| Literature DB >> 25972746 |
Shikha Verma1, Anamika Sharma1, Raj Kumar2, Charanjit Kaur3, Anju Arora1, Raghubir Shah2, Lata Nain1.
Abstract
class="Chemical">Nutrieclass="Chemical">nt maclass="Chemical">nagemeclass="Chemical">nt practices play a sigclass="Chemical">nificaclass="Chemical">nt role iclass="Chemical">n improviclass="Chemical">ng the class="Chemical">nutritioclass="Chemical">nal quality ofEntities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Defense enzyme; EM compost; Effective Microorganisms; Lycopene
Year: 2014 PMID: 25972746 PMCID: PMC4423717 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.11.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 1319-562X Impact factor: 4.219
Effect of EM compost on yield parameters of Tomato.
| Treatment details | Plant height (cm) | Number of branches per plant | Number of fruits per plant | Yield per plant (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 Absolute control | 55.00 ± | 3.00 ± 0.27b | 24.93 ± 3.44c | 1.28 ± 0.14d |
| T2 N100P60K50 | 67.50 ± 0.60b | 5.40 ± 0.63a | 32.90 ± 2.19b | 2.02 ± 0.21c |
| T3 N50P30K25 | 66.20 ± 4.92b | 4.00 ± 0.41ab | 28.60 ± 1.56bc | 1.85 ± 0.18c |
| T4 N50P30K25 + EM compost 5 t ha−1 | 70.80 ± 4.24a | 6.00 ± 0.47a | 47.13 ± 3.80a | 2.96 ± 0.19a |
| T5 EM compost 10 t ha−1 | 67.20 ± 1.19ab | 5.50 ± 0.78a | 42.63 ± 2.39a | 2.54 ± 0.13b |
| SEM | 1.84 | 0.4 | 1.97 | 0.09 |
| LSD ( | 5.18 | 1.13 | 5.55 | 0.26 |
Mean ± standard deviation, n = 3; superscripts indicate significant differences based on LSD at 0.05 levels.
Effect of EM compost on lycopene and phenol content of Tomato fruit.
| Treatment details | Lycopene (mg lycopene 100 g−1 fresh wt) | Total phenol (mg tannic acid 100 g−1 fresh wt) |
|---|---|---|
| T1 Absolute control | 2.72 ± | 112.59 ± 0.17e |
| T2 N100P60K50 | 5.68 ± 0.08b | 116.05 ± 0.04c |
| T3 N50P30K25 | 5.25 ± 0.76b | 114.07 ± 0.08d |
| T4 N50P30K25 + EM compost 5 t ha−1 | 8.81 ± 0.45a | 118.49 ± 0.21a |
| T5 EM compost 10 t ha−1 | 5.98 ± 0.22b | 117.38 ± 0.30b |
| SEM | 0.32 | 0.15 |
| LSD ( | 0.91 | 0.42 |
Mean ± standard deviation, n = 3; superscripts indicate significant differences based on LSD at 0.05 level.
Figure 1Influence of EM compost on soil microbiological parameters, at harvest-stage on Tomato. (A) Alkaline phosphatase activity (μg p-NP g−1 h−1). (B) Acid phosphatase activity (μg p-NP g−1 h−1). (C) Dehydrogenase activity (μg TPF g−1 day−1). (D) Microbial biomass carbon (μg C g−1 soil). (E) Fluorescein diacetate hydrolase activity. Error bars represent standard deviation. T1, Absolute control; T2, N100P60K50; T3, N50P30K25; T4, N50P30K25 + EM compost 5 t ha−1; T5, EM compost 10 t ha−1.
Effect of EM compost on antioxidant enzymes of Tomato fruit.
| Treatment details | Tyrosine Ammonia Lyase (nmoles | Ascorbate Peroxidase (μmoles H2O2 reduced min−1 g−1 fresh wt) | Glutathione Reductase (1 μmol NADPH oxidized min−1 g−1 fresh wt) |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 Absolute control | 0.67 ± | 0.36 ± 0.02c | 1.56 ± 0.12c |
| T2 N100P60K50 | 0.85 ± 0.04b | 0.77 ± 0.33b | 1.95 ± 0.02b |
| T3 N50P30K25 | 0.84 ± 0.11b | 0.54 ± 0.08bc | 1.50 ± 0.12c |
| T4 N50P30K25 + EM compost 5 t ha−1 | 1.69 ± 0.13a | 2.10 ± 0.08a | 2.57 ± 0.04a |
| T5 EM compost 10 t ha−1 | 0.92 ± 0.04b | 1.94 ± 0.05a | 2.08 ± 0.09b |
| SEM | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.64 |
| LSD ( | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.18 |
Mean ± standard deviation, n = 3; superscripts indicate significant differences based on LSD at 0.05 levels.
Figure 2Influence of EM compost on defense enzyme activity of Tomato. (A) Leaves at mid stage. (B) Fruit at harvest stage. Error bars represent standard deviation. T1, Absolute control; T2, N100P60K50; T3, N50P30K25; T4, N50P30K25 + EM compost 5 t ha−1; T5, EM compost 10 t ha−1.