ArticlePDF Available

Impact of salinity and fertilization on soil properties, and root development in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) cultivation

Authors:

Abstract

Salinity is a paramount factor that poses challenges to agricultural productivity and sustainability. At the same time, fenugreek is valued as a forage crop for its medicinal properties in addition to its extensive edible use. The objective of this study is to explore how fertilization and salinity impact soil physical properties and root system development in fenugreek cultivation. A field experiment was established at the Agricultural University of Athens during growing seasons 2019-2020 (1st GS) and 2020-2021 (2nd GS) in a split-splot design with the 2 main salinity treatments (High salinity; HS & Conventional salinity; CS) and 5 fertilization treatments (biocyclic-vegan (BHS), manure (FYM), compost (COMP), inorganic fertilization (11-15-15) and the control (C). Soil porosity was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.05) and fertilization (p<=0.001). Also, organic matter was significantly affected by fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (59.78±2.65) resulted in 20.02% fewer nodules on plant roots compared to CS treatments (71.75±2.65). The maximum number of nodules was recorded in the FYM treatment (68.93±0.77). In addition, mean root diameter was affected by fertilization (p<=0.01) COMP (2.92±0.31 mm) and NPK treatments (2.83±0.31 mm) resulted in 19.52% and 23.32% smaller root diameter respectively compared to BHS, while FYM (2.68±0.31 mm) resulted in a 30.22% smaller diameter. A significant increase of seed yield was noticed under organic fertilization where the highest yield of 2.1 t ha−1 was recorded in BHS (2nd GS). Although fenugreek was affected by high salinity, it demonstrated considerable resistance and maintained its yields, rendering it a crop suitable for challenging soils.
Received: 22 Apr 2023. Received in revised form: 10 Jun 2024. Accepted: 13 Jun 2024. Published online: 19 Jun 2024.
From Volume 49, Issue 1, 2021, Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca journal uses article numbers in place of the
traditional method of continuous pagination through the volume. The journal will continue to appear quarterly, as before, with four
annual numbers.
Folina A et al. (2024)
Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca
Volume 52, Issue 2, Article number 13868
DOI:10.15835/nbha52213868
Research Articl
Research ArticlResearch Articl
Research Article
ee
e.
..
.
Impact of
Impact of Impact of
Impact of s
ss
salinity and
alinity and alinity and
alinity and f
ff
fertilization on
ertilization on ertilization on
ertilization on s
ss
soil
oil oil
oil p
pp
properties,
roperties, roperties,
roperties, and r
and rand r
and root
oot oot
oot
d
dd
development in
evelopment in evelopment in
evelopment in f
ff
fenugreek (
enugreek (enugreek (
enugreek (Trigonella foenum
Trigonella foenumTrigonella foenum
Trigonella foenum-
--
-graecum
graecumgraecum
graecum) c
) c) c
) cultivation
ultivationultivation
ultivation
Antigolena FOLINA, Kalliopi TSEMENTZI,
Panteleimon STAVROPOULOS, Antonios MAVROEIDIS,
Ioanna KAKABOUKI, Dimitrios BILALIS*
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Laboratory of Agronomy, 75 Iera Odos str., 11855 Athens, Greece;
folinanti@gmail.com; kalliopetsem1@gmail.com; stavropoulospantelis1@gmail.com; antoniosmauroeidis@gmail.com;
i.kakabouki@gmail.com; bilalisdimitrios@gmail.com (*corresponding author)
Abstract
AbstractAbstract
Abstract
Salinity is a paramount factor that poses challenges to agricultural productivity and sustainability. At
the same time, fenugreek is valued as a forage crop for its medicinal properties in addition to its extensive edible
use. The objective of this study is to explore how fertilization and salinity impact soil physical properties and
root system development in fenugreek cultivation. A field experiment was established at the Agricultural
University of Athens during growing seasons 2019-2020 (1
st
GS) and 2020-2021 (2
nd
GS) in a split-splot design
with the 2 main salinity treatments (High salinity; HS & Conventional salinity; CS) and 5 fertilization
treatments (biocyclic-vegan (BHS), manure (FYM), compost (COMP), inorganic fertilization (11-15-15) and
the control (C). Soil porosity was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.05) and fertilization
(p<=0.001). Also, organic matter was significantly affected by fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (59.78±2.65)
resulted in 20.02% fewer nodules on plant roots compared to CS treatments (71.75±2.65). The maximum
number of nodules was recorded in the FYM treatment (68.93±0.77). In addition, mean root diameter was
affected by fertilization (p<=0.01) COMP (2.92±0.31 mm) and NPK treatments (2.83±0.31 mm) resulted in
19.52% and 23.32% smaller root diameter respectively compared to BHS, while FYM (2.68±0.31 mm) resulted
in a 30.22% smaller diameter. A significant increase of seed yield was noticed under organic fertilization where
the highest yield of 2.1 t ha
−1
was recorded in BHS (2
nd
GS). Although fenugreek was affected by high salinity,
it demonstrated considerable resistance and maintained its yields, rendering it a crop suitable for challenging
soils.
Keywords:
Keywords:Keywords:
Keywords: biocyclic - vegan agriculture; fenugreek; salinity; soil porosity; root density
Introduction
IntroductionIntroduction
Introduction
Fenugreek originated in the Mediterranean region of Europe (Hilles and Mahmood, 2021). Due to its
adaptability, fenugreek has the ability to be grown in different regions of the world, in different climates and
growing environments. In this respect, fenugreek allows farmers to grow this plant in different soil types and
AcademicPres
Notulae Botanicae Horti
Cluj-NapocaAgrobotanici
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
2
climatic conditions, allowing its production in a variety of geographical areas, including central Europe, the
United Kingdom, the United States, and other regions. Fenugreek is suitable for areas with moderate to low
rainfall (Sharma and Maloo, 2022). A temperate and cool growing season without temperature extremes is
favourable for its best growth. Current uses of fenugreek are mostly culinary and medical. As a spice in parts of
South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and Mediterranean Europe, as an ingredient of Indian subcontinent
curries. Fenugreek is therefore a well-known traditional spice and is an important ingredient in widespread
South Asian cuisine throughout the world (Shahrajabian et al., 2021). It has been renowned for its medicinal
applications, owing to its rich nutritional and therapeutic properties, for treating various diseases and disorders
in Ayurvedic, Greek and Tibetan medicine since ancient times. Both fenugreek seeds and leaves are highly
valued for their content of pharmaceutically significant phytochemicals, including alkaloids, carbohydrates,
steroidal saponins, amino acids, and other vital organic and inorganic compounds and minerals (Idris et al.,
2021; Ghosh and Thakurdesai, 2022; Ahmad et al., 2023).
The use of organic fertilizers is regarded and documented as crucial for the improvement of soil
characteristics (Bilalis et al., 2017; Ansari et al., 2017; Meddich et al., 2020). Soil structure, texture, density and
organic matter content control the water holding capacity of the soil; therefore, any management practice that
improves these soil properties, in turn, improves the water holding capacity of the soil (Huntington, 2006; Lal,
2020). The addition of organic matter through the application of organic fertilizers improves soil aggregation
and increases soil density, presenting the soil with more space for soil particles surrounded by water films
(Shepherd et al., 2002).
Several research papers have observed additional benefits to diverse crops with the application of organic
fertilizers compared to the application of equivalent nutrients through inorganic fertilizers (Giller, 2002; Palm
et al., 1997; Vanlauwe et al., 2006; Tabaxi et al., 2021). Following that result, mechanisms have been proposed
to explain these additional benefits to crops from the application of organic fertilizers. Some of them are based
on nutrient timing, the priming effect and general improvement in fertility. Regarding the mechanism of
improved nutrient timing proposed by Vanlauwe et al. (2001), when organic fertilizers are applied, the carbon
they contain is provided to microbes and they bust the decomposition processes. This leads to interstitial
immobilization of soil N (Myers and McGarity, 1968; Palm et al., 2001) to create their body tissues.
Immobilized nitrogen becomes accessible at a later stage of plant growth, when microbes decompose organic
material to release nutrients, or when some microbes lyse, thereby releasing their nutrients to the plant during
its increased nutrient demand (Badalucco and Kuikman, 2000).
Although soil organic matter binds soil particles together, it also promotes the activity of soil
microfauna. Their movement creates micro- and macropores in the soil, providing additional space for water
infiltration (Voroney, 2024). Therefore, enhancing the soil's ability to retain water can be achieved through
the addition of organic fertilizers. Given the unpredictability of droughts due to climate change, utilizing
organic fertilizers to bolster soil moisture retention is a prudent approach (FAO, 2005).
While conventional agriculture and livestock farming are included in the main causes of greenhouse gas
emissions, and environmental degradation (Chirinda et al., 2010; Tal, 2018; Seymour and Utter, 2021; Edberg,
2023), a new organic farming standard is being created, unburdened by animal inputs. In 2017, a new standard,
Biocyclic Vegan Agriculture, was introduced to the family of organic standards. The use of the Biocyclic Vegan
label is based on an accredited certification system, ensuring complete transparency for consumers at every level
of the supply chain, "from farm to fork." This guarantees that a Biocyclic Vegan product is not only organic and
plant-based but also produced according to vegan criteria (Oudshoorn et al., 2019). The fundamental principle
of biocyclic-vegan agriculture, globally, is the maintenance or restoration of healthy life cycles (from Greek:
bios=life and kyklos=cycle). This requires a responsible interaction with the environment, which humans use
and significantly impact. Therefore, every personal and economic activity considered within a holistic
framework aims for conscious and sustainable contribution. It represents a suitably adapted development for
the future of agriculture and food industry, where healthy soil leads, through healthy plants, to healthy people.
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
3
In this way, the biocyclic or "cycle of living matter" (as referred to by Dr. Hans-Peter Rusch) can be sustainably
influenced and enhanced, in harmony with the laws of nature. In this sense, biocyclic-vegan agriculture aims to
activate the self-healing potential of an agricultural ecosystem by providing growth conditions as close to nature
as possible, thus increasing ecosystem services overall (Seymour, 2023). This activation essentially starts at the
macromolecular level and the life of the soil, from where it can then positively impact the entire food chain
(Mann, 2020).
Salinity is one of the most significant factors limiting the geographical distribution of plants and
negatively impacting the productivity and quality of crops worldwide. Salinity affects approximately 30% of
the world's irrigated land, with this area increasing by about 1-2% annually due to lands affected by salt (FAO,
2018). Excessive concentrations of Na+ in the soil cause irreversible nutrient imbalances, inhibit growth, and
can even lead to plant death, with the extent of damage depending on the salt concentration and the specific
tolerance of the plants (Shrivastava and Kumar, 2015). Fenugreek can also be cultivated on lands with slight to
moderate salinity. Specific traits can be used as criteria to identify fenugreek cultivars that are tolerant to salt
stress Banakar et al. (2022).
Roots are vital for absorbing soil nutrients. Root exudates play a crucial role in the conversion and
efficient use of nutrients by plants. Plant roots can modify the chemical, physical, and biological properties of
the rhizosphere through the release of organic acid anions, protons, signaling molecules, and other compounds
(Marschner, 2012). Additionally, plants can regulate the morphological characteristics of their roots to adapt
to changing soil environmental conditions. All these processes influence the nutrient use efficiency of plants
(Calleja-Cabrera, 2020).
There are various ways to enhance nutrient use efficiency, including root system traits (e.g., genetics,
root architecture). Research by Zhang et al. (2010) and Shen et al. (2013) demonstrated how maximizing the
root zone can provide a unique opportunity to increase crop productivity, improve nutrient use efficiency, and
minimize environmental impacts.
Roots determine the ability of crops to explore and exploit soil resources (water and nutrients). Thus,
they are key targets for breeding programs aimed at improving yield stability, resource use efficiency, and
resilience to environmental stresses (Hammer et al., 2009, Siddique et al., 2015; Duncan et al., 2018).
Enhancing root systems can be a promising strategy, particularly in the context of sustainable intensification
(Collette et al., 2011), low-input agriculture (including organic farming), and climate change resilience.
Additionally, a substantial body of literature confirms the essential role of the abundant and diverse
bacteria in the rhizosphere in plant growth and adaptation to extreme conditions (Kalam et al., 2022). This
presents opportunities to improve stress resilience and crop productivity by developing and applying
appropriate biofertilizers. However, their formulation must consider the positive interactions between
rhizobacteria and mycorrhizal fungi (Jabborova et al., 2021). Biofertilizers are recognized as a sustainable tool
for agriculture, particularly for enhancing plants' ability to cope with adverse environmental conditions (Sahoo
et al., 2012).
The natural fertility of soil and soil structure affects its ability to resist degradation processes such as
compaction and erosion in the context of land management. This study aims to investigate the effects of
fertilization and salinity on soil physical properties and root system development in a fenugreek crop. In
particular, it seeks to understand how different fertilizers affect soil porosity and soil organic matter. It will also
examine the effects of salinity on soil characteristics. The study will evaluate how the type of fertilizer applied
affects the growth and morphology of fenugreek plant root systems, and how soil salinity affects the
distribution and density of fenugreek roots. Finally, the relationships between physical soil properties and
fenugreek root development will be investigated.
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
4
Materials and Methods
Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods
Materials and Methods
Location and Experimental Design
Fenugreek cultivation experiments were conducted in the experimental field of the Agricultural
University of Athens, Agronomy Laboratory (experimental field of arable crops) (37°59'02.1 "N 23°42'08.4 "E
and altitude 28.04 m) for three consecutive growing seasons. The first growing season of the experiment was
2019-2020 (1
st
GS) followed by 2020-2021 (2
nd
GS). One variety of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum)
was cultivated throughout the experiment. The previous crop was organic tobacco with green manuring of
vetch. The total precipitation was 217.89 mm in 1
st
GS, and 309.00 mm in 2
nd
GS.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.Figure 1.
Figure 1. Meteorological data at experimental area for the growing seasons 2019-2020 and 2020-2021
The soil pH is characterized as clay loam (CL), slightly alkaline and with a satisfactory organic matter
content (2.37 %). The CaCO
3
was 29.9%, and the N, P, K were 101.3 ppm, 20.3 ppm and 235 ppm respectively.
The experimental design was split plot design. In total, there were 15 large experimental units where the
2 main salinity treatments (High salinity; HS & Conventional salinity; CS) and 30 small plots with the 5
fertilization treatments (biocyclic-vegan (BHS), manure (FYM), compost (COMP), inorganic fertilization
(11-15-15) and the control (C) in three blocks. Sowing for the experiment was done manually with a row
spacing of 30 cm. The seeding rate was 30 kg ha
-1
. The treatment of salinity was carried out 1 week after sowing.
The quantity of 200 kg ha
-1
NaCl was applied on the surface of the large experimental units. The CS plots
received zero amount of NaCl.
For the treatment of fertilization, biocyclic-vegan (BHS), manure (FYM), compost (COMP), inorganic
fertilizer (11-15-15) and the control. Fertilizer rates were applied to be the same units of nitrogen per treatment
and was it 110 kg Ν ha
−1
.
Biocyclic Humus Soil is recommended as a substitute for manure or other animal-based fertilizers for
producers following the Biocyclic Vegan Standard. The applied amount of BHS was 3.928 tons per hectare. It
contained 46.3 g of organic matter per 100 g, 2.8 g of nitrogen per 100 g, and had a pH of 7.6. The compost
was a commercial preparation, with an application rate of 9.166-ton ha
-1
. The composition of the compost was
70% compost, 15% black peat, organic materials, 10% perlite, and 5% soil, with a pH of 5.5 - 6.8 and 1.2%
nitrogen.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mean precipitation (mm)
Mean temperature (ºC)
Growing season
Growing seasonGrowing season
Growing season
Mean temperature (ºC) 1st GS
Mean temperature (ºC) 2nd GS
Mean precipitation (mm) 1st GS
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
5
The applied FYM came from the stables of the Agricultural University of Athens and the applied
amount was 6.875-ton ha
-1
. The physico-chemical composition of the manure was pH 7.39, total Ν 1.60%, P
(Olsen) 8.9 ppm, and organic C 4.4%. The applied amount of NPK was 1 ton ha
-1
.
During the two growing seasons (GS), the soil treatment remained consistent. Immediately after the
previous crop, primary tillage was performed using a cultivator, with the main goal of restructuring the soil's
porosity. For soil preparation prior to sowing, light tillage was carried out with a rotary tiller. Weeds were
managed as needed through manual hoeing. There was no irrigation applied.
Sampling and methods
Soil samples
Soil samples were taken from the 0-25 cm soil layer. The total nitrogen in the soil was measured
according to ISO 11261:1995 protocol (ISO, 1995). Cation exchange capacity was determined following
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11260 (ISO, 1994). Electrical conductivity was
determined in a soil water extract according to ISO 11265:1994 standard. Organic matter was calculated using
the Walkley and Black method (1934). The total porosity (St) of soil was estimated from the following
equation (Flint and Flint, 2002): St (%) = (1-Db/Dp) where: St – total pore spaces, Dp – particle density (2.5
g cm
-3
), Db – soil bulk density
For each plot, soil bulk density was determined by taking undisturbed soil cores with 100 cm
3
cylinders
from a depth of 0-10 cm. Three samples of 100 cm
3
per plot were taken at 100 DAS. The undisturbed samples
were finally oven-dried at 100 °C for 24 h to obtain soil dry mass and the soil bulk density was calculated as
follows: Db = dry mass (g)/100 cm
3
.
Root samples
Root samples were taken from the 0-30 cm soil layer using a cylindrical auger (25 cm in length and 10
cm in diameter) at the midpoint between consecutive plants within a row. Three samples were analyzed per
plot at 90, 110, and 130 DAS. Firstly, every sample, the roots were separated from the soil after being soaked in
a solution of water + (NaPO
3
)
6
+ Na
2
CO
3
for 36 h and then decanted into a 0.1% trypan blue FAA staining
solution (a mixture of 10% formalin, 50% ethanol and 5% acetic acid solutions). The number of nodules were
recorded (No 100 cm
-3
). For the determination of Root density (mm
2
of root 100 cm
−3
soil), Mean root
diameter (mm of root 100 cm
−3
soil), as well as root volume (ml of root 100 cm
−3
soil) and Root length (mm
100 cm
−3
soil) the root samples were placed on a high-resolution scanner. Then, the digital images of the root
were investigated by DT software.
Vegetation and yield measurements
The number of plants that had sprouted from the soil was measured in 40 plots of land. The
measurement was conducted using quadrats of 0.25 m. The Leaf Area Index (LAI) was measured using an
automatic leaf area meter (Delta-T Devices Ltd., Cambridge, UK) at 110 DAS. The seed yield (kg ha
−1
) and
the weight of 1000 seeds (g) were measured on the day of the harvest. Each plot was harvested at full seed
maturity (seed moisture was at 14%) and the harvest was conducted by hand.
Statistical analysis
The experimental data were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) across all years. Additionally,
homogeneous groups of means were formed using Tukey's method, as the experiment is factorial. For the
homogeneous groups, the null hypothesis of equality of means within them was not rejected. The ANOVA
analysis was conducted using Sigma Plot (ver. 10; Systat Software Inc., CA, USA). Finally, the Pearson
correlation coefficient (PCC) was calculated using the R software. All analyses were performed at a significance
level of α = 0.05 (5%).
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
6
Results
ResultsResults
Results
The factor that significantly affected soil total nitrogen was fertilization (p <= 0.001), and the
interaction between fertilization and salinity (p <= 0.01) for the 1
st
and 2
nd
GS. The maximum soil nitrogen
value was recorded in the BHS intervention (2.45 ± 0.06 mg g-1), and the minimum in the C intervention
(1.13 ± 0.06 mg g
-1
) (Table 1). For the 2
nd
GS, the factor that significantly affected soil nitrogen was fertilization
(p <= 0.001), and the interaction between fertilization and salinity (p <= 0.05). FYM (2.34 ± 0.07 mg g
-1
) gave
8.51% less soil nitrogen compared to BHS, while NPK (2.17 ± 0.07 mg g
-1
) and COMP (2.10 ± 0.07 mg g
-1
)
gave 17.51% and 21.43% less, respectively.
Table 1.
Table 1.Table 1.
Table 1. Two-way ANOVA analysis of the fertilization (BHS: Biocyclic Humus Soil, COMP: compost,
C: control, FYM: farm yard manure, NPK: 11-15-15) and salinity levels (CS: conventional salinity, HS:
high salinity) effect on soil total nitrogen (STN), Cation exchange capacity (CEC), electrical conductivity
(EC), porosity and organic matter (OM)
STN
STNSTN
STN
CEC
CECCEC
CEC
EC
ECEC
EC
Porosity
PorosityPorosity
Porosity
OM
OMOM
OM
1st GS
Fertilization
BHS 2.45a 20.00a 2.38b 45.87a 3.77a
COMP
1.74c
18.67b
2.44b
3.40a
C 1.14d 15.67d 2.08c 42.07b 2.73b
FYM
2.25b
18.33b
2.42b
3.50a
NPK 2.08b 17.33c 3.12a 41.09b 2.43b
Salinity CS 2.03a 18.27a 1.46b 44.95a 3.19a
HS 1.83a 17.73a 3.52a 43.027b 3.14a
ANOVA
Df
F
F
F
Salinity 1 ns ns 248.88** 42.91* ns
Fertilization
4
131.71***
53.71***
44.17***
76.72***
26.81***
Fertilization * Salinity 4 6.35** ns 12.29*** ns ns
2nd GS
Fertilization
BHS 2.55a 19.83a 2.39b 52.90a 4.35a
COMP
2.11c
18.33b
2.45b
3.93a
C 1.27d 15.67d 2.08c 48.52b 3.15b
FYM
18.33b
2.43b
4.04a
NPK 2.17bc 17.33c 3.13a 47.38b 2.81b
Salinity CS 2.22a 18.27a 3.55a 51.85a 3.68a
HS 1.96a 17.53a 1.44b 49.63b 3.62a
ANOVA
Df
F
F
F
Salinity 1 ns Ns 258.61** 39.22* ns
Fertilization
4
96.51***
51.39***
44.17***
65.18***
26.06***
Fertilization * Salinity
4
3.10*
ns
12.29***
ns
ns
Error 16
Total
29
The F-test indicators are from the ANOVA. Different letters (a, b, c, and d) within a column indicate significant
differences according to the Tukey test. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ns: not significant (p
> 0.05).
For the 1
st
GS, COMP (18.66 ± 0.31) and FYM (18.33 ± 0.31) had 7.18% and 9.11% less CEC
compared to BHS, while NPK (17.33 ± 0.31) had 15.41% less. For the 2
nd
GS, the maximum CEC value was
recorded in the BHS intervention (19.83 ± 0.30) and the minimum in the C intervention (15.66 ± 0.30).
COMP (18.33 ± 0.30) and FYM (18.33 ± 0.30) gave 8.18% less CEC compared to BHS, while NPK (17.33 ±
0.30) gave 14.43% less.
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
7
Moreover, in 1
st
GS, soil porosity was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.05) and
fertilization (p<=0.001). With HS, soil porosity was 43.02±0.29%, while in the CS, it was 44.95±0.29%. The
maximum value for soil porosity was recorded in the BHS and FYM treatments (45.87±0.36%), and the
minimum was in the NPK (41.08±0.36%). For the 2
nd
GS, soil porosity was also significantly influenced by
salinity (p<=0.05) and fertilization (p<=0.001). With HS, soil porosity was 49.62±0.35%, while in CS it was
51.84±0.35% (Table 1). The maximum value for soil porosity was noted in the FYM treatment
(52.92±0.45%), and the minimum in the COMP treatment (47.38±0.45%).
Additionally, for both the 1
st
and 2
nd
GS, organic matter was significantly affected by fertilization
(p<=0.001), with no significant differences observed between C and NPK treatments. For the 1st GS, the
maximum value for organic matter was documented in the BHS treatment (3.76±0.15%), and the minimum
in the NPK treatment (2.43±0.15%). For the 2nd GS, the maximum value for organic matter was observed in
the BHS treatment (4.34±0.17%), and the minimum in the COMP treatment (2.80±0.17%).
In Table 2 is presented that throughout the growth stages (90, 110, and 130 DAS) for both crop cycles (1
st
and 2
nd
GS), root density was statistically significantly affected by the fertilization factor (p<=0.001). For the 1
st
GS at 90 DAS, the
FYM (4294.80±214.05 mm
2
) and NPK (3941.70±214.05 mm
2
) resulted in 3.33% and 12.59% smaller root density
compared to BHS, while COMP (3482.70±214.05 mm
2
) resulted in a 27.42% smaller area. In the same year, at 130 DAS,
the maximum root density was documented in the BHS treatment (4247.7±218.6 mm
2
) and the minimum in the C
treatment (2144.9±218.6 mm
2
). FYM (4171.3±218.6 mm
2
) and NPK (3826.7±218.6 mm
2
) resulted in reduced root
density by 1.83% and 11% respectively compared to BHS.
Table 2.
Table 2.Table 2.
Table 2. Two-way ANOVA analysis of the fertilization (BHS: Biocyclic humus soil, COMP: compost, C:
control, FYM: farm yard manure, NPK: 11-15-15) and salinity levels (CS: conventional salinity, HS: high
salinity) effect on root density and mean root diameter at 90, 110 and 130 DAS
Root d ensity
Root d ensity Root d ensity
Root d ensity
90 DA S
90 DA S90 DA S
90 DA S
Root d ensity
Root d ensity Root d ensity
Root d ensity
110 D AS
110 D AS1 10 DAS
110 D AS
Root d ensity
Root d ensity Root d ensity
Root d ensity
130 D AS
130 D AS1 30 DAS
130 D AS
Mean root
Mean root Mean root
Mean root
diamet er 90
diamet er 90 diamet er 90
diamet er 90
DAS
DASDAS
DAS
Mean root
Mean root M ean root
Mean root
diamet er 110
diamet er 110 diam eter 110
diamet er 110
DAS
DASDAS
DAS
Mean
Mean Mea n
Mean
root
root root
root
diamet er 130
diamet er 130 diam eter 130
diamet er 130
DAS
DASDAS
DAS
1st GS
Fertilization
BHS
4437.80a
4340.50a
4247.70a
3.14a
3.08a
3.04a
COMP 3482.70b 3435.00b 3361.30b 2.62a 2.57a 2.54a
C
2208.40c
2175.50c
2144.90c
1.66b
1.64b
1.61b
FYM
4294.80a
4232.70a
4171.30a
2.41ab
2.37ab
2.34ab
NPK 3941.70ab 3892.60ab 3826.70ab 2.54a 2.49ab 2.46a
Salinity CS 3736.00a 3686.30a 3625.30a 2.52a 2.47a 2.45a
HS
3610.20a
3544.20a
3475.40a
2.43a
2.38a
2.35a
ANOVA
Df
Salinity 1 ns ns ns ns ns n s
Fertilization 4 35. 19*** 32.29*** 30.96*** 6.86** 6.85** 6.96**
Fertilization *
Salinity 4 ns ns ns ns ns n s
2nd GS
Fertilization
BHS 4813.10a 4715.20a 4612.40a 3.64a 3.55a 3.4 9a
COMP
3758.10b
3678.10b
3727.70b
3.04a
2.97a
2.92a
C
2393.60c
2365.30c
2332.70c
1.93b
1.88b
1.86b
FYM
4659.00a
4596.00a
4538.70a
2.80ab
2.73ab
2.68ab
NPK 4290.10ab 4198.60ab 4177.60ab 2.95a 2.87ab 2.83a
Salinity CS 4057.80a 3982.40a 3959.70a 2.93a 2.85a 2.82a
HS
3907.80a
3838.80a
3795.90a
2.82a
2.76a
2.69a
ANOVA D f
Salinity 1 ns ns ns ns ns n s
Fertilization 4 29. 46*** 30.74*** 32.15*** 6.80** 6.69** 7.07**
Fertilization *
Salinity
4 ns ns ns ns ns ns
Error 1 6
Total
29
The F-test indicators are from the ANOVA. Different letters (a, b, c, and d) within a column indicate significant differences according
to the Tukey test. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ns: not significant (p > 0.05).
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
8
For the 2nd GS, at 90 DAS, FYM (4659.00±254.52 mm
2
) and NPK (4290.1±254.52 mm
2
) led to
3.31% and 12.19% smaller root density compared to BHS, while COMP (3758.1±254.52 mm
2
) resulted in a
28.07% smaller area. At 110 DAS, FYM (4596±243.39 mm
2
) and NPK (4198.6±243.39 mm
2
) resulted in
reduced root density by 2.59% and 12.30% respectively compared to BHS. At 130 DAS, the maximum root
density was noted in the BHS (4612.4±232.5 mm
2
) and the minimum in the C (2332.7±232.5 mm
2
). FYM
(4538.7±232.5 mm
2
) and NPK (4177.6±232.5 mm
2
) resulted in reduced root density by 1.62% and 10.41%
respectively compared to BHS, while COMP (3727.7±232.5 mm
2
) resulted in a 13.73% smaller area (Table
2).
Mean root diameter was statistically significantly affected by fertilization (p<=0.01) throughout the
growth stages (90, 110, and 130 DAS) for both growing seasons. For the 1st GS at 90 DAS, the maximum mean
root diameter was registered in the BHS treatment (3.14±0.28 mm) and the minimum in the C (1.66±0.28
mm). COMP (2.62±0.28 mm) and NPK (2.54±0.28 mm) resulted in 19.85% and 23.62% smaller mean root
diameter respectively compared to BHS. At 110 DAS, BHS and COMP, as well as COMP with FYM, did not
show statistically significant differences between them. The maximum mean root diameter was observed in the
BHS treatment (3.08±0.28 mm) and the minimum in the C treatment (1.63±0.28 mm). COMP (2.57±0.28
mm) and NPK (2.49±0.28 mm) resulted in 19.84% and 23.69% smaller mean root diameter respectively
compared to BHS. For the 2nd GS, at 90 DAS, the maximum mean root diameter was recorded in the BHS
treatment (3.64±0.33 mm) and the minimum in the C treatment (1.93±0.33 mm). At 130 DAS, the
maximum mean diameter was noted in the BHS treatment (3.49±0.31 mm) and the minimum in the C
treatment (1.86±0.31 mm). COMP (2.92±0.31 mm) and NPK (2.83±0.31 mm) resulted in 19.52% and
23.32% smaller root diameter respectively compared to BHS, while FYM (2.68±0.31 mm) resulted in a 30.22%
smaller diameter (Table 2).
The root volume was significantly influenced both by fertilization (p<=0.001) and salinity (p<=0.05)
for both cropping periods. The root volume was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.05)
and fertilization (p<=0.001) (Table 3). For the 1st GS, at 90 DAS, HS (14.39±0.20 ml) resulted in 7.51% less
root volume compared to CS treatments (15.47±0.20 ml). At 110 DAS, BHS and FYM did not show a
statistically significant difference between them, while the differences among the rest were evaluated as
statistically significant. FYM (17.68±0.31 ml) had only 0.23% less root volume compared to BHS, while
COMP (15.53±0.31 ml) and NPK (13.94±0.31 ml) had 14.10% and 27.12% less, respectively. The same year,
at 130 DAS, HS (13.96±0.21 ml) resulted in a reduced root volume by 7.59% compared to CS treatments
(15.02±0.21 ml).
For the 2nd GS, at 90 DAS, HS (16.66±0.23 ml) decreased the root volume by 7.44% compared to CS
treatments (17.90±0.23 ml). BHS and FYM did not show a statistically significant difference between them.
The same year, at 130 DAS, HS (16.09±0.26 ml) led to a reduced root volume by 2.90% compared to CS
treatments (17.32±0.26 ml). FYM (20.10±0.35 ml) resulted in only 0.20% less root volume compared to BHS
(Table 3).
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
9
Table 3.
Table 3.Table 3.
Table 3. Two-way ANOVA analysis of the fertilization (BHS: Biocyclic Humus Soil, COMP: compost,
C: control, FYM: farm yard manure, NPK: 11-15-15) and salinity levels (CS: conventional salinity, HS:
high salinity) effect on root volume at 90, 110 and 130 DAS
Root volume 90 DAS
Root volume 90 DASRoot volume 90 DAS
Root volume 90 DAS
Root volume 110 DAS
Root volume 110 DASRoot volume 110 DAS
Root volume 110 DAS
Root volume 130 DAS
Root volume 130 DASRoot volume 130 DAS
Root volume 130 DAS
1st GS
Fertilization
BHS
COMP 15.78b 15.53b 15.32b
C 8.74d 8.59d 8.47d
FYM 17.97a 17.68a 17.44a
NPK
Salinity CS 15.47a 15.22a 15.02a
HS
14.39b
14.16b
13.97b
ANOVA
Df
Salinity 1 28.85* 28.32* 24.86*
Fertilization
4
263.23***
279.98***
300.43***
Fertilization * Salinity 4 8.23*** 8.90*** 9.37***
2nd GS
Fertilization
BHS 20.82a 20.43a 20.14a
COMP
18.26b
17.90b
17.65b
C 10.12d 9.89d 9.76d
FYM
NPK 16.43c 16.04c 15.87c
Salinity CS 17.90a 17.54a 17.32a
HS 16.66b 16.32b 16.09b
ANOVA
Df
Salinity 1 28.96* 31.91* 20.96*
Fertilization
4
211.28***
226.32***
291.38***
Fertilization * Salinity 4 6.51** 7.36** 9.03***
Error 16
Total 29
Table 4 presents the data for the 1st GS at 90 DAS, showing that root length was statistically
significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.005) and fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (1884.00±20 mm) resulted
in a 28.66% decrease in root length compared to CS treatments (2423.9±20 mm). The maximum root length
was observed in FYM treatment (2465.50±43.46 mm), and the minimum in the control (C) (1818.60±43.46
mm). At 110 DAS, root length was also significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.001) and fertilization
(p<=0.001). HS (1855.50±15.85 mm) led to a 38.78% shorter root length compared to CS treatments
(2575±15.85 mm). BHS (2188±12.06 mm) and NPK (2140.1±12.06 mm) resulted in 31.67% and 34.62%
shorter root length, respectively, compared to FYM, while COMP (2100.9±12.06 mm) led to a 37.08%
decrease.
For the 2
nd
GS, root length at 90 DAS was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.01)
and fertilization (p<=0.001). Similarly, at 110 DAS. HS (2165.10±35.35 mm) resulted in plants with roots
38.90% shorter compared to CS treatments (3007.40±35.35 mm). BHS (2554.4±26.88 mm) and NPK
(2498.3±26.88 mm) resulted in 31.77% and 34.73% shorter root length, respectively, compared to FYM. At
130 DAS, root length was affected by both salinity (p<=0.01) and fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (2140.1±39.00
mm) led to a 38.23% decrease in root length compared to CS treatments (2970.7±39,00 mm). BHS
(2524±29,66 mm) and NPK (2468,7±29,66 mm) resulted in 31.71% and 34.66% shorter root length,
respectively, compared to FYM, while COMP (2423,4±29,66 mm) led to a 37.18% decrease.
In Table 4, for both the 1st and 2nd GS, the number of nodules was statistically significantly influenced
by both salinity (p<=0.05) and fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (63.46±1.34) resulted in plants with 13.73%
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
10
fewer nodules on their roots compared to CS treatments (72.17±1.34). BHS and COMP did not show any
difference between them. At 130 DAS, it was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.05) and
fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (59.78±2.65) resulted in 20.02% fewer nodules on plant roots compared to CS
treatments (71.75±2.65). The maximum number of nodules was recorded in the FYM treatment
(68.93±0.77).
At 110 DAS of 2nd GS, COMP (79.57±0.96) and BHS (79.38±0.96) resulted in plants with 1.41%
and 1.65% fewer nodules on their roots compared to FYM, while NPK (76.40±0.96) resulted in 5.60% fewer
nodules. At 130 DAS, the factor that statistically significantly affected the number of nodules was fertilization
(p<=0.001). COMP (78.38±0.83) and BHS (78.19±0.83) resulted in 1.17% and 1.42% fewer nodules on
plant roots compared to FYM, while NPK (75.30±0.83) resulted in 5.31% fewer.
Table 4.
Table 4.Table 4.
Table 4. Two-way ANOVA analysis of the fertilization (BHS: Biocyclic Humus Soil, COMP: compost,
C: control, FYM: farm yard manure, NPK: 11-15-15) and salinity levels (CS: conventional salinity, HS:
high salinity) effect on root length and nodules number at 90, 110 and 130 DAS
Root
Root Root
Root
length
length length
length
90 DAS
90 DAS90 DAS
90 DAS
Root
Root Root
Root
length 110
length 110 length 110
length 110
DAS
DASDAS
DAS
Root
Root Root
Root
length 130
length 130 length 130
length 130
DAS
DASDAS
DAS
Nodules
Nodules Nodules
Nodules
number
number number
number
90 DAS
90 DAS90 DAS
90 DAS
Nodules
Nodules Nodules
Nodules
number
number number
number
110 DAS
110 DAS110 DAS
110 DAS
Nodules
Nodules Nodules
Nodules
number
number number
number
130 DAS
130 DAS130 DAS
130 DAS
1st GS
Fertilization
BHS 2186.00b 2216.90b 2188.00b 70.04ab 68.78a 67.81a
COMP 2163.10b 2128.50d 2100.90d 70.04ab 68.94a 67.97a
C 1818.60c 1788.70e 1765.90e 60.08c 59.58c 58.81c
FYM 2465.50a 2920.00a 2881.20a 71.21a 69.92a 68.93a
NPK 2136.70b 2168.30c 2140.10c 67.72b 66.20b 65.31b
Salinity
CS
2423.90a
2609.40a
2575.00a
HS 1884.00b 1879.60b 1855.50b 63.47b 61.62a 59.78b
ANOVA Df
Salinity 1 728.70** 2072.35*** 2058.94*** 41.67* ns 20.27*
Fertilization 4 55.83*** 2300.33*** 2285.45*** 44.61*** 52.33*** 56.91***
Fertilization *
Salinity 4 29.22*** 1844.37*** 1832.43*** 3.09* 4.15* 4.07*
2nd GS
Fertilization
BHS
2604.70b
2554.40b
2524.00b
80.88ab
COMP 2501.30c 2452.40c 2423.40c 80.88ab 79.57a 78.38a
C 2104.00d 2060.30d 2036.60d 69.35c 68.77c 67.86c
FYM 2926.80a 3365.90a 3324.30a 82.22a 80.69a 79.48a
NPK
2547.80c
2498.30bc
2468.70bc
78.17b
76.41b
75.30b
Salinity CS 2863.60a 3007.40a 2970.70a 83.28a 82.82a 82.82a
HS
2210.30b
2165.10b
2140.10b
73.32b
ANOVA Df
Salinity 1 923.36** 567.61** 453.52** 59.84* ns ns
Fertilization 4 645.70*** 630.05*** 503.41*** 41.59*** 50.43*** 64.24***
Fertilization *
Salinity 4 454.67*** 505.16*** 403.63*** ns 3.98* 4.47*
Error
16
Total 29
The F-test indicators are from the ANOVA. Different letters (a, b, c, and d) within a column indicate significant
differences according to the Tukey test. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ns: not significant (p
> 0.05).
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
11
For both the 1
st
and 2
nd
GS, plant emergence in 40 DAS plots was statistically significantly affected by
fertilization (p<=0.001). Fertilization treatments showed statistically significant differences compared to the
C, however, the differences between them were not evaluated as statistically significant (Table 5).
The maximum seed yield was recorded in FYM (2013.5 ± 100.13 kg ha
-1
) and the minimum in C
(1168.4 ± 100.13 kg ha
-1
) for the 1st GS. NPK (1866.8 ± 100.13 kg ha
-1
) yielded 7.86% less seed compared to
FYM, while COMP (1750.5 ± 100.13 kg ha
-1
) and BHS (1721.8 ± 100.13 kg ha
-1
) yielded 15.02% and 16.94%
less, respectively. For the 2
nd
GS, the maximum seed yield was observed in the BHS intervention (2101.6 ±
68.06 kg ha
-1
) and the minimum in the C intervention (1300.9 ± 68.06 kg ha
-1
). BHS and FYM (1994.4 ±
68.06 kg ha
-1
) did not differ significantly in seed yield.
The TSW was statistically significantly affected by the fertilization (p<=0.001). For the 1
st
GS, the TSW
reached its maximum value in the BHS treatment (17.00±0.33g), and its minimum in the C (9.87±0.33g).
FYM (16.00±0.33g) resulted in 6.25% lower weight compared to BHS, while NPK (15.09±0.33g) and COMP
(13.40±0.33g) yielded 12.66% and 26.87% lower, respectively. For the 2nd GS, the highest TWS was recorded
in the BHS intervention (17.71±0.47g), and the lowest in the C intervention (11.85±0.47g). FYM
(16.91±0.47g) resulted in 4.73% lower weight compared to BHS, while NPK (15.71±0.47g) and COMP
(15.18±0.47g) yielded 12.73% and 16.67% lower, respectively (Table 5).
Table 5.
Table 5.Table 5.
Table 5. Two-way ANOVA analysis of the fertilization (BHS: Biocyclic humus soil, COMP: compost, C:
control, FYM: farm yard manure, NPK: 11-15-15) and salinity levels (CS: conventional salinity, HS: high
salinity) effect on plant emergence, seed yield and thousand seed weight (TSW)
Plant emergence
Plant emergencePlant emergence
Plant emergence
Seed yield
Seed yieldSeed yield
Seed yield
TSW
TSWTSW
TSW
1st GS
Fertilization
BHS 107.83a 1721.80a 17.01a
COMP
105.50a
1750.50a
C 97.83b 1168.40b 9.87d
FYM 106.50a 2013.50a 16.01ab
NPK 109.67a 1866.80a 15.09b
Salinity CS 106.07a 1912.20a 14.79a
HS 104.87a 1496.20a 13.76a
ANOVA
Df
F
F
Salinity 1 ns ns ns
Fertilization 4 16.65*** 20.60*** 141.49***
Fertilization * Salinity 4 ns ns ns
2nd GS
Fertilization
BHS 134.33a 2101.60a 17.72a
COMP
130.33a
1655.60c
C 116.33 b 1300.90d 11.85d
FYM 134.50a 1994.40ab 16.92ab
NPK 130.33a 1813.60bc 15.72bc
Salinity CS 128.07a 1749.50a 15.77a
HS 130.27a 1796.90a 15.18a
ANOVA
Df
F
F
Salinity 1 ns ns ns
Fertilization 4 22.04*** 42.66*** 46.05***
Fertilization *
Salinity
4
ns
ns
ns
Error 16
Total 29
The F-test indicators are from the ANOVA. Different letters (a, b, c, and d) within a column indicate significant
differences according to the Tukey test. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ns: not significant (p
> 0.05).
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
12
Discussion
DiscussionDiscussion
Discussion
The application of BHS has been shown to offer a wide range of advantages for the development of
fenugreek root systems and soil improvement. The same beneficial properties of BHS have been observed in
sweet potato cultivation (Eisenbach et al., 2018) and industrial tomato production (Eisenbach et al., 2019;
Kakabouki et al., 2021).
The porosity of the soil was statistically significantly affected by both salinity and fertilization. Salinity
led to reduced porosity through the formation of aggregates, connecting soil particles with each other, thus
reducing the total pore space, and limiting water movement (Głąb, 2014; Pessarakli et al., 2019). Organic
fertilization may contribute to increasing soil organic matter content (Brady and Weil, 2016). This result is
consistent with the findings of this study. Organic matter plays a crucial role in maintaining soil structure and
porosity by promoting the stability of aggregates (Evanylo et al., 2008). This is also inferred from our
experiment as a significant positive correlation was noted between organic matter and porosity (r=0.72,
p<=0.001) (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.Figure 2.
Figure 2. Pearson's correlation matrix with r and p-values between soil and root characteristics
Conversely, inorganic fertilizers when used excessively may contribute to soil compaction, which can
reduce soil porosity. Additionally, organic fertilizers BHS, FYM, and COMP did not differ statistically among
themselves.
However, this effect is often associated with inappropriate management practices (Brady and Weil,
2016). Changes in soil porosity can affect plant root growth and water uptake (Głąb, 2014; Singh et al., 2020).
Understanding the combined effects is vital for predicting plant responses to soil conditions (Efthimiadou et
al., 2010; Marschner, 2012).
The STN was statistically significantly affected by the type of fertilization. The highest STN was
recorded with BHS. Due to the stability of BHS and its resistance to nutrient leaching, the risk of
overfertilization is virtually eliminated, even with the application of high rates. Consequently, BHS could play
an important role in addressing the current global nitrogen challenge (Anders and Eisenbach, 2017).
Furthermore, Singh (2005) and Jani et al. (2015) demonstrated that the presence and decomposition of legume
roots have little positive effect on soil nitrogen increase. Therefore, the presence of fenugreek roots in the soil
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
13
after seed harvesting may have a positive effect on soil nitrogen increase. STN shows a positive correlation with
LAI (r=0.58, p<=0.001) and soil organic matter (r=0.62, p<=0.001).
Organic matter was statistically significantly affected by fertilization in fenugreek culture. This was
confirmed in a multitude of crops (Galantini and Rosell, 2006; Plaza et al., 2016; Šimanský et al., 2019; Balík
et al., 2022) Biological fertilization and in particular BHS fertilization gave the highest organic matter values.
This is confirmed by several studies, which claimed that biological amendments promote better plant growth,
which can be linked to improved root development and more efficient use of water and nutrients (Chen and
Aviad, 1990; Oleńska et al., 2020; Elnahal et al., 2022).
Root density was statistically significantly affected by the type of fertilization in fenugreek cultivation,
with greater root density observed with organic fertilizers. This conclusion is confirmed in alfalfa cultivation
(Vasileva and Kostov, 2015). This can be explained by the fact that organic fertilizers can improve soil structure
and nutrient content, creating a more favorable environment for root growth (Kopke et al., 2015; Olmo et al.,
2016). Additionally, organic fertilization contributes to the development of beneficial microbial communities
in the soil, which can improve nutrient availability to plants and positively influence root density (Eghball and
Power, 1999; Zhang et al., 2019). This is confirmed in our experiment as root density showed a high positive
correlation with soil nitrogen (r=0.84, p<=0.001) (Figure 2). On the other hand, when applied judiciously,
inorganic fertilizers provide specific nutrients necessary for root growth and overall plant development (Sinha
and Tandon, 2020). The root density in fenugreek cultivation showed a moderate to low positive correlation
with soil porosity and soil organic matter (r=0.33 and r=0.42 respectively, p<=0.001).
Environmental stressors, such as nutrient deficiencies or salinity, can influence root morphology (Vadez
et al., 2007). Measuring the mean root diameter allows researchers to assess how plants respond to these
stressors and adjust their cultivation practices accordingly (Fageria and Moreira, 2011; Parkash, 2020). In our
experiment, the mean diameter of fenugreek roots was larger with organic fertilizers compared to inorganic
ones, specifically with BHS. It is noteworthy that the mean root diameter of fenugreek roots was not affected
by high salinity. Therefore, fenugreek cultivation can develop a healthy root system even in soils with high
salinity. The root diameter of fenugreek roots showed a moderate positive correlation with soil nitrogen and
soil organic matter (r=0.60 and r=0.37 respectively, p<=0.001).
Root volume is a key indicator of a plant's root system spatial extent, affecting its ability to access
nutrients and water in the soil (Lynch, 2013). In our experiment, root volume in fenugreek cultivation was
significantly influenced by fertilization and salinity. High salinity led to a reduction in root volume. This result
is consistent with Munns (2002) and Flowers and Colmer (2008), who demonstrated that high soil salinity
can decrease root volume due to osmotic stress and hindered water uptake, affecting root growth and
development. Changes induced by salinity in root morphology, such as reduced root length and branching,
contribute to an overall decrease in root volume (Zhu, 2002; Munns and Tester, 2008). In our experiment,
root volume in fenugreek cultivation was larger under organic fertilization. This conclusion arises because
organic fertilization enhances root volume by shaping the spatial distribution of the rhizosphere and promoting
microbial interactions and nutrient recycling in the soil, providing a rich substrate for microbial growth and
activity (Windisch et al., 2021; Biswas and Kole, 2017). Additionally, root volume showed a positive
correlation with BHS (r=0.73, p<=0.001).
Root length was significantly affected by both salinity and fertilization in fenugreek cultivation. High
soil salinity negatively impacted the root length of fenugreek plants. This finding aligns with Benmoussa et al.
(2022) in bean cultivation. High salinity induces ionic toxicity, limiting water uptake and causing cellular
damage, ultimately resulting in reduced root elongation (Munns, 2002; Flowers and Colmer, 2008). In
contrast, organic fertilizers significantly promoted root length in fenugreek cultivation by improving nutrient
availability, enhancing nutrient uptake efficiency, and overall plant health, contributing to increased root
length (Dadresan et al., 2015; Saadatian et al., 2017). Additionally, while root length appeared to be influenced
by salinity, it showed a relative correlation with LAI (r=0.38, p<=0.01). This, combined with the observation
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
14
by some researchers that the impairment of root water uptake under high salinity conditions correlates with
plant salt tolerance (Rewald et al., 2011; Ramana et al., 2012), leads us to conclude that fenugreek plants are
moderately tolerant to salinity. Furthermore, Tuncturk (2011) demonstrated that fenugreek plants exhibited
the highest concentration of macro and micronutrients in the roots compared to shoots under saline
conditions.
The number of nodules was significantly affected by salinity in fenugreek cultivation. High soil salinity
led to a decrease in the number of fenugreek nodules (a 20% reduction), as salinity stress inhibits the symbiotic
interaction between rhizobia and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. This conclusion aligns with Raje et al. (2002). In our
experiment, the number of nodules was also significantly influenced by fertilization. Fertilization practices can
affect nitrogen fixation, with imbalanced nutrient levels, especially excessive nitrogen, potentially inhibiting
ozone formation in legume crops, including fenugreek plants (Abd-Alla, 2023). The number of fenugreek root
nodules showed a strong positive correlation with soil nitrogen and TSW (r=0.52 and r=0.41 respectively,
p<=0.01). This finding is consistent with Otieno et al. (2009).
In our experiment, it was demonstrated that fertilization, and not salinity, influenced plant emergence.
The tolerance to salinity is confirmed by Saberali and Moradi (2019). Additionally, adequate moisture is
essential for seed imbibition and initiation of germination (Mehrafarin et al., 2011). Our results align with the
above as the highest number of plants per square meter was noted in the 40 HAS during the 3rd growing period,
following the highest rainfall compared to the other three years. Although the number of plants emerged per
square meter in the 40 HAS was statistically significantly affected by fertilization, no significant differences
were observed between organic and inorganic fertilizers. Furthermore, plant emergence showed a positive
correlation with soil porosity (r=0.77, p<=0.001) and soil organic matter (r=0.46, p<=0.001).
Seed yield in fenugreek was statistically significantly affected only by fertilization. This result is in
agreement with Zandi et al. (2011) who recorded 1300-1468 kg ha
-1
with the highest recorded with most
nitrogen units; in the 2nd GS BHS gave the highest yields. Godara et al. (2012) demonstrated that the
recommended nutrient dose through inorganic fertilizers produced significantly higher yield than organic
manures (vermicompost and poultry FYM). Specifically, application of the recommended dose of nutrients
provided through chemical fertilizers resulted in the highest grain yield (27.75 q/ha).
Conclusions
ConclusionsConclusions
Conclusions
In conclusion, the application of BHS provides significant benefits for fenugreek root system
development and soil improvement, reflecting its advantages observed in other crops. Fertilization practices,
particularly the use of organic fertilizers such as BHS, have a notable impact on soil properties, enhancing soil
porosity, organic matter content, and overall soil structure. These improvements are crucial for maintaining
soil health and promoting robust root growth. Salinity, on the other hand, tends to reduce soil porosity and
root volume, underscoring the importance of managing salinity levels to ensure optimal plant development.
Organic fertilization contributes significantly to soil organic matter and root density, fostering a more favorable
environment for root proliferation and nutrient uptake. Additionally, BHS's stability and resistance to
nutrient leaching make it an effective solution for enhancing soil nitrogen levels and improving overall plant
health. This is particularly important in addressing global nitrogen challenges. The positive correlations
between soil characteristics such as nitrogen content, organic matter, and root traits like density, volume, and
diameter further emphasize the interconnectedness of soil health and plant development. Although fenugreek
was affected by high salinity, we judge that it is quite salinity tolerant and did not affect its yields. Ultimately,
the use of BHS and other organic fertilizers can lead to improved plant emergence and seed yield,
demonstrating their critical role in sustainable agricultural practices and effective soil management.
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
15
Authors’ Contributions
Authors’ ContributionsAuthors’ Contributions
Authors’ Contributions
Conceptualization: AF and DB; Data curation: ΑF and DB; Formal analysis AF and AM; Funding
acquisition; Investigation: AF and KT; Methodology: DB; Project administration: AF; Resources; Software:
AF and IK; Supervision: DB; Validation: IK; Visualization: AF and DB; Writing - original draft: AF, KT, PS,
AM; Writing - review and editing: AF, KT, PS, AM, DB AND IK. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript
Ethical approval
Ethical approvalEthical approval
Ethical approval (for researches involving animals or humans)
Not applicable.
Acknowledgements
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
Conflict of Interests
Conflict of InterestsConflict of Interests
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.
References
ReferencesReferences
References
Abd-Alla MH, Al-Amri SM, El-Enany AWE (2023). Enhancing rhizobium–legume symbiosis and reducing nitrogen
fertilizer use are potential options for mitigating climate change. Agriculture 13(11):2092.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112092
Ahmad N, Riaz S, Ali A, Riaz T (2023). Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum): An overview of food uses and health
benefits. Neglected Plant Foods of South Asia: Exploring and Valorizing Nature to Feed Hunger 453-471.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37077-9_18
Anders A, Eisenbach J (2017). Biocyclic-vegan agriculture. Growing Green International 39:32-34.
Ansari RA, Mahmood I (2017). Optimization of organic and bio-organic fertilizers on soil properties and growth of
pigeon pea. Scientia Horticulturae 226:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.07.033
Badalucco L, Kuikman PJ (2000). Mineralization and immobilization in the rhizosphere. In: The Rhizosphere 175-212.
CRC Press.
Balík J, Kulhánek M, Černý J, Sedlář O, Suran P, Asrade DA (2022). The influence of organic and mineral fertilizers on
the quality of soil organic matter and glomalin content. Agronomy 12(6):1375.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061375
Banakar MH, Amiri H, Ardakani MRS, Ranjbar GH (2022). Susceptibility and tolerance of fenugreek (Trigonella
foenum-graceum L.) to salt stress: Physiological and biochemical inspections. Environmental and Experimental
Botany 194:104748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104748
Benmoussa S, Nouairi I, Rajhi I, Rezgui S, Manai K, Taamali W, ... Mhadhbi H (2022). Growth performance and nitrogen
fixing efficiency of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes in symbiosis with rhizobia under combined salinity and
hypoxia stresses. Agronomy 12(3):606. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030606
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
16
Bilalis D, Roussis I, Fuentes F, Kakabouki I, Travlos I (2017). Organic agriculture and innovative crops under
Mediterranean conditions. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 45(2):323-331.
https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha45210867
Biswas T, Kole SC (2017). Soil organic matter and microbial role in plant productivity and soil fertility. Advances in Soil
Microbiology: Recent Trends and Future Prospects: Volume 2: Soil-Microbe-Plant Interaction 219:238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7380-9_10
Calleja-Cabrera J, Boter M, Oñate-Sánchez L, Pernas M (2020). Root growth adaptation to climate change in crops.
Frontiers in Plant Science 11:523645. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00544
Chirinda N, Olesen JE, Porter JR, Schjønning P (2010). Soil properties, crop production and greenhouse gas emissions
from organic and inorganic fertilizer-based arable cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
139(4):584:594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.10.001
Collette L, Hodgkin T, Kassam AH, Kenmore P (2011). Save and grow: A policymaker’s guide to sustainable
intensification of smallholder crop production. Rome: FAO.
Dadresan M, Chaichi MR, Hosseini MB, Pourbabaie A, Yazdani D, Zandvakili OR (2015). Effect of bio fertilizers on the
growth, productivity and nutrient absorption of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum L.). International Journal
of Agriculture Innovations and Research 3(5):2319-1473.
Duncan EG, O'Sullivan CA, Roper MM, Palta J, Whisson K, Peoples MB (2018). Yield and nitrogen use efficiency of
wheat increased with root length and biomass due to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium interactions. Journal
of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 181(3):364-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201700376
Edberg K (2023). Farming without animals? Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.
Efthimiadou A, Bilalis D, Karkanis A, Froud-Williams B (2010). Combined organic/inorganic fertilization enhance soil
quality and increased yield, photosynthesis and sustainability of sweet maize crop. Australian Journal of Crop
Science 4(9):722-729. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.859484046375351
Eghball B, Power JF (1999). Composted and noncomposted manure application to conventional and notillage systems:
Corn yield and nitrogen uptake. Agronomy Journal 91(5):819-825. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1999.915819x
Eisenbach LD, Folina A, Zisi C, Roussis I, Tabaxi I, Papastylianou P, ... Bilalis DJ (2018). Effect of biocyclic humus soil
on yield and quality parameters of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) 61:201-2017.
Eisenbach LD, Folina A, Zisi C, Roussis I, Tabaxi I, Papastylianou, P, ... Bilalis DJ (2019). Effect of biocyclic humus soil
on yield and quality parameters of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) 47-52.
https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-hort:2019.0001
Evanylo G, Sherony C, Spargo J, Starner D, Brosius M, Haering K (2008). Soil and water environmental effects of
fertilizer-, manure-, and compost-based fertility practices in an organic vegetable cropping system. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 127(1-2):50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.014
Fageria NK, Moreira A (2011). The role of mineral nutrition on root growth of crop plants. Advances in Agronomy
110:251-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385531-2.00004-9
FAO (2005). The importance of soil organic matter. Key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production. FAO
Soils Bulletin 80.
Flint LE, Flint AL (2002). 2.3 Porosity. Methods of Soil Analysis: part 4. Physical Methods 5:241-254.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c11
Flowers TJ, Colmer TD (2008). Salinity tolerance in halophytes. New Phytologist 945-963.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02531.x
Funderburg E (2001) What Does Organic Matter Do in Soil? Retrieved 2024 June 3 from:
https://www.noble.org/regenerative-agriculture/soil/what-does-organic-matter-do-in-soil/
Galantini J, Rosell R (2006). Long-term fertilization effects on soil organic matter quality and dynamics under different
production systems in semiarid Pampean soils. Soil and Tillage Research 87(1):72-79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.032
Ghosh D, Thakurdesai P (Eds.) (2022). Fenugreek: Traditional and Modern Medicinal Uses. CRC Press.
Giller KE (2002). Targeting management of organic resources and mineral fertilizers: can we match scientists' fantasies
with farmers' realities?. Integrated plant nutrient management in sub-Saharan Africa: From concept to practice.
Wallingford UK: CABI Publishing 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995762.0155
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
17
Głąb T (2014). Effect of soil compaction and N fertilization on soil pore characteristics and physical quality of sandy loam
soil under red clover/grass sward. Soil and Tillage Research 144:8-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.05.010
Godara AS, Gupta US, Singh R, Mehta RS (2012). Effect of different combinations of organic and inorganic nutrient
sources on productivity and profitability of fenugreek (Trigonella-foenium-graecum). International Journal of Seed
Spices 2(2):34-37.
Hammer GL, Dong Z, McLean G, Doherty A, Messina C, Schussler J, ... Cooper M (2009). Can changes in canopy and/or
root system architecture explain historical maize yield trends in the US corn belt?. Crop Science 49(1):299-312.
https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.03.0152
Hilles AR, Mahmood S (2021). Historical background, origin, distribution, and economic importance of fenugreek.
Fenugreek: Biology and Applications 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1197-1_1
Idris S, Mishra A, Khushtar MD (2021). Recent therapeutic interventions of fenugreek seed: a mechanistic approach.
Drug research 71(04):180-192. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1320-0479
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1994) ISO 11260. Soil Quality: Determination of Cation
Exchange Capacity and Base Saturation Method Using Barium Chloride Solution; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1995) ISO 11261:1995 Soil quality. Determination of total
nitrogen. Modified Kjeldahl method. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1996). ISO 11265:1996 Soil quality - Determination of the
specific electrical conductivity, Switzerland.
Jabborova D, Annapurna K, Choudhary R, Bhowmik SN, Desouky SE, Selim S, ... Elkelish A (2021). Interactive impact
of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal on root morphology, physiological properties of fenugreek (Trigonella
foenum-graecum L.) and soil enzymatic activities. Agronomy 11(11):2341.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112341
Jani AD, Grossman JM, Smyth TJ, Hu S (2015). Influence of soil inorganic nitrogen and root diameter size on legume
cover crop root decomposition and nitrogen release. Plant and Soil 393:57-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-
015-2473-x
Kakabouki I, Folina A, Efthimiadou A, Karydogianni S, Zisi C, Kouneli V, ... Travlos I (2021). Evaluation of processing
tomato pomace after composting on soil properties, yield, and quality of processing tomato in Greece. Agronomy
11(1):88. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010088
Kalam S, Anirban BASU, Podile AR (2022). Difficult-to-culture bacteria in the rhizosphere: The underexplored signature
microbial groups. Pedosphere 32(1):75-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(21)60062-0
Kopke U, Athmann M, Han E, Kautz T (2015). Optimising cropping techniques for nutrient and environmental
management in organic agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Research 4(3).
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.230376
Kuzyakov Y, Friedel JK, Stahr K (2000). Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 32(11-12):1485-1498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00084-5
Lal R (2020). Soil organic matter and water retention. Agronomy Journal 112(5):3265-3277.
https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20282
Lynch JP (2013). Steep, cheap, and deep: an ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Annals
of Botany 112(2):347-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs293
Mann S (2020). Could we stop killing? Exploring a post-lethal vegan or vegetarian agriculture. World 1(2):10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/world1020010
Marschner H (2011). Marschner's mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic press.
Meddich A, Oufdou K, Boutasknit A, Raklami A, Tahiri A, Ben-Laouane R, ... Baslam M (2020). Use of organic and
biological fertilizers as strategies to improve crop biomass, yields and physicochemical parameters of soil. Nutrient
Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production. Springer, Singapore 247-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
8660-2_9
Munns R (2002). Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell & Environment 25(2):239-250.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00808.x
Munns R, Tester M (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59:651-681.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
18
Myers MG, McGarity JW (1968). The urease activity in profiles of five great soil groups from northern New South Wales.
Plant and Soil 28(1):25-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01349175
Olmo M, Villar R, Salazar P, Alburquerque JA (2016). Changes in soil nutrient availability explain biochar’s impact on
wheat root development. Plant and Soil 399: 333-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2700-5
Otieno PE, Muthomi JW, Chemining'wa GN, Nderitu JH (2009). Effect of rhizobia inoculation, farm yard manure and
nitrogen fertilizer on nodulation and yield of food grain legumes. Journal of Biological Sciences 9(4):326-332.
https://doi.org/10.3923/jbs.2009.326.332
Oudshoorn F, Kristensen C, Løes AK, Caceres R, Kir A, Pecenka R, ... Schmutz U (2019). Report on alternatives to
contentious inputs, WP SOIL.
Palm CA, Gachengo CN, Delve RJ, Cadisch G, Giller KE (2001) Organic inputs for soil fertility management: Some rules
and tools. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 83:27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00267-X
Palm CA, Myers RJK, Nandwa SM (1997). Organic-inorganic nutrient interaction in soil fertility replenishment. In:
Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F (Eds). Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science
Society of America, pp 193-218
Parkash V, Singh S (2020). A review on potential plant-based water stress indicators for vegetable crops. Sustainability
12(10):3945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103945
Pessarakli M (2019). Handbook of plant and crop stress. CRc press.
Plaza C, Giannetta B, Fernández JM, López-de-Sá EG, Polo A, Gascó G, ... Zaccone C (2016). Response of different soil
organic matter pools to biochar and organic fertilizers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 225:150-159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.014
Raje RS, Singhania DL, Singh D (2002). Inheritance of powdery mildew resistance in fenugreek (Trigonella toenum-
graecum L.). Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 62(02):175-176.
Ramana GV, Padhy SP, Chaitanya KV (2012). Differential responses of four soybean (Glycine max L) cultivars to salinity
stress. Legume Research-An International Journal 35(3):185-193.
Rewald B, Leuschner C, Wiesman Z, Ephrath JE (2011). Influence of salinity on root hydraulic properties of three olive
varieties. Plant Biosystems 145(1):12-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2010.514130
Saadatian M, Alaghemand S, Ayyubi H, Hasanpour E, Olfati JA, Hamidoghli Y, ... Karimi H (2017). Effects of organic
fertilizers on growth and biochemical characteristics of Fenugreek. Acta agriculturae Slovenica 109(2):197-203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14720/aas.2017.109.2.04
Sahoo RK, Bhardwaj D, Tuteja N (2012). Biofertilizers: a sustainable eco-friendly agricultural approach to crop
improvement. In: Plant Acclimation to Environmental Stress. Springer, NY: New York, pp 403-432.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5001-6_15
Seymour M (2023). Expanding recognition and inclusion of animal-free organic agriculture in the sustainable agriculture
movement. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7:1293261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Seymour M, Utter A (2021). Veganic farming in the United States: farmer perceptions, motivations, and experiences.
Agriculture and Human Values 38(4):1139-1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10225-x
Shahrajabian MH, Sun W, Magadlela A, Hong S, Cheng Q (2021). Fenugreek cultivation in the middle east and other
parts of the world with emphasis on historical aspects and its uses in traditional medicine and modern
pharmaceutical science. Fenugreek: Biology and Applications 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1197-
1_2
Sharma RS, Maloo SR (2022). Distribution, Biology, and Bio-Diversity of Fenugreek. In: Fenugreek. CRC Press, pp 21-
30.
Shen J, Li C, Mi G, Li L, Yuan L, Jiang R, Zhang F (2013). Maximizing root/rhizosphere efficiency to improve crop
productivity and nutrient use efficiency in intensive agriculture of China. Journal of Experimental Botany
64(5):1181-1192. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers342
Shrivastava P, Kumar R (2015). Soil salinity: a serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of
the tools for its alleviation. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 22(2):123-131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.12.001
Siddique KHM, Chen YL, Rengel Z (2015). Efficient root system for abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Procedia
Environmental Sciences 29:295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.269
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
19
Singh MS (2005). Effect of Rhizobium, FYM and chemical fertilizers on legume crops and nutrient status of soil–A
review. Agricultural Reviews 26(4):309-312.
Singh TB, Ali A, Prasad M, Yadav A, Shrivastav P, Goyal D, Dantu PK (2020). Role of organic fertilizers in improving
soil fertility. Contaminants in Agriculture: Sources, Impacts and Management 61-77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41552-5_3
Sinha D, Tandon PK (2020). An overview of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium: Key players of nutrition process in
plants. Sustainable Solutions for Elemental Deficiency and Excess in Crop Plants 85-117.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8636-1_5
Tal A. (2018). Making conventional agriculture environmentally friendly: moving beyond the glorification of organic
agriculture and the demonization of conventional agriculture. Sustainability 10(4):1078.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041078
Tuncturk R (2011). Salinity exposure modifies nutrient concentrations in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum L.).
African Journal of Agricultural Research 6(16):3685-3690.
Vadez V, Krishnamurthy L, Kashiwagi J, Kholova J, Devi JM, Sharma KK, ... Keatinge JDH (2007). Exploiting the
functionality of root systems for dry, saline, and nutrient deficient environments in a changing climate. Journal of
SAT Agricultural Research 4(1):1-61.
Vanlauwe B, Wendt J, Diels J (2001). Combined application of organic matter and fertilizer. Sustaining Soil Fertility in
West Africa 58:247-279. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub58.ch12
Vasileva V, Kostov O (2015). Effect of mineral and organic fertilization on alfalfa forage and soil fertility. Emirates Journal
of Food and Agriculture 678-686. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2015.05.288
Voroney RP, Heck RJ, Kuzyakov Y (2024). The habitat of the soil biota. In: Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biochemistry
13-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822941-5.00002-8
Walkley A, Black IA (1934). An examination of the Degtiareff methods for determining soil organic matter and a
proposed modification of chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37:29-38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
Weil RR, Brady NC (2016). The nature and properties of soils, ed. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson, 910.
Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM (2010). The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and
other organisms. Annual Review of Plant Biology 57:233-266.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105159
Windisch S, Sommermann L, Babin D, Chowdhury SP, Grosch R, Moradtalab N, … Nesme J (2021). Impact of long-
term organic and mineral fertilization on rhizosphere metabolites, root–microbial interactions and plant health
of lettuce. Frontiers in Microbiology 11:597745. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.597745
Zandi P, Shirani-Rad AH, Bazrkar-Khatibani L (2011). Agronomic study of fenugreek grown under different in-row
spacing and nitrogen levels in a paddy field of Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences 10(4):544-550.
Zhang F, Shen J, Zhang J, Zuo Y, Li L, Chen X (2010). Rhizosphere processes and management for improving nutrient
use efficiency and crop productivity: implications for China. Advances in Agronomy 107:1-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)07001-X
Zhang F, Xu X, Huo Y, Xiao Y (2019). Trichoderma-inoculation and mowing synergistically altered soil available
nutrients, rhizosphere chemical compounds and soil microbial community, potentially driving alfalfa growth.
Frontiers in Microbiology 9:3241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03241
Zhu JK (2002). Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology 53(1):247-273.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.091401.143329
Folina A et al. (2024). Not Bot Horti Agrobo 52(2):13868
20
The journal offers free, immediate, and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed research and scholarly work. Users are
allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any
other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.
Licen se
Licen se Licen se
Licen se -
--
- Articles published in Notulae Botan icae Ho rti Agrobotanici Cluj
Notulae Botan icae Ho rti Ag robotanici ClujNotulae Botan icae Ho rti Ag robotanici Cluj
Notulae Botan icae Ho rti Ag robotanici Cluj-
--
-Napoca
NapocaNapoca
Napoca are Open-Access,
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License.
© Articles by the authors; Licensee UASVM and SHST, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The journal allows the author(s) to
hold the copyright/to retain publishing rights without restriction.
Notes:
Notes:Notes:
Notes:
Material disclaimer: The authors are fully responsible for their work and they hold sole responsibility for the articles published
in the journal.
Maps and affiliations: The publisher stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Responsibilities: The editors, editorial board and publisher do not assume any responsibility for the article’s contents and for
the authors’ views expressed in their contributions. The statements and opinions published represent the views of the authors
or persons to whom they are credited. Publication of research information does not constitute a recommendation or
endorsement of products involved.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Animal-free organic agriculture resides at the margins of sustainable agriculture discourse, practice, and imaginaries, which center animal-based forms of farming. However, the concerns and goals of sustainable agriculture are overwhelmingly consistent with those of many forms of animal-free organic agriculture (AFOA), described as organic farming sans animal production, labor, and byproducts. Despite this sidelining, AFOA has great potential to contribute to a more robust sustainable agriculture movement. In order to emphasize the continuities between animal-based and animal-free sustainable agriculture, this Perspective identifies a number of key similarities between animal-free and animal-based sustainable farming, including mutual foci on soil health and shared opposition to intensive animal agriculture. It contends that beyond being compatible with sustainable agriculture, AFOA holds answers to some of the difficult questions currently and potentially confronting animal-based agriculture, such as projected impacts of climate change on animal agriculture and stability of supply chains for animal-based soil amendments. Barriers to greater inclusion of AFOA into the sustainable agriculture movement exist as well; this piece suggests potential ways to address some of these challenges, including the integration of AFOA into formal sustainable agriculture education.
Article
Full-text available
This review article explores the impact of nitrogen fertilizers on the symbiotic relationship between Rhizobium bacteria and legume plants. Nitrogen fixation has the potential to address the global protein shortage by increasing nitrogen supply in agriculture. However, the excessive use of synthetic fertilizers has led to environmental consequences and high energy consumption. To promote sustainable agriculture, alternative approaches such as biofertilizers that utilize biological nitrogen fixation have been introduced to minimize ecological impact. Understanding the process of biological nitrogen fixation, where certain bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, is crucial for sustainable agriculture. This knowledge helps reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers and maintain soil fertility. The symbiotic relationship between Rhizobium bacteria and leguminous plants plays a vital role in sustainable agriculture by facilitating access to atmospheric nitrogen, improving soil fertility, and reducing the need for chemical fertilizers. To achieve optimal nitrogen fixation and plant growth, it is important to effectively manage nitrogen availability, soil conditions, and environmental stressors. Excessive nitrogen fertilization can negatively affect the symbiotic association between plants and rhizobia, resulting in reduced soil health, altered mutualistic relationships, and environmental concerns. Various techniques can be employed to enhance symbiotic efficiency by manipulating chemotaxis, which is the ability of rhizobia to move towards plant roots. Plant-specific metabolites called (iso)flavonoids play a crucial role in signaling and communication between legume plants and rhizobia bacteria, initiating the symbiotic relationship and enhancing nitrogen fixation and plant growth. Excessive nitrogen fertilizer application can disrupt the communication between rhizobia and legumes, impacting chemotaxis, root exudation patterns, nodulation, and the symbiotic relationship. High levels of nitrogen fertilizers can inhibit nitrogenase, a critical enzyme for plant growth, leading to reduced nitrogenase activity. Additionally, excessive nitrogen can compromise the energy demands of nitrogen fixation, resulting in decreased nitrogenase activity. This review discusses the disadvantages of using nitrogenous fertilizers and the role of symbiotic biological nitrogen fixation in reducing the need for these fertilizers. By using effective rhizobial strains with compatible legume cultivars, not only can the amounts of nitrogenous fertilizers be reduced, but also the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with their manufacturing and application. This approach offers benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving energy. In conclusion, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of the impact of nitrogen fertilizers on the symbiotic relationship between Rhizobium and legume plants. It also discusses potential strategies for sustainable agricultural practices. By managing nitrogen fertilizers carefully and improving our understanding of the symbiotic relationship, we can contribute to sustainable agriculture and minimize environmental impact.
Chapter
Full-text available
Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) is a leguminous plant that is consumed as a spice to improve the flavor of food around the world. Fenugreek has been extensively cited to hold medicinal properties such as hypo-cholesterolemic, anti-carcinogenic, antidiabetic, immunological activity, and as carrier of potential antioxidants. Aside from its therapeutic uses as an alternate and complementary medicine, Fenugreek has been in use as a stabilizing, emulsifying, and binding ingredient in foodstuff and in manufacturing numerous processed foods. Fenugreek leaves and seeds are extremely valuable and featured with important phytochemicals such as amino acids, steroidal saponins, carbohydrates, alkaloids, and other organic and inorganic substances and minerals of human health significance. Fenugreek seeds and leaves can be consumed either fresh or cooked as a spice, culinary ingredient, flavoring agent, and or preservative. In this chapter, we will discuss the possible uses of fenugreek as a nutraceutical ingredient and as a functional food.
Article
Full-text available
The influence of different fertilizers (mineral/organic) on the quantity and quality of soil organic matter was monitored in long-term stationary experiments (27 years) with silage maize monoculture production on Luvisol. The main aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between easily extractable glomalin (EEG), total glomalin (TG), and parameters commonly used for the determination of soil organic matter quality, i.e., the content of humic acids (CHA), fulvic acids (CFA), and potential wettability index (PWI). A significant correlation was found between EEG content and CSOM content, humic acid content (CHA), humic acid/fulvic acid ratio (CHA/CFA), PWI, and index of aromaticity (IAR). Furthermore, the contents of EEG and TG correlated with soil organic carbon (CSOM). Periodical application of sewage sludge and cattle slurry increased the content of glomalin in soils. From the results, it is obvious that data about glomalin content can be used to study soil organic matter quality. A more sensitive method (a method that reacts more to changes in components of soil fertility) seems to be the determination of EEG rather than TG. The factors supporting use of EEG extraction in agronomic practice are mainly the substantially shorter time of analysis than TG, CHA, and CFA determination and lower chemical consumption. Furthermore, the PWI method is even suitable for studying soil organic matter quality. On the other hand, the humus quality ratio (E4/E6) does not provide relevant information about soil organic matter quality.
Article
Full-text available
The present study was carried out in order to investigate the behaviour of six faba bean (Vicia faba Minor) genotypes (Saber 02, Locale, Baachar, Badii, Chourouk and Najeh) in response to salinity and flooding (hypoxia), either alone or combined, to identify tolerant genotypes and to select efficient faba bean-rhizobia symbiosis under salinity and/or hypoxia conditions. faba bean genotypes were cultivated in three agricultural soils with either low (160 µs/cm) or moderate (1850 µs/cm) salt content and submitted or not to a 30-day long flooding period. Growth parameters and photosynthetic performance were analyzed at the end of the flowering period. At harvest time, the Najeh genotype showed the highest dry mass production in both control and hypoxia conditions (7.90 and 6.75 g/plant, respectively), whereas Saber 02 showed the lowest (3.75 and 2.25 g/plant, respectively). Differences between genotypes were less marked in salinity or combined salini-ty/flooding conditions. Principal component analysis of the analyzed parameters revealed that the Najeh genotype presents the best growth and the lowest photosynthetic perturbation and lipid peroxidation levels, whether under control or hypoxic conditions, whereas Saber 02 and Locale genotypes were less productive. Ninety bacteria strains were isolated from Vicia faba root nodules. Of these, 47 strains were identified as rhizobia, and 20 were able to re-nodulate the host plant. After the characterization, identification and selection process, four strains were selected as the best faba bean symbiotic partners based on their symbiotic efficiency and salt tolerance behaviours. Our results suggest that faba bean tolerant genotypes in symbiosis with these strains could be useful in enhancing legume cultivation under saline and hypoxia field conditions.
Article
Full-text available
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation and biochar amendment has been reported to improve the growth of several crop plant; however, their role in stress amelioration individually as well as in combination has not been worked out. Limited information is available about the synergistic use of biochar and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF). Here, we investigated the synergistic effect of biochar and AMF on plant development, root architecture, the physiological performance of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), and soil enzymatic activities. Biochar and AMF were shown to have a considerable effect on plant height, according to the data (53.3 and 66.6%, respectively), leaf number (22.5 and 45.1%), total root length (19.8 and 40.1%), root volume (32.1 and 71.4%), chlorophyll a content (26.0 and 17.8%), chlorophyll b content (50.0 and 28.9%), total chlorophyll content (30.0 and 18.1%), and carotenoid content (60.0 and 48.0%) over the control treatment. There was a considerable increase in plant height when biochar and AMF were combined together by 80.9%, total root length by 68.9%, projected area by 48.7%, root surface area by 34.4%, root volume by 78.5%, chlorophyll a content by 34.2%, chlorophyll b content by 68.4%, total chlorophyll content by 44.5%, and carotenoid content by 84.0% compared to the control. Our results recommend that the combination of biochar and AMF is advantageous in fenugreek growth, microbial biomass, and soil enzyme activities.
Article
Microorganisms represent a substantial portion of the earth's biodiversity and biomass, and the plant rhizosphere is an innate reservoir teeming with heterogeneous microbes predominated by bacterial communities. Rhizospheric microbial diversity (genetic, phenotypic, and metabolic) has been extensively studied to understand the key ecological roles played by the microbial members, including plant growth promotion. The application of 16S rRNA gene sequencing and next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has revolutionized the discovery of novel bacterial groups that have remained undetected by traditional cultivation-based approaches. Such technological advancements have opened new vistas in our current understanding of predominant but concealed and missed bacterial diversity referred to as difficult-to-culture bacterial lineages, especially the predominant phyla Acidobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Planctomycetes, and Gemmatimonadetes. Regardless of their ubiquity and prevalence, little is known about their ecophysiology because of the non-availability of culturable members. More recently, there has been increased interest in understanding the cosmopolitan distribution and diversity of the difficult-to-culture bacteria, focusing on their role in driving complex plant-microbial interactions and mobilizing nutrients in soil and their potential as sources of novel bioactive metabolites. As an initial step, we review the distribution and significance of such bacterial phyla in soil, their ecophysiological roles, and their hidden plant growth promoting potential. The ability to select and deploy plant probiotic bacteria from the difficult-to-culture fraction of the bacterial community might open new avenues for improving crop health.
Article
Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of soil salinity on some physiological and biochemical attributes of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) and its tolerance for salt using some empirical models. The treatments included different salinity levels of irrigation water (0.5, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 dS/m) which were arranged in the form of a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Some physiological and biochemical properties were measured at the vegetative stage and trigonelline at seed ripening. As the results showed, salinity reduced leaf area, relative water content, water use efficiency, and leaf water potential, but it increased leaf thickness, greenness index, canopy temperature, sodium, ash, electrolyte leakage, malondialdehyde (MDA) and the other aldehydes. Salt stress also reduced photosynthetic pigments, chlorophyll a/b ratio, leaf soluble protein, potassium, K⁺/Na⁺ ratio, photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) and canopy air temperature difference (CATD) index. Like catalase (CAT) and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activities, the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) was increased up to 6 dS/m and then decreased. Furthermore, proline concentration was increased up to 8 dS/m and decreased at higher salinities. The increased salinity enhanced seed trigonelline up to 6 dS/m and then decreased it. According to a linear model, the salinity threshold tolerance and the yield reduction slope were 1.28 dS/m and 4.9%, respectively. Nonlinear models, however, showed a yield reduction of 10%, 25% and 50% at the soil salinity of 3.38, 6.28 and 11.67 dS/m, respectively. The salinity tolerance index was found to be 12.24. Therefore, fenugreeks can be considered moderately sensitive to salinity at the vegetative growth stage. It may also be grown on slightly to moderately saline lands. Some characteristics may be considered as selective criteria to identify the cultivars of fenugreek that tolerate salt stress.