| Literature DB >> 25972746 |
Shikha Verma1, Anamika Sharma1, Raj Kumar2, Charanjit Kaur3, Anju Arora1, Raghubir Shah2, Lata Nain1.
Abstract
Nutrient management practices play a significant role in improving the nutritional quality of tomato. The present study deals with the evaluation of compost prepared using Effective Microorganisms (EM), on antioxidant and defense enzyme activities of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). A field experiment with five treatments (control, chemical fertilizer and EM compost alone and in combination) was conducted in randomized block design. An increment of 31.83% in tomato yield was recorded with the combined use of EM compost and half recommended dose of chemical fertilizers (N50P30K25 + EM compost at the rate of 5 t ha(-1)). Similarly, fruit quality was improved in terms of lycopene content (35.52%), antioxidant activity (24-63%) and defense enzymes activity (11-54%), in tomatoes in this treatment as compared to the application of recommended dose of fertilizers. Soil microbiological parameters also exhibited an increase of 7-31% in the enzyme activities in this treatment. Significant correlation among fruit quality parameters with soil microbiological activities reveals the positive impact of EM compost which may be adopted as an eco-friendly strategy for production of high quality edible products.Entities:
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.