in cluster, Such modifications enhanced
clarify that salinity in soil or in irrigation water
fruit set (%) of tomato plants grown under saline
particularly high levels reduce water uptake by
conditions. These results seem to be similar to
plant roots and consequently reduces water
those obtained by Feleafel and Mirdad (2014a)
potential in tomato plant tissues.
and Ashraf and Mohamed (2008) who mentioned
(A×B) on relative water content (RWC) in tomato leaf determined at 50 d after
transplanting in both seasons of study.
Salinity RWC values (%)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Humic Compost
Acid + Humic Mean A
Application Acid
0.56* 79.75 75.30 80.88 81.75 77.69 87.69 66.95 78.57
3 .00 64.32 63.43 66.22 67.01 64.15 68.20 53.54 63.84
6 .00 46.34 41.23 52.38 54.81 45.44 55.61 32.71 46.93
Mean B 63.47 59.99 66.49 67.86 62.43 70.50 51.06
L.S.D A 0.843
L.S.D B 1.289
L.S.D AxB 2.231
Season 2021
0.56* 71.95 67.45 79.83 73.58 70.58 83.66 55.90 71.85
3 .00 60.65 56.13 66.08 63.33 58.21 68.12 44.14 59.52
6 .001 46.76 39.49 54.69 49.82 42.61 57.94 28.96 45.75
Mean B 59.79 54.36 66.87 62.24 57.14 69.91 43.00
L.S.D A 1.173
L.S.D B 1.792
L.S.D A x B 3.104
56
Using salinity alleviation treatments can The highest value of RWC (Table 5) was
manage salinity hazard on the water content of obtained by the combined treatment of COM+HA
tissues in tomato leaves, as they increased at 0.56 dS/m level of salinity in 2020 and 2021
significantly RWC than untreated plants, also seasons, however the lowest values were recorded
such treatments enhanced water content (RWC) in to the untreated control with 6.0 dS/m (Table 5).
plants grown under normal conditions (non-
saline) as shown in Table 5. The most effective 3-2- Water use efficiency (WUE)
treatments in increasing RWC were the combined Data in Table 6 show that salinity enhanced
treatment of COM+HA, followed by the WUE (which is: total fruit yield/water amount
combined treatment of (AM+PGPR) and then the used throughout the season) and this effect was
compost application treatment. pronounced at 6 dS/m than 3 dS/m levels of
salinity in both seasons of study. These finding are
This study confirmed the previous reports
in agreement with those reported by Malash et al.
regarding the enhancement of AM for water
(2008) who indicated that water use efficiency
uptake by improving root water flow to colonized
(WUE) of tomato plants was increased by using
roots directly to plants (Koide, 1993 Marulanda et
irrigation water with low and moderate salinity
al., 2003). Also, it was observed that PGPR
levels (2 and 3dS/m) as compared to those
inoculation treatment resulted in a significant
obtained with non-saline water (0.55dS/m).
improvement of RWC in leaves of sweet pepper
plants (AL-Kahtani et al. 2020) and strawberry Salinity alleviation treatments significantly
plants (Karlidag et al., 2013) grown under saline increased WUE than those obtained by the
conditions, comparable to the control (untreated). untreated control (Table 6). Again, the combined
This favorable effect of bacteria treatment has treatments i.e. COM+HA and AM+PGPR as well
been related to timprovedove root development as AM and COM each applied alone gave higher
and net water uptake in plants that suffer from values of WUE (Table 6). These results seem to
salinity (Marulanda et al., 2006). The combined be in accordance with those obtained by
treatment of AM+PGPR i.e. Glomus spp + Hajiboland et al. (2010) who found that
Bacillus subtilis, , resulted in enhanced RWC in arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) inoculated
both lettuce and tomato irrigated with 25 and 50 improved WUE of tomato plants that grown under
mM NaCl, rather than the control untreated, saline conditions. PGPR as well increased the
(Miceli et al. 2021). Also, COM when replace WUE of tomato plants grown under saline
about 50% of NPK dose revealed a significant conditions (Mayak et al., 2004b), also PGPR
increase in RWC in bean plants grown in saline inoculation resulted in longer roots which might
soil (Rady et al., 2016). be helpful in the uptake of relatively more water
even under salinity stress (Dodd et al., 2004 and
The improvement of HA on RWC in plants
Abd El-Samad et al., 2004) such conditions lead
even grown under saline conditions was also
to better use efficiency. Organic fertilizer
reported by Saidimoradi et al. (2019), on
(COM+HA) also enhanced WUE by increasing
strawberries and by Feleafel and and Mirdad
water holding capacity in soil suffering from
(2014b) on tomato, compared to those of
salinity (Altome et al., 2015) or maintaining better
untreated plants .The role of both COM and HA
leaf water content under osmotic stress (Canellas
in enhanced RWC may be due to the effect on
et al., 2015). Accordingly, Feleafel and Mirdad
increasing soil with organic matter and humic
(2014b) found that increasing HA rate led to a
substances which improve soil physical properties
significant increase in WUE of tomato plants
in a way that improves water holding capacity and
grown under salt stress conditions, than those of
bulk density under salt stress conditions (Altome
untreated control.
et al., 2015).
57
(A×B) on water use efficiency (WUE)** of tomato plants determined at the end of both
seasons of study.
Salinity W.U.E. (kg/m3)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Humic Compost
Acid + Humic Mean A
Application Acid
0.56* 1.97 1.77 2.05 2.05 1.84 2.17 1.31 1.88
3.00 2.20 1.95 2.37 2.46 1.96 3.05 1.60 2.23
6.00 2.62 2.46 2.93 3.18 2.69 3.30 1.53 2.67
Mean B 2.26 2.06 2.45 2.56 2.16 2.84 1.48
L.S.D A 0.015
L.S.D B 0.023
L.S.D AxB 0.039
Season 2021
0.56* 1.27 0.90 1.43 1.34 1.12 1.72 0.82 1.23
3.00 1.50 1.25 1.78 1.60 1.43 1.97 0.92 1.49
6. 00 1.76 1.35 2.49 2.07 1.58 2.66 0.93 1.84
Mean B 1.51 1.17 1.90 1.67 1.38 2.12 0.89
L.S.D A 0.023
L.S.D B 0.036
L.S.D AxB 0.062
**WUE= Total yield (kg) / water used throughout the growing season (m3).
4-Effect on leaf chemical content the other hand, both Na and Cl contents were
found in both young and old leaves of tomato, but
4-1- Mineral elements contents in young
their contents were much higher in old leaves than
and old leaves
in young ones in both seasons and sampling dates
Salinity of irrigation water in this study (Tables 11 and 12). These results agreed with
resulted in decreasing tomato leaf contents of former reports regarding the detrimental effect of
important essential nutrient elements i.e., N, P, K salinity on nutrient elements uptake and contents
and Ca in both young and old leaves in both in plant leaves such as N, P, K and Ca, while
seasons, and sampling dates (Tables, 7, 8, 9 and salinity resulted in increasing Na and Cl content
10). Same tables also show that the reduction of in tomato plant tissues (Malash et al., 2008,
these elements was more pronounced in plant Tartoura et al., 2014 and Ors et al., 2021). The
sample taken at 60 DAT than that taken at 50 depression of the essential nutrient mineral’s
DAT. It also observed that young leaves had contents in plant tissues by salinity may be due to
higher levels of nutrient elements i.e., N, P and K the competition and antagonism between high
than in old leaves (Tables, 7, 8 and 9) however Ca concentration of Na and Cl ions and such minerals
contents show a counter- trend i.e., old leaves had (Grattan and Grieve, 1999 and Tester and
higher content of Ca than those in young leaves in Davenport, 2003).
both seasons and sampling dates (Table 10). On
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
In general, data in Tables 7 - 10 indicated that improved the uptake of almost essential nutrients
salinity alleviation treatments enhanced useful (such as nitrogen, potassium, calcium and
mineral nutrient contents in tomato leaves in both phosphors) by tomato plants (Balliu et al., 2015)
normal (non-saline) and saline conditions, but while decrease the uptake and transport of Na+ in
their effect was more pronounced under normal pepper plants grown under saline conditions
conditions. Also, such treatments increased N, P,
(Cekic et al., 2012), and reducing the uptake of
K and Ca contents of tomato leaves in both young
toxic ions such as Na and Cl in wheat plants
and old leaves, this increment was slightly
decreased in samples taken at 60 DAT than those irrigated with saline water (Daei et al., 2009).
determined at 50 DAT. As previously mentioned, Also, similar findings were obtained by
that salinity alleviation treatments increased N, P Hajiboland et al., (2010) who found that AM
and K contents in young and old leaves but the inoculation alleviated salt-induced reduction of P,
proportion of the increment in young leaves was Ca and K uptake in tomato and enhanced Ca/Na
higher than that observed in old ones. However, and K/Na ratios. PGPR in addition, can increased
Na and Cl contents in both young and old leaves mineral ions via stimulation of proton pump
both were decreased by using salinity alleviation ATPase (Mantelin and Touraine, 2004). Thus,
treatment and the depression was more Karlidage et al. (2013) reported that strawberry
pronounced in young than in old leaves, this may plants grown under salinity stress and inoculated
be in line with the well-known knowledge that one
with PGPR significantly increased element
mechanism in alleviation salinity hazard of plants
contents of leaves such as N, K, P and Ca.
is to motivate toxic ions e.g. Na and Cl to
Moreover, Bacillus subtilis also enhanced
accumulate in old nonactive leaves. The
accumulation of Na and Cl in older leaves while nitrogen fixation and solubilize soil P (Hashem et
their concentrations remain low in younger leaves al., 2019).
is an important physiological trait and salt tolerant Enrichment of organic matter in the soil leads
mechanism to reduce salt accumulation in young to improve soil physical, chemical and biological
active leaves (Soliman and Does, 1992 and
properties, increased soil dissolved organic C and
Cuartero and Fernadez-Munoz, 1999).
nutrient retention capacity of salt-effected soil and
All salinity alleviation treatments (either bio improving plant nutrient use efficiency (Qadir and
or organic fertilizers) enhanced N, P, K, and Ca Oster 2004, Clark et al, 2007 and Wang et al.,
content in tomato young and old leaves under 2014). Therefore, COM application resulted in the
saline conditions, (Tables, 7, 8, 9 and 10). But N, enhancement of plant nutrient uptake and
P and K content was higher in younger leaves than
accumulation in tomatoes (walker and Bernal,
older ones, however, Ca content shows a counter-
2008), eggplant (Semida et al., 2014) and in
trend as its content in older leaves was higher than
in younger ones (Table 10). The higher barley (Liang et al., 2005 and Tejada et al., 2006)
concentration of calcium in older leaves (at the plants grown under saline conditions. Similarly,
bottom of plants) compared to that in younger Leogrande et al. (2016) mentioned that COM
ones (upper leaves) observed in this study be application significantly decreased the sodium
returned turn to the special trait of calcium which adsorption rate and increased potassium and
is among those elements that move slowly in calcium contents on tomato plants which were
plants and its upward movement takes place in the irrigated with saline water (EC=6.0 dS/m).
transpiration stream (TS) through the xylem, TS
fall down as a response to stomata closure caused While, it was also reported that the mechanism
by salinity, which more restricted Ca upward of HA in promoting plant growth may be by
movement, this may explains the high enhance the uptake of useful nutrients and reduce
concentration of Ca in lower old leaves, under the the uptake of toxic elements such as Na and Cl
condition of this study. (Knicker et al., 1993, Tan, 1998 and Friedel and
Scheller, 2002). HA application also was able to
It was demonstrated that AM inoculation of improve N, P and K contents in tomato plants
tomato plants grown under saline condition leaves that were grown in saline conditions
65
(Ashraf and Mohamed 2008 and Feleafel and uptake (previously found in this study) gave lower
Mirdad 2014a) while the reverse was true for Na proline content than those treatments that had less
and Cl (Ashraf and Mohamed 2008). influence on growth parameters and other traits
that enhancing salt tolerance. Such result seems
4-2- Proline content in tomato leaves reasonable since the favorable changes which
Proline is one of the compatible organic induced salinity mitigation in plants by combined
solutes that are used by plant as osmoprotectant treatments i.e, COM+HA and other treatments
under stress conditions. The data presented in reduced the required of further accumulation of
Table 13 clearly show that proline content in proline content.
tomato leaves was significantly increased by However, the response of proline content to
salinity and its increment was more pronounced bio-fertilizer treatments under salinity stress is
with highest salinity level of irrigation water i.e. somewhat contradictory, i.e., some studies
6dS/m, in both seasons. Thus, these findings demonstrated that AM inoculation increased
support the previous findings (Azami et al., 2010, proline contents in tomato plants (Barin et al.,
Eraslan et al., 2015 and Ali and Rab, 2017) 2006 and Hajiboland et al., 2010, Dargiri et al.,
regarding the increase of proline content in tomato 2021). On the other hand other studies indicated
leaves by salinity stress. This accumulation of that AM untreated plants accumulated more
osmolytes especially proline is a common proline than those treated (Jahromi et al., 2008 on
phenomenon in plants under salt stress. lettuce, Kaya et al., 2009 on pepper, and Isfahani
The salinity alleviation treatments, however, et al., 2019 and Turan et al., 2021 on tomato
decreased proline content in tomato leaves than plants) all grown under saline conditions. Thus, it
those in untreated plants (Table 13). But it is could be concluded that bio-fertilizers application
observed that treatments that did well in can reduce the severity of salt stress and enhance
enhancing vegetative growth, RWC, uptake of mitigation of salinity, this may resulted in reduce
benefit nutrient elements and reduced toxic ions proline accumulation.
(A×B) on proline content in leaves of tomato plants determined at 50 d after transplanting
in both seasons of study.
Salinity
Proline content in leaves (µ/g Dr.Wt)
levels
Season 2020
dS/m
(A) Mycorrizal B. subtilis Mycorrizal + Compost Humic Acid Compost + Untreated
Mean A
Inoculation Inoculation B. subtilis Application Application Humic Acid control
0.56* 122.75 188.97 119.93 100.54 126.45 90.86 212.68 137.46
3.00 353.58 403.25 311.29 268.43 395.79 236.98 502.16 353.07
6.00 398.84 541.17 462.85 437.41 524.60 415.78 893.04 524.81
Mean B 291.72 377.80 298.03 268.79 348.95 247.87 535.96
L.S.D A 18.913
L.S.D B 28.891
L.S.D AxB 50.040
Season 2021
0.56 * 103.50 119.20 80.11 90.59 115.58 77.20 138.62 103.54
3.00 238.59 451.96 197.97 217.04 249.64 157.86 442.30 279.34
6.00 451.64 571.87 326.61 337.64 549.58 238.90 746.35 460.37
Mean B 264.58 381.01 201.57 215.09 304.93 157.99 442.43
L.S.D A 26.673
L.S.D B 40.744
L.S.D A x B 70.571
66
Proline content in plant leaves also shows a untreated control with 6 dS/m in both seasons.
contradictory response toward the effect of However, the lowest value of proline was
organic fertilizer under salinity conditions (Table recorded to the combined treatment of COM+HA
13). El-Galad et al. (2013) in a similar work found with 0.56 dS/m level of salinity (Table 13).
that compost treatment of faba bean plants grown Proline in plants treated with salinity alleviation
under saline conditions significantly decreased treatments and irrigated with tap water (0.56
proline content. Hammad et al. (2010) explained dS/m) show lower values than that obtained from
that organic fertilizer maintains osmotic counterpart treatments but subjected to salinity
adjustment to keep continuous water absorption at levels i.e.,(3.0 and 6.0dS/m).
low soil water potential caused by salinity, such
favorable effect of organic fertilizer reduced 5- Electrolyte leakage (EL)
salinity detrimental effect on plants so that
decrease plants requirement of proline. On the According to the data given in Table 14
other hand Rady (2012) on tomato and Semida et electrolyte leakage (EL) tended to increase
al. (2014) on eggplant both grown under saline consistently and significantly with each increase
conditions, showed an increase in proline contents in salinity level in irrigation water of tomato, and
in plants fertilized with organic fertilizer the proportion of the increment aggravated at 6
compared to those of untreated control plants. dS/m than at 3 dS/m of salinity level. These results
seemed to be accordance with those obtained by
The interaction effect between salinity levels (Manaa et al., 2011, Tartoura et al., 2014 and Ors
and salinity alleviation treatments on proline et al., 2021) who reported that EL values
content (Table 13) shows that the significantly increased proportionally in tomato leaves with
highest value of proline content was obtained by increasing salt concentration.
(A×B) on electrolyte leakage in tomato leaf determined at 50 d after transplanting in both
seasons of study.
Salinity Electrolyte leakage values (%)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Humic Compost
(A) Mycorrizal B. subtilis Mycorrizal + Compost Untreated Mean
Acid + Humic
Inoculation Inoculation B. subtilis Application Control A
Application Acid
0.56* 47.43 57.58 46.78 45.96 54.80 32.84 61.54 49.56
3.00 73.84 81.41 67.99 66.38 76.66 66.14 87.33 74.25
6.00 83.84 82.70 78.45 73.39 85.95 69.62 90.64 80.66
Mean B 67.87 73.54 62.36 66.39 72.47 56.20 79.84
L.S.D A 0.683
L.S.D B 1.044
L.S.D AxB 1.808
Season 2021
0.56 * 31.04 43.25 27.63 28.25 36.70 26.47 49.57 34.70
3.00 58.33 63.75 50.24 55.55 60.81 45.63 70.91 57.81
6.00 73.00 77.97 69.52 72.70 75.93 66.32 87.08 74.64
Mean B 54.12 61.65 49.13 51.99 57.81 46.14 69.19
L.S.D A 1.318
L.S.D B 2.013
L.S.D A x B 3.486
67
According to Manaa et al. (2011) EL is known reduce salinity detrimental effect on cell
as an indicator of membrane damage caused by membrane and reduce EL.
salt stress in tomato leaves according to NaCl
The highest value of electrolyte leakage of
concentration. Also, salinity induces reactive
tomato plants (Table 14) was obtained by the
oxygen species (ROS) formation which can lead
untreated control with 6 dS/m level of salinity
to oxidative damage in various cellular
i.e.90.64 and 87.08 % in 2020 and 2021 seasons
components such as proteins and lipids
respectively, however the lowest values were
particularly those in cell membrane (Apel and
32.84 and 26.47 in the same order were recorded
Hirt, 2004, Munns and Tester, 2008, Rahnama et
to the combined treatment of COM+HA with 0.56
al., 2010 and Ahmed and Umar, 2011). These
dS/m (Table 14).
findings may explained why EL is associated with
stress conditions particularly salinity. As expected the combined treatment of
COM+HA with 0.56 dS/m level gave
Salinity alleviation treatments, on the other
significantly the lowest value of electrolyte
hand seriously mitigate the hazard effect of
leakage in tomato leaves, in both seasons.
salinity so that they all decreased EL. Also,
treatments that did well in enhancing growth,
6- Fruit weight and total yield
useful nutrient uptake and improve water status,
previously mentioned in this study (i.e., combined 6-1- Average fruit weight
treatments of COM+HA, and AM+PGPR and AM Results obtained in Table 15 indicate that
and COM applied alone) gave the lower values of salinity reduced average fruit weight, and the
EL (Table 14). These results support the former reduction tended to decrease consistently and
reports regarding the favorable effect of AM in significantly with each increase in salinity level in
reducing EL in cucumber plants (Ahmad et al., both seasons. Accordingly, the reduction
2019) and in pepper plants (Kaya et al., 2009), percentages (average of the two seasons) than that
both grown in saline conditions. Also, similar fruit weight of non-saline treatment were 17.9 and
findings were mentioned by Bano and Fatima 29.0 % at 3 and 6 dS/m respectively.
(2009) on Zea Maize, Karlidag et al. (2013) on
strawberry and Ullah et al. (2016) on tomato, who These results seemed to be in accordance with
observed that PGPR decreased EL in cells of those obtained by Greenway and Munns (1980),
plants suffer from salinity stress. Among the roles Magan et al. (2008) and Zhai et al. (2016)
of biofertilizers (particularly AM) as salinity regarding the detrimental effect of salinity on
alleviation treatment used in this study is to average fruit weight of tomato. It was also
enhance the synthesis of antioxidant enzymes previously mentioned that the reduction in
(Aguilar- Aguilar et al., 2009) and also increase average tomato fruit weight occurred even at low
their activity (Heikham et al., 2009) for and moderate salinity levels; i.e., at 3-4 dS/m
scavenging of ROS. Also, Rady et al. (2016) (Malash et al., 2008, Scholberg and Locascio
found that application of organo-mineral fertilizer 1999), but the reduction was more pronounced at
compost significantly reduced EL in bean plants higher salinity level i.e. 9.6 dS/m-1 (Souza, 1990
which grown in saline soil. HA, as well, added to and Al-Yahyai et al., 2010). Such reduction in
saline soil significantly reduced EL in bean plants average fruit weight by salinity could be
(Aydin et al., 2012). In addition, compost as explained by the fact that salinity particularly high
organic fertilizer has the capability to increase levels decreased water potential of tomato plants
antioxidants activities which enhance salt which reduces water flow into fruit and limit the
tolerance to salinity and other stress conditions. rate of fruit expansion (Johnson et al., 1992 and
Moreover, salinity alleviation treatments used in Al-Ismaily et al., 2014). Also, the accumulation
this study reduced toxic elements i.e., Na and Cl of Na in tomato plant leads to such reduction in
uptake, and enhance water content and nutrient mean fruit weight of tomato (Adams, 1991 and
element uptake such favorable conditions would Cuartero and Fernandez-Munoz, 1999).
68
(A×B) on average fruit weight (g) of tomato in both seasons of study.
Salinity Average fruit weight (g)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Humic Compost
Acid + Humic Mean A
Application Acid
0.56* 28.16 28.23 28.33 27.44 27.59 28.02 23.91 27.38
3.00 23.23 22.47 23.52 23.80 21.72 25.95 20.20 22.99
6.00 20.67 20.68 20.80 21.71 21.56 19.06 17.15 20.23
Mean B 24.02 23.79 24.22 24.32 23.62 24.34 20.42
L.S.D A 0.409
L.S.D B 0.624
L.S.D AxB 1.081
Season 2021
0.56* 17.56 16.51 17.63 17.84 16.70 20.10 15.73 17.44
3.00 13.38 13.92 14.11 13.50 13.38 15.38 12.23 13.70
6.00 10.82 10.07 13.82 12.48 10.92 13.25 8.90 11.47
Mean B 17.56 16.51 17.63 17.84 16.70 20.10 15.73
L.S.D A 0.613
L.S.D B 0.937
L.S.D A x B 1.623
Salinity alleviation treatments significantly since these treatments resulted in improving water
increased average fruit weight of tomato of both status in tomato plants (Table 5) and reduced toxic
plants grown under non-saline (0.56 dS/m) and ions (Na and Cl) uptake (Tables 11and 12).
saline (3 and 6 dS/m) conditions than those
Regarding the interaction between salinity and
obtained from plants untreated in both seasons of
alleviation treatments Table 15 shows that the
study (Table 15). But differences between
highest value of average fruit weight of tomato
treatments were not significant in most cases in
plants was recorded to the combination between
2020 season; i.e., the highest fruit weight was
0.56 dS/m level of salinity and the combined
obtained by the combined treatment of COM+HA
treatments of AM + B. subtilis, and COM+HA in
which was significantly differ only with that
2020 and 2021 seasons respectively. On the other
obtained by HA treatment applied alone (Table
hand, the lowest values were obtained by the
15), whereas in 2021 the combined treatment of
combination between 6.0 dS/m and untreated
COM+HA gave significantly the highest fruit
control in both seasons.
weight compared to other treatments. The
enhancement of salinity alleviation treatments of 6-2- Total fruit yield of tomato /plant
average tomato fruit weight was also mentioned;
i.e., Barin et al., (2006) and Hadad et al., (2012) Table 16 shows that total yield of tomato/
with AM inoculation, Saha et al. (2017) with plant decreased consistently and significantly
compost application and Kumar et al. (2017) with with each increase in salinity level. The reduction
HA application. The favorable effect of such percentage (average of the 2 seasons) in total yield
treatments on average fruit weight is expected were 26.9% at 3 dS/m and 46.8% at 6dS/m-1, this
implies that each 1dS/m increase in salinity level
69
decreased tomato total yield by 6.6% (among this The reason of reducing tomato yield by
range of salinity under conditions of this study). salinity, may return to higher osmotic pressure in
These results are in agreement with those reported plants (Ayers, 1977, Cuartero and Fernandez-
by Mohammad et al. (1998), Malash et al. (2008), Muroz, 1999 and Zhang et al., 2016), or to the
Viol et al. (2017) and Pengfei et al. (2019), reduction in WUE (Al-Harbi et al., 2009 and Al-
regarding the reduction of tomato total yield by Omran et al., 2012) and to accumulation of toxic
exposing to salinity in its root zone. Also, ions such as Na and Cl (Niu et al., (1995).
Cuartero and Fernandez-Munoz (1999), Del
Regarding salinity alleviation treatments,
Amor et al. (2001) and Malash et al. (2008)
Table 16 shows that all treatments increased
indicated that tomato yield is quite sensitive to
tomato total yield under saline and non-saline
salinity at 3.0 dS/m and above. Moreover,
conditions. It is worth mentione hat the effect of
Moghaddam et al. (2018) showed that salinity at
combined treatment of COM+HA, as this
4 dS/m and 7dS/m decreased tomato fruit yield by
treatment in particular gave the best performance
27.2% and 46.7% respectively (compared to those
in alleviation salinity hazard in this study, such
without salt stress) which are somewhat similar to
treatment increased total yield under saline
the corresponding values of this recent study at 3
conditions rather than under normal (non-saline)
and 6 dS/m respectively. Also, Zhang et al. (2016)
conditions. This finding was similar to those
reported that the reduction rate in fruit yield of
obtained by Al-Karaki (2006) who indicated that
tomato with increasing EC unit of salinity equal
AM inoculated tomato plants showed an
and above 5dS/m was 7.2%, thus this finding is
enhancement in fruit yield by 24% under non-
somewhat similar to corresponding values
saline and 60% under saline conditions.
obtained in this study (mentioned above).
(A×B) on tomato total yield in both seasons of study.
Salinity Total yield (g/plant)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Mycorrizal Humic Compost
(A) Mycorrizal B. subtilis Compost Untreated
Inoculation Inoculation Application control
0.56* 137.58 123.83 143.17 143.78 128.55 152.23 91.50 131.52
3.00 96.68 85.76 104.27 108.29 86.31 134.27 70.59 98.02
6.00 73.36 68.94 81.95 88.92 75.34 92.39 42.77 74.81
Mean B 102.54 92.84 109.80 113.66 96.73 126.30 68.29
L.S.D A 0.423
L.S.D B 0.737
L.S.D AxB 1.277
Season 2021
0.56* 112.10 79.38 126.05 118.03 98.64 151.80 71.86 108.27
3.00 77.82 64.77 92.57 83.07 74.52 102.39 44.62 77.11
6.00 48.44 37.36 73.10 58.30 45.56 77.10 26.89 52.39
Mean B 79.45 60.50 97.24 86.46 72.91 110.43 47.79
L.S.D A 0.931
L.S.D B 1.421
L.S.D A x B 2.462
70
The enhancement of total fruit yield of tomato transportation and availability of micro nutrient
grown under saline condition by AM was also (Bohme and Lua, 1997) and by changing ion
mentioned elsewhere (Barin et al., 2006, balance and enhancing photosynthesis rate (Souza
Abdelhameid and El-Shazly, 2020 and et al., 2021).
Pietrantonio et al., 2020). The beneficial effect of
Gathering the above mention advantage of
AM on yield of tomato grown in saline conditions
COM and HA in one treatment of course will give
were: provides nutrition to the host plants, as well
a synergistic effect that was showed in the recent
as increasing water uptake, production of
study.
hormones and enhancing adaptation to
environmental stress including salinity (Garg and According to the data of the interaction
Chandel, 2010). The improvement of total fruit between salinity levels and salinity alleviation
yield grown in saline stress induced by PGPR was treatments, Table 16 shows that the highest total
also mentioned elsewhere (Aini et al., 2021, yield of tomato/ plant obtained was a result of
Turan et al., 2021 on tomato and Bochow et al., using the combined treatment of COM+HA along
2001 on eggplant and pepper). PGPR fixing with 0.56 dS/m salinity level (un-saline). The 2nd
atmospheric nitrogen, producing phytohormones, highest value of tomato total yield/plant was
solubilizing minerals (Mayak et al., 2004a), recorded to the COM treatment in 2020 season,
enhancing reactive oxygen species (ROS) but such rank was recorded to the combined
scavenging (Jianmin et al., 2014) reduce salt treatment of AM+PGPR in 2021 season, both
toxicity by lowering the Na concentration in along with 0.56 dS/m salinity level. While the
plants (Abd El-Samad et al., 2004, Yildirim et al., lowest values of tomato total yield/plant were due
2006 and Kohler et al., 2009), and reduces to those plants subjected to the highest salinity
synthesis of harmful ethylene (Glick, 2014). This level (6.0 dS/m) and untreated with any of these
favorable effect of each treatment applied alone salinity alleviation treatments (Table 16). HA
on total yield will be aggravated when both application and PGPR inoculation along with the
(AM+PGPR) added together which gave a highest salinity level gave also lower total fruit
synergistic effect observed in this study. yield /plant (Table 16).
Compost (COM) application also enhanced

7- Fruit quality
tomato fruit yield even grown under saline
conditions (Rady,2012 and Saha et al., 2017). 7-1 Total soluble solids (TSS) content in
Also, the favorable effect of HA application on tomato fruit
fruit yield of tomato plants grown under saline Salinity increased TSS content in tomato fruits
stress was also previously reported (Feleafel and and the increase was growing with increasing
Mirdad, 2014a, feleafel and Mirdad, 2014b and salinity levels in the irrigation water in both
Kumar et al., 2017). The benefit obtained by seasons (Table 17). This result agreed with former
COM application to plants grown under saline reports regarding the positive effect of salinity on
conditions was improving soil physical, chemical tomato fruit quality including TSS (Mizrahi et al.,
and biological properties (Qadir and Oster, 2004, 1988, De Pascale et al., 2001, Malash et al., 2002
Walker and Bernal, 2008, and Wang et al., 2014), and Maggio et al., 2004). Table 17 also shows that
such conditions enriched soil by humic TSS values were higher in the two salinity levels
substances, macro and micro-nutrients (Walker than those obtained by non-saline treatment
and Bernal, 2008 and Wright et al., 2008). whatever was salinity alleviation treatments used.
The useful advantages of HA application in The reason of the increase in TSS content in
mitigation salinity hazard which dramatically tomato fruit by salinity was clarified by several
reduces yield of plants were: enhancing the uptake researchers, such reasons are:1- salinity promotes
of beneficial nutrient elements and reduce the starch accumulation in immature tomato fruit
uptake of toxic elements (Knicker et al., 1993, which consider as a reservoir for soluble sugars
Tan, 1998 and Friedel and Scheller, 2002), accumulation during fruit ripening ,contributing
71
to the final fruit sugar level (Schaffer et al., 2000 mentioned that TSS content in tomato fruits of
and Petreikav et al., 2009), 2- the increase of plants inoculated with AM was lower than those
tomato fruit soluble solids seems to be associated obtained from plants un-inoculated when both
with the reduction in the water content of the fruit, plants grown in saline condition. The same
(Adams and Ho 1989,Cuartero and Fernandez- authors added that stress conditions induced by
Munoz,1999 and Magan et al., 2008), and 3- the salinity enhances fruit quality of tomato, while
increasing in total soluble solids by salinity may AM treatment mitigate the harmful effect of
due to smaller fruit size (Ho et al.,1996). salinity by improve water and nutrient status as
well as another physiological and biochemical
Tomato plants that subjected to salinity
process, such favorable effect reduced TSS
alleviation treatments, however produced fruits
content.
with lower TSS content than those produced by
untreated plants, but differences were not Also, the non-significant differences in TSS
significant in most cases (Table 17). Such content of tomato plants inoculated by AM and
treatments which resulted in reducing TSS may those of uninoculated plants both grown under
mitigated salinity effect in a way that enhanced saline conditions were also recorded by Huang et
water status (Table 5), and increase fruit size and al. (2013). On the other hand Ebrahim and Saleen
weight (Table 15) such conditions reduced TSS in (2017) and Al-Karaki (2006) indicated that TSS
fruits. The reduction in TSS contents in tomato in tomato fruits was higher in AM treated plants
fruits by salinity alleviation treatments was also than those of untreated plants either grown under
observed by Al-karaki and Hammad (2001) who saline and non-saline conditions.
Table (17): Effect of salinity levels (A), some salinity alleviation treatments(B) and their interactions
(A×B) on TSS content in tomato fruits determined in mature red fruits one time during
harvesting period in both seasons of study.
Salinity TSS content (%)
levels Season 2020
dS/m Mycorrizal Humic Compost
(A) Mycorrizal B. subtilis Compost Untreated
Inoculation Inoculation Application control
0.56* 6.68 6.37 6.67 6.75 6.62 6.62 6.25 6.56
3.00 7.55 7.65 7.58 7.60 7.13 6.93 7.98 7.49
6.00 8.07 8.23 8.32 8.17 8.05 8.18 8.68 8.24
Mean B 7.43 7.42 7.52 7.51 7.27 7.24 7.64
L.S.D A 0.169
L.S.D B 0.259
L.S.D AxB 0.448
Season 2021
0.56* 3.68 4.33 3.73 4.40 4.78 4.83 3.95 4.24
3.00 7.08 6.30 6.60 6.78 7.28 7.10 7.68 6.97
6.00 8.33 7.10 7.50 7.53 7.93 8.18 8.45 7.86
Mean B 6.36 5.91 5.94 6.23 6.66 6.70 6.69
L.S.D A 0.266
L.S.D B 0.407
L.S.D A x B 0.705
72
PGPR treatment in this study resulted in results support the former reports regarding the
produce fruits with TSS values either were not enhancement effect of salinity on Vit.C content in
significantly differ (in 1st season) or significantly tomato fruits (Eraslan et al., 2015, Zhai et al.,
less (in 2nd season) than those produced by plants 2015, Helaly et al., 2017 and Rani et al., 2017).
of control (untreated). Thus, these results is not in The increase in vit. C content in tomato fruits
agreement with those of Shen et al., (2012) who under salinity stress may be a consequence of the
suggested that PGPR was able to improve total accumulation of monosaccharides in fruits
and water dissolved sugars under saline (Cuartero and Fernandez-Munoz, 1999) such
conditions. monosaccharides were previously mentioned
before in TSS discussion. By the way, the
Table 17 shows also that applied both COM
chemical symbol of Vit. C is (C6H8O6) which is
and HA decreased significantly TSS content of
quite similar to those of monosaccharides
tomato fruits (in 2020 season) but such treatments
(C6H12O6). In addition, the reduction in plant
resulted in obtaining fruits had TSS values were
foliage growth by salinity, may increase the
not significantly different (in 2021 season) than
exposure of fruits to sunlight which is effective in
those produced from the untreated plants and
increasing Vit. C (Radwan et al., 1979 and Malash
grown under saline conditions.
et al., 2002).
In previous reports, HA effect on TSS of
Salinity alleviation treatments increased Vit.C
tomato fruit was also differ, i.e. Ashraf and
content in fruit of tomato plants than those
Mohamed (2008) found significant increase in
untreated, in both seasons {with one expetion. i.e.
TSS content of tomato fruit with HA treatment
the Vit. C value in fruits produced from plants
under saline conditions, however Casiorra-Posada
treated with PGPR was not significantly different
and Fischer (2009) found that HA application to
than those of plants untreated (control) in both
tomato plants grown under saline conditions
seasons}. The enhancement of Vit.C in tomato
reduced total solids in fruits.
fruit by salinity alleviation treatments used in this
The highest value of TSS of tomato plants study (under saline conditions) was also observed
(Table 17) was obtained by the untreated control by Shen et al. (2012) who mentioned that, from
at 6 dS/m level of salinity i.e. 8.68 and 8.45 % in three PGPR strains studied, WP8 strain had the
2020 and 2021seasons respectively, however the most significant effect in improving Vit.C in fruits
lowest values in the same order were recorded to of tomato plants grown under saline conditions.
the untreated control in 2020 and mycorrhizal Also, Oztekin et al. (2013) found that inoculated
inoculation in 2021 season both at 0.56 dS/m-1 tomato plants with AM increased the vitamin C in
(Table 17). fruits when plants grown under salinity
conditions.
7-2 Vitamin C (Vit C) content in tomato
fruits Using organic fertilizers such as COM and HA
Results in Table 18 show that vit C content in also enhanced Vit.C content in fruit of tomato
tomato fruit increased by salinity and the increase plants treated with amended saline irrigation
was consistently and significantly with each water with humic acid than those obtained without
increase in salinity level, in both seasons. These HA application (Ashraf and Mohamed, 2008).
73
(A×B) on Vit.C content in tomato fruits determined in mature red fruits one time during
harvesting period in both seasons of study.
Salinity
Vit. C. content(mg/100g f w)
levels
dS/m Season 2020
(A) Humic Compost
Mycorrizal B. subtilis Mycorrizal + Compost Untreated
Acid + Humic Mean A
Application Acid
0.56* 21.33 19.87 22.40 23.07 20.00 23.20 19.73 21.37
3.00 24.79 20.02 25.13 27.30 22.62 30.33 19.41 24.23
6.00 30.77 25.65 30.85 29.73 29.21 35.36 29.29 30.12
Mean B 25.63 21.85 26.13 26.70 23.94 29.63 22.81
L.S.D A 0.755
L.S.D B 1.154
L.S.D AxB 1.998
Season 2021
0.56* 20.72 17.29 21.30 22 19.71 23.36 16.17 20.08
3.00 26.58 22.18 27.63 28.69 25.87 27.98 20.42 25.62
6.00 31.50 26.22 34.32 36.43 30.80 37.49 25.70 31.78
Mean B 26.27 21.90 27.75 29.04 25.46 29.61 20.76
L.S.D A 1.305
L.S.D B 1.994
L.S.D A x B 3.454
REFERENCES Adams, P. and Ho, L.C. (1992). The susceptibility

Abdelhameid, N.M. and El-Shazly, M.M. (2020). of modern tomato cultivars to blossom end rot
The impact of inoculation with arbuscular in relation to salinity. J. Hort. Sci. 67: 827 -
mycorrhizal fungi on tomato tolerance to salt 839.
stress and nutrients uptake in sandy soil. J. of Adams, P. (1991). Effects of increasing the
Agri. Chem. and Biotech. Mansoura Univ. 11: salinity of the nutrient solution with major
63 – 70. nutrients or sodium chloride on the yield,
Abd El-Samad Hamdia, M.; Shaddad, M.A.K. and quality and composition of tomatoes grown in
Doaa, M.M. (2004). Mechanism of salt rockwool. J. Hort. Sci. 66:201–207.
tolerance and interactive effect of Adani, F.; Genevi, P.; Zaccheo, P. and Zocchi, G.
Azospirillum bran- silense inoculation on (1998). The effect of commercial humic acid
maize cultivars grown under salt stress on tomato plant growth and mineral nutrition.
conditions. Plant Growth Regul. 44: 165–174. J.of Plant Nut. 21: 561-575.
Adams, P. and Ho, L.C. (1989). Effect of constant Aguilar-Aguilar, S.; Perez-Moreno, J.; Ferrera-
and fluctuating salinity on the yield, quality Cerrato, R.; Grimaldo-Juarez, O.; Cervantes-
and calcium status of tomatoes. J. Hort. Sci. Diaz, L. and Gonzalez-Mondoza, D. (2009).
64: 725-732. Ectomycorrhiza fungi and tolerance to salinity
74
in plants. Revista Chilena de Historia Al-Omran, A.M.; Al-Harbi, A.R.; Wahb-Allah,

Natural.82: 163. M.A.; Alwabel, M.A.; Nadeem, M. and Eleter,
Ahmad, H.; Hayat, S.; Ali, M.; Liu, H.; Chen, A. (2012). Management of irrigation water
X.; Li, J. and Cheng, Z. (2019). The salinity in greenhouse tomato production
protective role of 28-homobrassinolide under calcareous sandy soil and drip irrigation.
and Glomus versiforme in cucumber to J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 14: 939-950.
withstand saline stress. Plants (Basel). 42:1- Altome, M.M.M.; Maher, G.N.; Magda, A.H. and
18. Abou El seoud, I. I. (2015). Response of
Ahmed, P. and Umar, S. (2011). Oxidative stress: tomato plant to compost application and
rol of antioxidants in plants.Studium press. inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi under salt
New Delhi. stress conditions. J. Adv. Agric. Res. 20: 46-
Aini, N.; Yamika, W.S.D.; Aini, L.Q. and 65. (Fac. Agric. Saba Basha).
Kurniawan, A.P. (2021). Application of saline Altunlu, H. (2020). The effects of mycorrhiza and
tolerant bacteria and soil ameliorants rhizobacteria application on growth and some
improved growth, yield and nutrient uptake of physiological parameters of pepper (Capsicum
tomato in saline land. A.J.C.S. 15: 827-834. annuum L.) under salt stres. Ege Universitesi
Al-Harbi, A.R.; Wahb-Allah, M.A and Al-Omran, Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, 57(4): 501-510.
A.M. (2009). Effects of salinity and irrigation Al-Yahyai, R.; Al-Ismaily, S. and Al-Rawahy, S.
management on growth and yield of tomato A. (2010). Growing tomatoes under saline
grown under greenhouse conditions. Acta field conditions and the role of fertilizers.
Hort. 807: 201-206. College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences
Ali, S.G. and Rab, A.A. (2017). The influence of Sultan Qaboos University Sultanate of Oman,
salinity and drought stress on sodium, pp. 83-88.
potassium and proline content of Solanum AOAC (1995). Official method s of Analysis of
lycopersicum L. cv. Rio Grande. Pakistan J. of the Association of official Analytical
Bot. 49: 1-9. Chemists. Published by the A.O.A.C.
Al-Ismaily, S.S.; Al-Yahyai, R.A. and Al- International 16th ed. Washington, D.C.
Rawahy, S.A. (2014). Mixed fertilizer can Apel, K. and Hirt, H. (2004). Reactive Oxygen
improve fruit yield and quality of field-grown Species: Metabolism, Oxidative Stress, and
tomatoes irrigated with saline water. J. Plant Signal Transduction. Annual Rev. of Plant
Nut. 37: 1981–1996. Biol. 55: 373-379.
AL-Kahtani, M. D. F.; Attia, K. A.; Hafez, Y. M.; Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards C.A.; Bierman P.;
Khan, N.; Eid, A. M.; Ali, M. A. M. and Metzger J.D.; Lee S. and Welch C. (2003).
Abdelaal, K. A. A. (2020). Chlorophyll Effects of vermicomposts on growth and
fluorescence parameters and antioxidant marketable fruits of field-grown tomatoes,
defense system can display salt tolerance of peppers and strawberries. Pedobiologia, 47:
salt acclimated sweet pepper plants treated 731–735.
with chitosan and plant growth promoting Ashraf, S.O. and Mohamed, S.A.E. (2008). The
rhizobacteria. Agronomy. 10, 1180:1-20. possible use of humic acid incorporated with
Al-Karaki, G.N., (2006). Nursery inoculation of drip irrigation system to alleviate the harmful
tomato with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and effects of saline water on tomato plants.
subsequent performance under irrigation with Fayoum J. Agric. Res. & Dev., 22: 52-70.
saline water. Sci. Hort. 109:1-7. Aydin, A.; Kant, C. and Turan, M. (2012). Humic
Al-Karaki, G.N. and Hammad, R. (2001). acid application alleviates salinity stress of
Mycorrhizal influence on fruit yield and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants decreasing
mineral content of tomato grown under salt membrane leakage. African J. of Agric. Res.
stress. J. of Plant Nut. 24: 1311-1323. 7: 1073-1086.
75
Ayers, R.S. (1977). Quality of water for irrigation. (2001). Use of Bacillus subtilis as biocontrol
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division. agent. IV. Salt-stress tolerance induction by
103: 135-154. Bacillus subtilis FZB24 seed treatment in
Azarmi, R.; Taleshmikail, R. D. and Gikloo, A. tropical vegetable field crops, and its mode of
(2010). Effects of salinity on morphological action. J. plant Diseases and Protection.
and physiological changes and yield of tomato 108(1): 21-30.
in hydroponics system. J. of Food, Agric. & Böhme, M. and Lua, H, T. (1997). Influence of
Environ. 8: 573-576. mineral and organic treatments in the
Balliu, A.; Sallaku, G. and Rewald, B. (2015). rizosphere on the growth of tomato plants.
AMF inoculation enhances growth and Acta Hort., 450: 161-168.
improves the nutrient uptake rates of Boyer, J.S. (1969). Measurements of the water
transplanted, salt-stressed tomato seedlings. status of plant. Ann. Rev. Plant physiol. 20:
Sustainability. 7: 15967-15981. 351-364.
Bano, A. and Fatima, M. (2009). Salt tolerance in Calvo-Polanco, M.; Sánchez-Castro, I.; Cantos,
Zea mays (L). following inoculation with M.; García, J.L.; Azcón, R.; Ruiz-Lozano,
Rhizobium and Pseudomonas. Biol. Fert. J.M.; Beuzón, C.R. and Aroca, R. (2016).
Soils. 45: 405–413. Exploring the use of recombinant inbred lines
Baradar, A.; Saberi-Riseh, R.; Sedaghati, E. and in combination with beneficial microbial
Akhgar, A. (2015). Effect of some bacteria inoculants (AM fungus and PGPR) to improve
and iron chelators on potato colonization by drought stress tolerance in tomato. Environ.
arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi inoculated by Exp. Bot. 131: 47–57.
Rhizoctonia. Indian. J. Sci. Technol. 8: 1–5. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.;
Barin, M.; Aliasgharzade, N. and Samadi, A. Jones, D.L.; Nebbioso, A.; Mazzei, P. and
(2006). Effects of NaCl-induced and salts Piccolo, A. (2015). Humic and fulvic acids as
mixture salinity on leaf proline and growth of biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hort. 196:
tomato in symbiosis with arbuscular 15–27.
mycorrhizal fungi. Iranian J. of Agric. Sci. 37: Casierra-Posada, F. and Fischer, G. (2009).
139-147. Reducing negative effects of salinity in tomato
Barrs, H.D. and Weatherly, P.E. (1962). A re- (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants by adding
examination of the relative turgidity technique leonardite to soil. Acta Hort. 821: 133-137.
for estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust. J. Cekic, F. O.; Unyayar, S. and Ortas, I. (2012).
Biol. Sci. 15: 413-428. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation
Basak, H.; Demđr, K.; Kasim, R. and Okay, F.Y. on biochemical parameters in Capsicum
(2011). The effect of endo-mycorrhiza (VAM) annuum grown under long term salt stress.
treatment on growth of tomato seedling grown Turk. J. Bot. 36: 63–72.
under saline conditions. Afric. J. of Agric. Chapman, H.D. and Pratt, D.F. (1961). Method of
Res. 6: 2532-2538. analysis for soil, plant and water. Div. of
Bates, L.S.; Waldren, R.P. and Teare, I.D. (1973). Agric. sci. Univ. of calif.
Rapid determination of free proline for water Cimrin, K. M.; Turkmen, O.; Turan, M. and
stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39: 205-207. Tuncer, B. (2010). Phosphorus and humic acid
application alleviate salinity stress of pepper
Besford, R.T. and Maw, G.A. (1975). Effect of seedlings. African J. Biotech. 9: 5845–5851.
potassium nutrition on tomato plant growth Clark, G.J.; Dodgshun, N.; Sale, P.W.G. and
and fruit development. Plant Soil, 42: 395– Tang, C. (2007). Changes in chemical and
412. biological properties of a sodic clay subsoil
Bochow, H.; El-Sayed, S. F.; Junge, H.; with addition of organic amendments. Soil
Stavropoulou, A. and Schmiedeknecht, G. Biol. Biochem. 39: 2806–2817.
76
Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; water-limited environments? In Proceedings

Jones, D.L.; Nebbioso, A.; Mazzei, P. and of the 4th International Crop Science Congress,
Piccolo, A. (2015). Humic and fulvic acids as Brisbane, Australia, 26 September - 1 October
biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hort. 196: 2004. Edited by T. Fischer, N. Turner, J.
15–27. Angus, L. McIntyre, M. Robertson, A.Borrell,
Cruz, V.; Cuartero, J.; Bolarin, M.C. and Romero, and A. Lloyd. The Regional Institute Ltd.,
M. (1990). Evaluation of characters for Gosford, NSW, Australia. 1-5.
ascertaining salt stress responses in Du Jardin, P. (2015). Plant biostimulants:
Lycopersicon species. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. defnition, concept, main categories and
115: 1000-1003. regulation. Sci. Hort. 196: 3–14.
Cuartero, J. and Fernandez-Munoz, R. (1999). Dursun, A.; Guvenc, I. and Turan, M. (2002).
Tomato and salinity. Sci. Hort. 78: 83-125. Effects of different levels of humic acid on
Daei, G.; Ardekani, M. R.; Rejali, F. and Teimuri, seedling growth and macro and micronutrient
S. (2009). Alleviation of salinity stress on contents of tomato and eggplant. Acta
wheat yield, yield components and nutrient Agrobotanica. 56: 81-88.
uptake during arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Ebrahim, M.K.H. and Saleem, A.R. (2017).
under field conditions. J. Plant Physiol. 166: Alleviating salt stress in tomato inoculated
617–625. with mycorrhizae: Photosynthetic
Dargiri, S.A.; Samsampour, D.; Seyahooei, M. A. performance and enzymatic antioxidants. J. of
and Bagheri, A. (2021). The effect of bacterial Taibah Univ. for Sci. 850-860.
endophyte (Exigubacterium aurantiacum) El-Galad, M.A.; Sayed, D. and El-Shal, R.M.
isolated from salsola imbricata on growth (2013). Effect of humic acid and compost
characteristics of tomato seedlings under applied alone or in combination with sulphur
salinity stress. J. of Horti. Sci. 35(1): 153-167. on soil fertility and faba bean productivtiy
De Pascale, S.; Maggio, A.; Fogliano, V.; under saline soil conditions. J. Soil Sci. and
Abrosino, P. and Ritieni, A. (2001). Irrigation Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ. 4 (10): 1139 –
with saline water improves carotenoids 1157.
content and antioxidant activity of tomato. J. El-Mogy, M. M.; Garchery, C. and Stevens, R.
Hort. Sci Biotech 76: 447–453. (2018). Irrigation with salt water affects
De Pascale, S.; Ruggiero, C. and Barbieri, G. growth, yield, fruit quality, storability and
(2003). Physiological responses of pepper to marker-gene expression in cherry tomato.
salinity and drought. Soc. Hort. Sci. 128: 48– Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B -
54. Soil & Plant Sci. 68: 727-737.
Del Amor, F.M.; Martinez, V. and Cerda, A. Eraslan, F.; Inal, A.; Gunes, A.; Alpaslan, M. and
(2001). Salt tolerance of tomato plants as AtIkmen, N. C. (2015). Comparative
affected by stage of plant development. Hort. physiological and growth responses of tomato
Sci. 36(7): 1260–1263. and pepper plants to fertilizer induced salinity
Desai, S.; Bagyaraj, D.J. and Revanna, A. (2020). and salt stress. Fresenius Environmenttal.
Inoculation with microbial consortium Bulletin. 24(5a): 1774-1778.
promotes growth of tomato and capsicum Evelin, H.; Giri, B. and Kapoor, R. (2012).
seedlings raised in pro trays. Proceedings of Contribution of Glomus intraradices
the National Academy of Sciences, India - inoculation to nutrient acquisition and
Section B: Biol. Sciences 90: 21-28. mitigation of ionic imbalance in NaCl-stressed
Dodd, I.C., Belimov, A.A., Sobeih, W.Y., Trigonella foenum-graecum. Mycorrhiza. 22:
Safronova, V.I., Grier-son, D., and Davies, 203–217.
W.J. (2004). Will modifying plant Feigin, A.; Rylski, I.; Meiri, A. and Shalhevet, J.
ethylenestatus improve plant productivity in (1987). Response of melon and tomato plants
77
to chloride-nitrate ratio in saline nutrient lycopersicum L.) plants. Plant Soil 331: 313–
solution. J. Plant Nutr. 10: 1787-1794. 327.
Feleafel, M. N. and Mirdad, Z. M. (2014a). Hammad, S.A.; Shaban, K.H. A. and Tantawy,
Alleviating the deleterious effects of water M.F. (2010). Studies on salinity tolerance of
salinity on greenhouse grown tomato. two peanut cultivars in relation to growth, leaf
International J. of Agri. and Biology. 16(1): water content. Some chemical aspect and
49-56. yield. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 6: 1517 – 1526.
Feleafel, M. N. and Mirdad, Z. M. (2014b). Hashem, A.; Tabassum, B. and Abd Allah, E, F.
Ameliorating tomato productivity and water- (2019). Bacillus subtilis: A plant-growth
use efficiency under water salinity. JAPS, J.of promoting rhizobacterium that also impacts
Animal and Plant Sci. 24: 302-309. biotic stress. Saudi J. of Biol. Sci. 1291-1297.
Friedel, J.K. and Scheller, E. (2002). Composition Heikham, E.; Kapoor, R. and Giri, B. (2009).
of hydrolysable amino acids in soil organic Arbuscular Mycorrhiza fungi in alleviation of
matter and soil microbial biomass. Soil Biol. salt stress: a review. Ann. Bot., 104: 1263.
Biochem. 34: 315–325. Helaly, A.A.; Goda, Y. and Abd EL-Rehim, A.S.
Gama, P.B.; Inanaga, S.; Tanaka, K. and (2017). Effect of irrigation with different
Nakazawa, R. (2007). Physiological response levels of saline water type on husk tomato
of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) productivity. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 6:1-8.
seedlings to salinity stress. Afr. J. Biotech. 6: Ho, L.C.; Zamski, E. and Schaffer, A.A. (1996).
79-88. Photoassimilate distribution in plants and
Garg, N. and Chandel, S. (2010). Arbuscular crops. Sink Relationships, Marcel Dekker,
mycorrhizal network: process and functions A Inc, 709-728.
review. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 39: 581– Huang, J.C.; Lai, W.A.; Singh, S.; Hameed, A.
599. and Young, C.C. (2013). Response of
Glick, B.R. (2012). Plant Growth-Promoting mycorrhizal hybrid tomato cultivars under
Bacteria: Mechanisms and Applications. saline stress. J. of Soil Sci. and Plant Nutr. 13:
Scientifica.18:1-15. 469-484.
Glick, B.R. (2014). Bacteria with ACC deaminase Isfahani, F. M.; Tahmourespour, A.; Hoodaji, M.;
can promote plant growth and help to feed the Ataabadi, M. and Mohammadi, A. (2019).
World. Microbiol. Res. 169: 30–39. Influence of exopolysaccharide-producing
Grattan, S.R. and Grieve, C.M. (1999). Salinity bacteria and SiO2 nanoparticles on proline
mineral nutrient relations in horticultural content and antioxidant enzyme activities of
crops. Sci. Hort., 78: 127 – 157. tomato seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Greenway, H. and Munns, R. (1980). Mechanisms under salinity stress. Polish J. of Environ.
of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu. Rev. Studies. 28: 153-163.
Plant Physiol., 31: 149 - 190. Jahromi, F.; Aroca, R.; Porcel, R. and Ruiz-
Hadad, M.A.; Al-Hashmi, H. S. and Mirghani, S. Lozano, J.M. (2008). Influence of salinity on
M. (2012). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum the in vitro development of Glomus
Mill.) growth in response to salinity and intraradices and on the in vivo physiological
inoculation with native and introduced strains and molecular responses of mycorrhizal
of mycorrhizal fungi. Inter.Res. J. of Agric. lettuce plants. Micro. Eco. 55: 45–53.
Sci. and Soil Sci. 2: 228-233. James, R.A.; Blake, C.; Byrt, C.S. and Munns, R.
Hajiboland, R.; Aliasgharzadeh, N.; Laiegh, S. F. (2011). Major genes for Na+ exclusion, Nax1
and Poschenrieder, C. (2010). Colonization and Nax2 (wheat HKT1; 4 and HKT1; 5),
with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improves decrease Na+ accumulation in bread wheat
salinity tolerance of tomato (Solanum leaves under saline and waterlogged
conditions. J. of Exp. Botany. 62: 2939-2947.
78
Jianmin, Y.; Smith, M. D.; Glick, B. R. and Yan, application on tomato crop: effects on plant
L. (2014). Effects of ACC deaminase and soil. J.of Plant Nutr. 39(4): 491-501.
containing rhizobacteria on plant growth and Liang, Y.C.; Si, J.; Nikolic, M.; Peng, Y.; Chen,
expression of Toc GTPases in tomato W. and Jiang, Y. (2005). Organic manure
(Solanum lycopersicum) under salt stress. stimulates biological activity and barley
Botany. 92: 775-781. growth in soil subject to secondary
Johanson, C.M. and Ulrichs, A. (1959). Analytical salinization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37: 1185–
method for use in plant analysis, U.S. Dept. 1195.
Agric. Inform. Bull.766. Magan, J.J.; Gallardo, M.; Thompson, R.B. and
Johnson, R.W.; Dixon, M.A. and Lee, D.R. Lorenzo, P. (2008). Effects of salinity on fruit
(1992). Water relations of the tomato during yield and quality of tomato grown in soil-less
fruit growth. Plant, Cell Environ. 15: 947–953. culture in greenhouses in Mediterranean
Karlidag, H.; Yildirim, E.; Turan, M.; Pehluvan, climatic conditions. Agric Water Manag. 95:
M. and Donmez, F. (2013). Plant Growth- 1041–1055.
promoting rhizobacteria mitigate deleterious Maggio, A.; De Pascale, S.; Angelino, G.;
effects of salt stress on strawberry plants Ruggiero, C. and Barbieri, G. (2004).
(Fragaria ×ananassa). Hortscience. 48: 563– Physiological response of tomato to saline
567. irrigation in long-term salinized soils. Europ.
Kaya, C.; Ashraf, M.; Sonmez, O.; Aydemir, S.; J. Agron. 21: 149-159.
Tuna, A.L. and Cullu, M.A. (2009). The Malash, N. M.; Ali, F. A.; Fatahalla, M. A.;
influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal Khatab, Entsar. A.; Hatem, M. K. and Tawfic,
colonisation on key growth parameters and S. (2008). Response of tomato to irrigation
fruit yield of pepper plants grown at high with saline water applied by different
salinity. Sci. Hort. 121:1–6. irrigation methods and water management
Knicker, H.; R. Frund and Ludemann, H.D. strategies. International J. of Plant Produc. 2:
(1993). The chemical nature of nitrogen in 101-116.
native soil organic matter. Nat. Malash, N.M.; Ali, F.A.; Fatahalla, M.A. and
Wissenschaften, 80: 219– 221. Tawfic, S. (2012). Response of tomato to
Kohler, J.; Herna´ ndez, J. A.; Caravaca, F. and irrigation with saline water applied by
Rolda´ n, A. (2009). Induction of antioxidant different irrigation methods and water
enzymes is involved in the greater management strategies. Int J Plant Prod. 2:
effectiveness of a PGPR versus AM fungi with 101–116.
respect to increasing the tolerance of lettuce to Malash, N.M.; Ghaibeh, A.; Abdelkrim, G.; Yeo,
severe salt stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 65: 245– A.R.; Flowers, T.J.; Ragab, R. and Cuartero, J.
252. (2002). Effect of irrigation water salinity on
Koide, R. (1993). Physiology of the mycorrhizal yield and fruit quality of tomato. Acta Hort.
plant. Adv. Plant Pathol. 9:33-54. 573: 423 -427.
Kumar, U.; Gulati, I.J.; Rathiya, G.R. and Singh, Manaa, A.; Ahmed, H. B.; Smiti, S. and
M.P. (2017). Effect of saline water irrigation, Faurobert, M. (2011). Salt-stress induced
humic acid and salicylic acid on soil physiological and proteomic changes in
properties, yield attributes and yield of tomato tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) seedlings.
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). (Plant Stress - Special issue 1.) OMICS A J. of
Environment & Ecology 35 (1B): 449-453. Integrative Biol. 15: 801-809.
Leogrande, R.; Lopedota, O.; Vitti, C.; Ventrella, Mantelin, S. and Touraine, B. (2004). Plant
D. and Montemurro, F. (2016). Saline water growth-promoting bacteria and nitrate
and municipal solid waste compost availability impacts on root development and
nitrate uptake. J. Exp. Bot. 55: 27–34.
79
Marulanda, A.; Azco´n, R. and Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. M.A.; Alam, A.M. and Uddin, M.K. (2018).
(2003). Contribution of six arbuscular Effects of NaCl-salinity on tomato
mycorrhizal fungal isolates to water uptake by (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) plants in a
Lactuca sativa plants under drought stress. pot experiment. Open Agric. 3: 578–585.
Physiol Planta. 119: 526-533. Munns, R. and Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of
Marulanda, A.; Barea, J. M. and Azco´ n, R. salinity tolerance. Annual Rev. of Plant
(2006). An indigenous drought-tolerant strain Biol. 59: 651–681.
of Glomus intraradices associated with a Niu, X.; Bressan, R.A.; Hasegawa, P.M. and
native bacterium improves water transport and Pardo, J.B. ( 1995). Ion homeostasis in NaCl
root development in Retama sphaerocarpa. stress environments. Plant Physiol. 109: 735–
Microb. Ecol. 52: 670–678. 742.
Mayak, S.; Tirosh, T. and Glick, B. R. (2004a). Ors, S.; Ekinci, M.; Yildirim, E.; Sahin, U.; Turan,
Plant growth promoting bacteria that confer M. and Dursun, A. (2021). Interactive effects
resistance to water stress in tomato and of salinity and drought stress on
peppers. J. Plant Sci. 166: 525-530. photosynthetic characteristics and physiology
Mayak, S.; Tirosh, T. and Glick, B.R. (2004b). of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.)
Plant growth-promoting bacteria that confer seedlings. South Afric. J. of Botany. 137: 335-
resistance in tomato to salt stress. Plant 339.
Physiol. Biochem. 42: 565-572. Oztekin, G.B. and Tuzel, Y. (2011). Comparative
Menary, R.C. and Staden, J.V. (1976). Effects of salinity responses among tomato genotypes
phosphorus nutrition and cytokinins on and rootstocks. Pak. J. Bot. 43: 2665-2672.
flowering in the tomato, Lycopersicon Oztekin, G.B.; Tuzel, Y. and Tuzel, I.H. (2013).
esculentum Mill. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 3: Does mycorrhiza improve salinity tolerance in
201–205. grafted plants? Scientia Horticulturae.149: 55-
Miceli, A.; Moncada, A. and Vetrano, F. (2021). 60.
Use of microbial biostimulants to increase the Padem, H.; Ocal, A. and Alan, R. (1997). Effect
salinity tolerance of vegetable transplants. of humic acid added foliar fertilizer on
Agronomy. 2: 25. seedling quality and nutrient content of
Mizrahi, Y.; Taleisnik, E.; Kagan-Zur, V.; Zohas, eggplant and pepper. ISHS Symposium on
Y.; Offenbach, R.; Matan, E. and Golan, R. Greenhouse Management for Better Yields
(1988). A saline irrigation regime for and Quality in Mild Winter Climates. Acta
improving tomato fruit quality without Horti. 491: 241-246.
reducing yield. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113: Page, A. L.; Miller, R.H. and Keeney, D. R.
202–205. (1982). (Methods of soil analysis). II.
Moghaddam, J. R.; Hosseini, Y.; Nikpour, M. R. Chemical and Microbiogical properties 2nd Ed.
and Abdoli, A. (2018). Evaluation the effects Madison, Wisconsim. U.S.A.
of the irrigation water salinity and water stress Pandey, S. and Gupta, S. (2020). Evaluation of
on yield components of cherry tomato. J. Pseudomonas sp. for its multifarious plant
Water and Soil. 32(3): 489-500. growth promoting potential and its ability to
Mohammad, M.; Shibli, R.; AJlouni, M. and alleviate biotic and abiotic stress in tomato
Nimri, L. (1998). Tomato root and shoot (Solanum lycopersicum) plants. Scientific
responses to salt stress under different levels Reports. 10: 1-15.
of phosphorus nutrition. J. of Plant Nutr. Pengfei, Z., Yan, D.Y., Masateru, S.and Natsumi,
21(8): 1667-1680. M. (2019). Interactive influences of salinity
Mostafizur Rahman, M.D.; Hossain, M.; Kaniz stress and leaf thinning on the growth, yield,
Fatima Binte Hossain.; Sikder, M.D.T.; and water use efficiency, and fruit quality of
Shammi, M.; Rasheduzzaman, M.D.; Hossain,
80
cherry tomatoes. Communications in Soil Sci. Rani, P.; Sharma, M. K.; Rani, S.; Kumar, N. and
and Plant Anal. 50:1003-1012. Sharma, S. K. (2017). Effect of different saline
Pergel, F. (1945). Quantitative organic micro. environments on yield and quality of tomato
Analysis, 4th Ed. J. &A. Chuch. II, I td. (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Annals of
London. Agri. Bio. Res. 22(2): 223-227.
Petreikov, M.; Yeselson, Y.; Shen, S.; Levin, I.; Richardson, A. E.; Barea, J. M.; McNeill, A. M.
Schaffer, A.; Efrati, A. and Moshe, B. (2009). and Prigent-Combaret, C. (2009). Acquisition
Carbohydrate balance and accumulation of phosphorus and nitrogen in the rhizosphere
during development of near-isogenic tomato and plant growth promotion by
lines differing in the AGPase-L1 allele. J. Am. microorganisms. Plant and Soil. 321: 305–
Soc. Hort. Sci. 134: 134-140. 339.
Pietrantonio, L.; Golubkina, N. A.; Cozzolino, E.; Rozema, J. and Flowers, T. (2008). Crops for a
Sellitto, M.; Cuciniello, A. and Caruso, G. Salinized World. Sci. 322, 1478-1480.
(2020). Yield and quality performances of Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. and Azcon, R. (1995). Hyphal
tomato "plum" inoculated with arbuscular contribution to water uptake in mycorrhizal
mycorrhizal fungi in saline soils. Acta plants as affected by the fungal species and
Horticulturae. (1271): 351-357. water status. Physiol. Plant. 95: 472-478.
Psarras, G.; Bertaki, M. and Chartzoulakis, K. Saha, D.; Fakir, O.A.; Mondal, S. and Ghosh, R.C.
(2008). Response of greenhouse tomato to salt (2017). Effects of organic and inorganic
stress and K+ supplement. Plant Biosyst. 142: fertilizers on tomato production in saline soil
149–153. of Bangladesh. J. Sylhet Agril. Univ., 4(2):
Qadir, M. and Oster, J.D. (2004). Crop and 213-220.
irrigation management strategies for saline- Saidimoradi, D.; Ghaderi, N. and Javadi, T.
sodic soils and waters aimed at (2019). Salinity stress mitigation by humic
environmentally sustainable agriculture. Sci. acid application in strawberry (Fragaria x
Total Environment. 323: 1–19. ananassa Duch.). Sci. Horti., 256: 1-15.
Radwan, A.A.; Hassan, A.A. and Malash, N.M. Saito, T. and Ito, H. (1967). Studies on the growth
(1979). Physiological studies on tomato fruits and fruiting in tomato X. Effects of early
firmness, total soluble solids and vitamin C environmental conditions and cultural
contents. Res. Bull. No. 1063, Faculty of treatments on the morphological and
Agric. Ain Shams University. Hort. Abstr., 50: physiological development of flower and
9141, 1980). flower drop 2. Effect of watering, defoliation
Rady, M. M. (2012). A novel organo-mineral and application of gibberellin. J Jpn Soc
fertilizer can mitigate salinity stress effects for Hortic Sci., 36: 281–289.
tomato production on reclaimed saline soil. Saranga, Y.; Zamir, D.; Marani, A. and Rudich, J.
South Afric. J. of Botany. 81: 8-14. (1993). Breeding tomatoes for salt tolerance:
Rady, M.M.; Semida, W.M.; Hemida, K.A. and. variations in ion concentration associated with
Abdelhamid, M.T. (2016). The effect of response to salinity. J. Amer. Hort. Sci. 118:
compost on growth and yield of Phaseolus 405–408.
vulgaris plants grown under saline soil. Int. J. Schaffer, A.A. I.; Levin, I. I.; Ogus, I. M.;
Recycl Org Waste Agric. 5: 311–321. Petreikov, M.; Cincarevsky, F.; Yeselson, E.;
Rahnama, A.; James, R.A.; Poustini, K. and Shen, S.; Gilboa, N. and Bar, M. (2000).
Munns, R. (2010). Stomatal conductance as a ADPglucose pyrophosphorylase activity and
screen for osmotic stress tolerance in durum starch accumulation in immature tomato fruit:
wheat growing in saline soil. Functional Plant The effect of a Lycopersicon hirsutum-derived
Biol. 37:255- 263. introgression encoding for the large subunit.
Plant Sci. 152: 135-144.
81
Scholberg, J.M.S. and Locascio, S.J. (1999). pp: 177–258. Tan, H. (ed.). Marcel Dekker,
Growth response of snap bean and tomato as New York, USA.
affected by salinity and irrigation method. Tank, N. and Saraf, M. (2010). Salinity-resistant
Hort Sci. 34 (2): 259-264. plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
Semida, W. M.; El-Mageed, T. A. A. and ameliorates sodium chloride stress on tomato
Howladar, S. M. (2014). A novel organo- plants. Plant Interactions. 5, No. 1: 51-58.
mineral fertilizer can alleviate negative effects Tartoura, K. A. H.; Youssef, S. A. and Tartoura,
of salinity stress for eggplant production on E. A. A. (2014). Compost alleviates the
reclaimed saline calcareous soil. Acta Horti. negative effects of salinity via up-regulation of
(1034): 493-499. antioxidants in Solanum lycopersicum L.
Shen, M.; Kang, Y.J.; Wang, H.L.; Zhang, X.S. plants. Plant Growth Regulation. 74: 299-310.
and Zhao, Q.X. (2012). Effect of plant growth- Tejada, M.; Garcia, C.; Gonzalez, J.L. and
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on plant Hernandez, M.T. (2006). Use of organic
growth, yield, and quality of tomato amendment as a strategy for saline soil
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under remediation: influence on the physical,
simulated seawater irrigation. J. Gen. Appl. chemical and biological properties of soil. Soil
Microbiol. 58: 253‒262. Biol Biochem. 38: 1413–1421.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran (1980). Tester, M. and Davenport, R. (2003). Na+
Statistical Methods. 7th ED. Ames: Iowa State tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants.
University Press. Annul. of Botany. 91: 303–327.
Soliman, M.S. and Doss, M. (1992). Salinity and Torre-Gonzalez, A. de La.; Montesinos-Pereira,
mineral nutrition effects on growth and D.; Blasco, B. and Ruiz, J. M. (2018).
accumulation of organic and inorganic ions in Influence of the proline metabolism and
two cultivated tomato varieties. Jour. of Plant glycine betaine on tolerance to salt stress in
Nut. tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Souza, A.C.; Zandonadi, D.B.; Santos, M.P.; commercial genotypes. J. of Plant Physiol.
Canellas, N.O.A.; Soares, C.D.P.; Irineu, 231: 329-336.
L.E.S.D.S.; Rezende, C.E.D.; Spaccini, R.; Tu, C.; Ristaino, J.B. and Hu, S. (2006). Soil
Piccolo, A.; Olivares, F.L. and Canellas, L.P. microbial biomass and activity in organic
(2021). Acclimation with humic acids tomato farming systems: Effects of organic
enhances maize and tomato tolerance inputs and straw mulching, Soil Biol.
to salinity. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 8 Biochem. 38: 247–255.
(40): 1-13. Turan, M.; Yildirim, E.; Ekinci, M. and Argin, S.
Souza, W.S. (1990). Produção e desenvolvimento (2021). Effect of biostimulants on yield and
do tomate industrial (Lycopersicun quality of cherry tomatoes grown in fertile and
esculentum Mill) em diferentes níveis de stressed soils. HortScience. 56(4): 414-423.
salinidade. Campina Grande: UFPB, 65p. Ullah, U.; Ashraf, M.; Shahzad, S.M.; Siddiqui,
(Dissertação - Mestrado). A.R.; Piracha, M.A. and Suleman, M. (2016).
Sun, X.C.; Hu, C.X. and Tan, Q.L. (2006). Effect Growth behavior of tomato (Solanum
of molybdenum on antioxidative defense lycopersicum L.) under drought stress in the
system and membrane lipid peroxidation in presence of silicon and plant growth
winter wheat under low temperature stress. J. promoting rhizobacteria. Soil Environ. 35(1):
of Plant Physiology and molecular biology, 65-75.
32: 175-182. Vessey, J.K. (2003). Plant Growth Promoting
Tan, K.H. (1998). Colloidal chemistry of organic Rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil .255:
soil constituents. In: Principles of Soil Chem., 571–586.
82
Viol, M. A., Carvalho, J. de A., Lima, E. M. de C., (Solanum lycopersicum L.) seedling growth.
Rezende, F. C.and Gomes, L. A. A.(2017). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus. 19: 15–29.
Salinity effects of growth and production of Yurtseven, E.; Kesmez, G.D. and Unlukara, A.
tomato cultivated in greenhouse. Revista (2005). The effects of water salinity and
Brasileira de Agricultura Irrigada. 11: 2120- potassium levels on yield, fruit quality and
2131. water consumption of a native central
Walker, D. J. and Bernal, M. P. (2008). The anatolian tomato species (Lycopersicon
effects of olive mill waste compost and poultry esculantum). Agric. Water Management. 78:
manure on the availability and plant uptake of 128-135.
nutrients in a highly saline soil. Bioresource Zhang, P.; Senge, M. and Dai, Y. (2016). Effect
Technol. 99(2): 396-403. of salinity stress on growth, yield, fruit quality
Wang, L.; Sun, X.; Li, S.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, W. and water use efficiency of tomato under
and Zhai, P. (2014). Application of organic hydroponics system. Agric. Sci. 4: 46-55.
amendments to a coastal saline soil in north Zhai, Y.; Qian, Y. and MaoMao, H. (2015). The
China: effects on soil physical and chemical effects of saline water drip irrigation on
properties and tree growth. PLoS ONE 9: 1-9. tomato yield, quality, and blossom-end rot
Wright, A.L.; Provin, TL; Hons, F.M.; Zuberer, incidence - A 3a case study in the south of
D.A. and White, R.H. (2008). Compost China. PLoS ONE.10: 1-17.
impacts on sodicity and salinity in a sandy Zhai, Y.; Qian, Y. and Yu, W.Y. (2016). Soil salt
loam turf grass soil. Compost Science & distribution and tomato response to saline
Utilization. 16: 30–35. water irrigation under straw mulching. PLoS
Yildirim, E.; Taylor, A.G. and Spittler, T.D. ONE. 11: 1-17.
(2006). Ameliorative effects of biological Zribi, W.; Faci, J.M. and Aragues, R. (2011).
treatments on growth of squash plants under Mulching effects on moisture, temperature,
salt stress. Sci. Hort., 111: 1–6. structure and salinity of agricultural soils.
Yilmaz, Y.; Erdinc, C.; Akkopru, A. and Kipcak, Información Técnica Económica Agraria.
S. (2020). Use of plant growth promoting 107: 148-162.
rhizobacteria against salt stress for tomato
83
‫‪Malash, N. M.; et al.,‬‬
‫ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ إﺟﮭﺎد اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﺎت اﻟﻄﻤﺎطﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺑﻌﺾ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻘﺎت‬

‫اﻷﺳﻤﺪة اﻟﻌﻀﻮﯾﺔ واﻟﺤﯿﻮﯾﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺒﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﻠﺶ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻲ رﺷﺪي ﺧﻠﯿﻞ ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﻟﻲ ﻋﺒﺪاﻟﺮازق ﻣﯿﺪان ‪ ،‬ﻏﺎدة ﻋﺒﺪﷲ رﺿﻮان‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﺒﺴﺎﺗﯿﻦ – ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ – ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻮﻓﯿﺔ – ﺷﺒﯿﻦ اﻟﻜﻮم‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻰ‬
‫أﺟﺮﯾﺖ ھﺬة اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻤﯿﻦ زراﻋﯿﻦ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﯿﻦ ‪ ۲۰۲۰‬و‪ ۲۰۲۱‬ﻓﻲ أﺻﺺ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﺼﻮﺑﺔ اﻟﺴﯿﺮام ﺑﻤﺰرﻋﺔ اﻟﺘﺠﺎرب ﺑﻜﻠﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﻮﻓﯿﺔ ‪ -‬ﺑﺸﺒﯿﻦ اﻟﻜﻮم‪ .‬اﻟﮭﺪف ﻣﻦ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ھﻮ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ اﻟﺘﺴﻤﯿﺪ اﻟﻌﻀﻮي )اﻟﻜﻤﺒﻮﺳﺖ واﻟﮭﯿﻮﻣﯿﻚ اﺳﯿﺪ(‬
‫واﻟﺘﺴﻤﯿﺪ اﻟﺤﯿﻮي )اﻟﻤﯿﻜﻮراﯾﺰا واﻟﺒﻜﺘﺮﯾﺎ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮ( ﻟﺘﺨﻔﯿﻒ اﻻﺛﺎر اﻟﺴﻠﺒﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ھﺠﯿﻦ اﻟﻄﻤﺎطﻢ ‪ .۱۸٦‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺠﮭﯿﺰ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﻟﯿﻞ ﻣﻠﺤﯿﺔ ﺑﺈﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻛﻠﻮرﯾﺪ اﻟﺼﻮدﯾﻮم ﺑﺘﺮﻛﯿﺰﯾﻦ ) ‪ ۳‬و‪ ( dS/m-1 ٦‬ﺑﺎﻻﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻲ اﻟﺮي ﺑﻤﺎء اﻟﺼﻨﺒﻮر ﻛﻜﻨﺘﺮول‪ .‬أظﮭﺮت‬
‫اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ أن اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ أدت اﻟﻲ ﻧﻘﺺ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ‪ :‬ﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻟﺨﻀﺮي ﻣﺜﻞ إرﺗﻔﺎع اﻟﻨﺒﺎت واﻟﻮزن اﻟﺠﺎف ﻟﻠﻨﺒﺎت ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺣﺪث‬
‫ﻧﻘﺺ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪد اﻻﯾﺎم اﻟﻼزﻣﺔ ﻟﺒﺪاﯾﺔ ﺗﺰھﯿﺮ ‪ ٪٥۰‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﺎت ) ‪ (F50‬وﻛﺬا اﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺌﻮﯾﺔ ﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﺜﻤﺎر‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﻤﺎﺋﻲ اﻟﻨﺴﺒﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫اﻻوراق ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻻوراق اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺜﺔ واﻟﻤﺴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﯿﺘﺮوﺟﯿﻦ واﻟﻔﻮﺳﻔﻮر واﻟﺒﻮﺗﺎﺳﯿﻮم واﻟﻜﺎﻟﺴﯿﻮم ﺑﺎﻻﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻲ اﻧﺨﻔﺎض ﻣﺤﺼﻮل‬
‫اﻟﺜﻤﺎر وﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﺔ‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻻﺧﺮ أدت اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ اﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ :‬ﻛﻔﺎءة اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻻوراق ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﺮوﻟﯿﻦ ‪،‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﺴﺮﯾﺐ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺠﺪر اﻟﺨﻠﻮﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻوراق ﺑﺎﻻﺿﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻲ ﺗﺤﺴﯿﻦ ﺟﻮدة اﻟﺜﻤﺎر ﺣﯿﺚ ادت اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ اﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﺜﻤﺎرﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻮاد‬
‫اﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺬاﺋﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ )‪ (TSS‬وﻓﯿﺘﺎﻣﯿﻦ ج ‪،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ادت اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ اﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻻوراق اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺜﺔ واﻟﻤﺴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮي اﻟﺼﻮدﯾﻮم‬
‫واﻟﻜﻠﻮر وﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺎن اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺰ أﻋﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻻوراق اﻟﻘﺪﯾﻤﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺜﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ أدت ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻟﺘﺴﻤﯿﺪ اﻟﺤﯿﻮي واﻟﻌﻀﻮي )ﺳﻮاء اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ‬
‫ﻓﺮدﯾﺔ أوﻣﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﯿﺔ؛ وھﻰ اﻟﻜﻤﺒﻮﺳﺖ ‪ +‬اﻟﮭﯿﻮﻣﯿﻚ اﺳﯿﺪ ﻣﻌﺎ وأﯾﻀﺎ اﻟﻤﯿﻜﻮراﯾﺰا ‪ +‬اﻟﺒﻜﺘﺮﯾﺎ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮﻣﻌﺎ( اﻟﻲ ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺄﺛﯿﺮ اﻟﻀﺎر ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﺣﯿﺚ أدت اﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة ﻗﯿﻢ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﯿﺎﺳﺎت اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻟﺨﻀﺮي وﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ أدت اﻟﻲ ﺗﺤﺴﯿﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺋﯿﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺒﺎت وﻛﻔﺎءة اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﺎء وﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻻوراق اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺜﺔ واﻟﻤﺴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﯿﺘﺮوﺟﯿﻦ واﻟﻔﻮﺳﻔﻮر واﻟﺒﻮﺗﺎﺳﯿﻮم واﻟﻜﺎﻟﺴﯿﻮم واﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮل‬
‫وﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﺔ وﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺼﻔﺎت ﺟﻮدة اﻟﺜﻤﺎر ﻓﻘﺪ أدت ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ ﺣﺪة اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ )اﻟﺤﯿﻮﯾﺔ واﻟﻌﻀﻮﯾﺔ( اﻟﻲ ﺗﻘﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﺜﻤﺎر ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺬاﺋﺒﺔ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ )‪ (TSS‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﯿﻦ أدت اﻟﻲ زﯾﺎدة ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﺜﻤﺎر ﻣﻦ ﻓﯿﺘﺎﻣﯿﻦ ‪ .C‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ اﻻﺛﺎر اﻟﻀﺎرة‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ )اﻟﺘﺴﻤﯿﺪ اﻟﺤﯿﻮي واﻟﻌﻀﻮي( أدت اﻟﻲ ﺗﻘﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻻوراق اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺜﺔ واﻟﻤﺴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﻮدﯾﻮم واﻟﻜﻠﻮر‪،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮي اﻻوراق‬
‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﺮوﻟﯿﻦ واﻟﺘﺴﺮﯾﺐ ﻓﻲ اﻻوراق ﻣﻤﺎ أدي اﻟﻲ ﺗﺤﺴﯿﻦ اﻟﻨﻤﻮ واﻻﻧﺘﺎﺟﯿﺔ ﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﺎت اﻟﻄﻤﺎطﻢ‪ .‬اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻌﺔ )اﻟﻤﯿﻜﻮراﯾﺰا ﻣﻊ‬
‫اﻟﺒﻜﺘﺮﯾﺎ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮ( و)اﻟﻜﻤﺒﻮﺳﺖ ﻣﻊ اﻟﮭﯿﻮﻣﯿﻚ أﺳﯿﺪ( ﻛﺎن ﻟﮭﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﺗﺂزرى ﺣﯿﺚ أدت اﻟﻲ ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﺑﺪرﺟﺔ اﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻛﻞ ﻣﻜﻮن ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺪة‪ .‬وﻋﻠﻲ ھﺬا ﻓﻘﺪ أدت ھﺬة اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻌﺔ )اﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﯿﺔ( اﻟﻲ أﻓﻀﻞ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﻼھﺎ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻜﻤﺒﻮﺳﺖ واﻟﻤﯿﻜﻮراﯾﺰا )واﻟﺘﻲ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﺑﻤﻔﺮدھﺎ( ﻣﻦ ﺣﯿﺚ ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ اﻟﺘﺄﺛﯿﺮ اﻟﻀﺎر ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﺎت اﻟﻄﻤﺎطﻢ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﯿﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻄﻤﺎطﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ‘ ﻧﻤﻮ اﻟﻨﺒﺎت ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﯾﺎت اﻟﻜﯿﻤﯿﺎﺋﯿﺔ وﻣﺤﺼﻮل اﻟﺜﻤﺎر‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺴﻤﯿﺪ‬
‫اﻟﻌﻀﻮي واﻟﺤﯿﻮي‪.‬‬
‫‪84‬‬
Menoufia J. Plant Prod., Volume 8 Issue 4 (2023): 47 – 84
MENOUFIA JOURNAL OF PLANT PRODUCTION
https://mjppf.journals.ekb.eg/
*Corresponding author: [email protected] 85

MJPPF_Volume 8_Issue 4_Pages 47-84

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MJPPF_Volume 8_Issue 4_Pages 47-84

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MJPPF_Volume 8_Issue 4_Pages 47-84

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Menoufia J. Plant Prod.

, Volume 8 Issue 4 (2023): 47 – 84

MENOUFIA JOURNAL OF PLANT PRODUCTION

ALLEVIATION SALINITY STRESS ON TOMATO PLANTS BY

INTRODUCTION Therefore, salinity stress involves changes in

*Corresponding author: [email protected] 47

Ⅳ-Chemical composition of tomato leaves Data Statistical analysis

Salinity alleviation treatments enhanced that humic substances improve a number of

Compost (COM) application also enhanced

REFERENCES Adams, P. and Ho, L.C. (1992). The susceptibility

in plants. Revista Chilena de Historia Al-Omran, A.M.; Al-Harbi, A.R.; Wahb-Allah,

Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; water-limited environments? In Proceedings

‫ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ إﺟﮭﺎد اﻟﻤﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﺎت اﻟﻄﻤﺎطﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺑﻌﺾ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻘﺎت‬

MENOUFIA JOURNAL OF PLANT PRODUCTION

*Corresponding author: [email protected] 85

You might also like