Agric. sci. dev., Vol(3), No (10), October, 2014. pp.

312-316

TI Journals

Agriculture Science Developments

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7527
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Acid humic foliar application affects fruit quality characteristics of

tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Izabella)
Soheila Kamari Shahmaleki *
Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,. University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

Golam Ali Peyvast

Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,. University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

Mahmood Ghasemnezhad
Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,. University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
*Corresponding author: kamari.soheila@gmail.com

Keywords

Abstract

Organic culture
Fruit qualitative traits
Organic-mineral fertilizers
Vegetable fruit crops

One of the vegetable fruit crops are highly consumed is tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), so
improvement of tomato fruit quality is important for human health. Humic acid foliar application were used
for survey its effects on some fruit quality characteristics in tomato (cv. Izabella). Four levels of humic acid
were used in this study (0 (T0 or control), 1 mgl-1 (T1), 2 mgl-1 (T2) and 3 mgl-1 (T3)). Analysis of variance
showed that humic acid foliar application had significant effects on fruit flesh firmness, TSS, total phenol
content, vitamin C content and antioxidant activity of tomato fruit. However TA was not affected by humic
acid application. According to means comparison, T2 had the best results for most of treatments. Due to the
results, can suggest that humic acid foliar application had positive impact on tomato (cv. Izabella) fruit
quality and application of humic acid in moderate concentration (2 mgl-1) had good results in most of
characteristics.

1.

Introduction

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is one of the most widely consumed vegetable crops in the world. It belongs to family Solanaceae.
Andean region of South America is the native land of tomato [1 and 2]. To improve the organic contents of soils for growing crops there are
some applications such as planting rotation, various plough techniques, green fertilizer application and animal fertilizer application. In addition
to these practices, utilization of organic-mineral fertilizers in agriculture has increased in recent years [3].
One of the used organic-mineral fertilizers is humic acid. The supplementation of chemical fertilizers with cheaper lignitic coal derived humic
acid could reduce cost of production without compromising on yield. Humic acid is a commercial product contains many elements which
improve the soil fertility and increase the availability of nutrients and consequently increase plant growth and yield. It particularly is used to
ameliorate or reduce the negative effect of salt stress [4]. Humic substances are formed through the process of humification of organic materials
as by-product of microbial metabolism and are found in soil, coal, sediments water, peat, and organic matter.
Humic acid is a heterogeneous mixture of many compounds with generally similar chemical properties; it performs various functions in the soil
and on plant growth. One of the functions of humic acid is the positive effect on the promotion of root development. Depending upon the origin,
molecular size, chemical characteristics and concentrations, humic substances are implicated in a range of different metabolic effects on plant
[5]. The mechanisms showed that humic substances enhanced the growth by increasing the uptake of micronutrient [6]. The beneficial effects of
humic substances on plant growth may be related to their indirect (enhance of fertilizer efficiency or reducing soil compaction), or direct
(progress of the overall plant biomass) effects [7]. Also, humic substances increase the growth rate of many forms of beneficial microorganisms
in part, by stimulating enzyme activities [8 and 9].
Humic substances such as humic acid, fulvic acid, are the major components (65-70%) of soil organic matter, increase plant growth enormously
due to increasing cell membrane permeability, respiration, photosynthesis, oxygen and phosphorus uptake, and supplying root cell growth [10
and 11]. Foliar spraying of humic acid promoted growth in many plants such as tomato, cotton and grape [12]. Karakurt et al. [13] reported that
humic acid application affected pepper growth and fruit characteristics and had positive influence on quantitative and qualitative traits of pepper
plant. Ameri and Tehranifar [14] investigated the effects of humic acid fertilizer on nutrient uptake (N, P, and K) and physiological
characteristics of Fragaria ananassa. The results of their experiment showed that in spraying method there were highest amount of N and
chlorophyll in concentrations of 10 and 20 ppm and there was potassium in concentration of 10 ppm. Also, Hosseini Farahi et al. [15] showed
that humic acid spraying affected quantitative and qualitative traits of strawberry and had positive effects on fruit number, total yield of plant,
TSS, fruit firmness and chlorophyll content. They suggested that foliar application of humic acid led to improvement of quantitative and
qualitative characteristics of strawberry. Rauthan and Schnitzer [16] found that humic acid containing compounds in hoagland solution,
increased nitrogen uptake and improved overall yield in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L). Slimestad and Verheul [17] suggested that antioxidant
concentrations in fruit are dependent upon environmental and genetic factors. Mohammadipour et al. [18] reported that humic acid application
had positive influence on qualitative traits of marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Although positive influences of humic acids on plant growth
and development have been well established for many species [19 and 20], their effects on fruit yield and quality have not received much
attention.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of humic acid foliar application on qualitative parameters of tomato fruits (cv. Izabella).

313

Acid humic foliar application affects fruit quality characteristics of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Izabella)
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (10), October, 2014.

2.

Materials and Methods

2.1 Plant culture and seedling production

In order to do this research, seeds of tomato (cv. Isabela) were used. The seeds were planted in seedling trays that contained leaf compost in
depth of 1- to 2- cm. The trays placed in a greenhouse with temperature of 27 C and irrigated regularly. During growth period, the minimum
and maximum temperature of the greenhouse was 19 and 30 C, respectively.
About two weeks after cultivation of the seeds, when seedlings containing two leaves they transferred in vases that their medium soil contained
perlite, municipal solid waste compost and loam soil (1:1:2). For hardening the seedlings, the vases put in corridor of the greenhouse in 13- to
15- C and irrigated one time in three days instead of every day. The seedlings six weeks after planting transferred to the greenhouse (when they
had 4- to 6- leaves).
2.2 Experimental treatments and tomato fruit harvest
Four levels of humic acid were used. Concentrations of humic acid were used in this research were 0 (control (T0)), 1 mgl-1 (T1), 2 mgl-1 (T2),
and 3 mgl-1 (T3). The treatments were used four times during growth period with 10 days interval.
Fruits harvested gradually and after reaching to step of red color every 3-4 days then collected fruits transferred to the laboratory of Department
of Horticultural Sciences to study quality characteristics.
2.3 Measurement of quality characteristics and data analysis
A penetrometer (FTO 11 [O-11BS]) used to determine fruit flesh firmness. A digital refractometer (Ceti- Belgium) was used for measuring total
soluble solids (TSS). Titratable acidity (TA) was obtained by titrating 5 ml of tomato juice with 0.1 N NaOH up to pH8.1- to 8.2. Nine fruits
from each replication were used for these purposes. The method of titration with dichlorophenolindophenol was used for measuring vitamin C
content. Total phenol content was determined using the Folin-Ciocalteau. After adding 10 cc methanol for 1 g of fruit extraction, then 500 l of
the fruit extraction was taken and mixed with 500 l diluted water. 500 l of this solution was taken and folin (10%) reagent (2.5 ml) was added
and mixed thoroughly. After 6 min, a sodium carbonate solution (2 ml, 7.5%) was added and the mixture was allowed to stand for 1.5 h with
intermittent shaking in a dark condition. The absorbance was measured at 760 nm. The antioxidant activity was determined by the method of
DPPH (2.2-definil-1-picrilidrazil). The absorbance was measured using an UV Spectrophotometer at the 517 nm. The free radical-scavenging
(%FRS) of each sample were calculated according to the %FRS according to Brand-Williams et al. [21], according to following formula:
%FRS= AA0*100
Where: A is standard number (950 l DPPH+ 50 l extraction buffer), and A0 is amount of absorption (sample+ DPPH).
The experiment was carried out in a complete randomized design with four treatments and three replications. Each treatment contained 24 plants.
Statistical analysis of data was done using SAS software and means comparison was done by LSD method and charts were drawn in Excel.

3.

Results and Discussion

The results of analysis of variance (Table 1) show the effect of humic acid foliar application on tomato fruit characteristics. As seen in table 1,
humic acid foliar application had significant effect at 0.01 level of probability on fruit firmness, TSS and antioxidant activity and had significant
effect at 0.05 level of probability on vitamin C content and total phenol content, whereas humic acid foliar application had no significant
influence on TA in Izabella cultivar of tomato.
Table 1. Analysis of variance of the effect of humic acid foliar application on tomato fruit characteristics

Source of
variance

df

Fruit flesh
2

firmness (Kg/cm )

TSS (%)

TA (%)

Vitamin C content

Total phenol content

Antioxidant

(mg/100g fruit flesh)

(mg/100g fruit flesh)

activity (%)

Treatment

888405.2**

0.38**

0.04ns

5.99*

169.01*

296.54**

Error

39202.2

0.05

0.03

1.07

42.20

27.72

CV(%)

7.68

22.68

11.7

6.81

14.5

8.9

Ns, ** and *: Respectively non significant and significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability.
According to the means comparison there was no significant differences between control and T1 for fruit flesh firmness (Figure 1). The highest fruit flesh firmness
was observed in T2 and had significant differences in comparison with other treatments. In T3 there was a decrease in fruit flesh firmness. Also, there was no
significant difference between T1 and T3 for this characteristic. Hosseini Farahi et al. [15] reported that humic acid application increased fruit firmness in
strawberry. Although it increased fruit firmness in moderate level (1.5 mgl-1) but fruit firmness decreased in high levels of humic acid applications [3 and 4.5 mgl1
]. Our results are in agreement with Hosseini Farahi et al. [15].

Soheila Kamari Shahmaleki *, Golam Ali Peyvast, Mahmood Ghasemnezhad

314

Fruit flesh firmness

(Kg/cm2)

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (10), October, 2014.

4000
3000

a
b

bc

2000
1000
0
T0

T1
T2
T3
Treatments

Figure 1. Effect of humic acid foliar application on fruit flesh firmness of tomato cv. Izabella.
The highest TSS obtained in T3 that had significant differences in comparison with other treatments except with T2 (Figure 2). Also, the lowest TSS was observed
in T0 (control). These results showed that foliar application of humic acid could affect TSS of tomato fruit cv. Izabella. In the other hand, increasing in humic acid
concentrations enhanced TSS of tomato fruit. Also there was no significant difference between T0 and T1, and between T1 and T2. Foliar application of humic
acid did not affect TA of tomato fruits cv. Izabella. Abbas et al. [22] reported that increment of humic acid application increased TSS of fruits in kinnow mandarin
(Citrus reticulata blanco). Also, Yildirim [23] reported that both soil and foliar humic acid treatments increased the TSS content of tomato fruits. These findings
did agree with our results.

TSS (%)

1.5

ab

bc
c

0.5
0
T0

T1
T2
Treatments

T3

Figure 2. Effect of humic acid foliar application on TSS of tomato fruit cv. Izabella.
Vitamin C content was not affected sharply by foliar application of humic acid (Figure 3). However it increased the vitamin C content but there were no significant
differences in high levels of humic acid concentrations. In the other hand, the vitamin C content increased by enhancing humic acid concentrations but until T2 but
after that it was steady and had not significant difference with T3. Premuzic et al. [24] reported that the fruits of tomatoes grown on organic substrates, such as
vermicompost, contained significantly more Ca and vitamin C than those grown in hydroponics media.
There was no significant difference between control (T0) and T1 for total phenol content (Figure 4). The highest total phenol content was observed in T3 and had
significant differences in comparison with other treatments (except T2). Also, there was no statically difference between T0 and T2.

Vitamin C content

Antioxidant activity of tomato fruit was affected by humic acid foliar application. According to the mean comparison there were significant differences among
different treatments. The highest antioxidant activity was obtained in T2 (Figure 5) and the lowest was obtained in T0 (control). By increasing the humic acid
concentrations, antoxidant activity increased. However it decreased in T3. Aminifard et al. [25] reported that humic acid application affected antioxidant activity of
hot pepper and had positive effects on this characteristic. Our result agrees with their studys result.

20
15

ab

10
5
0
T0

T1
T2
Treatments

T3

Figure 3. Effect of humic acid foliar application on vitamin C content of tomato fruit cv. Izabella.

315

Acid humic foliar application affects fruit quality characteristics of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Izabella)

Total phenol content

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (10), October, 2014.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

ab
bc

T0

T1
T2
Treatments

T3

Antioxidant activity (%)

Figure 4. Effect of humic acid foliar application on total phenol content of tomato fruit cv. Izabella.

80
60

a
b

ab

40
20
0
T0

T1
T2
Treatments

T3

3.1 Subheading 1 Figure 5. Effect of humic acid foliar application on antioxidant activity of tomato fruit cv. Izabella.

4.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can suggest that humic acid foliar application had positive impact on tomato fruit quality in cv. Izabella and application of
humic acid in moderate concentration had good results in most of characteristics. Also, TA was not affected by humic acid application, fruit
fresh firmness, vitamin C content, total phenol content, TSS and antioxidant activity were improved by humic acid usage.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

Dorais M, Ehret DL, Papadopoulos AP. 2008. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochem Rev 7:231250.
Olaniyi JO, Akanbi WB, Adejumo TA, Akande OG. 2010. Growth, fruit yield and nutritional quality of tomato varieties. Afr J Food Sci 4:398-402.
Doran I, Akinci C, Yildirim M. 2003. Effects of delta humate applied with different doses and methods on yield and yield components of Diyarbakir-81
wheat cultivar. 5th Field Crops Congress. Diyarbakir. Turkey. 2:530-534. (in Turkish with English abstracts).
Moraditochaee M. 2012. Effects of humic acid foliar spraying and nitrogen fertilizer management on yield of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Iran. ARPN J
Agric Biol Sci 7:289-293 .
Tan KW. 2003. Humic Matter in Soil and the Environment. Principles and Controversies. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY. 258 p.
Lee YS, Bartlett RJ. 1976. Stimulation of plant growth by humic substances. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:876-879.
Nardi S, Pizzeghello D, Muscolo A, Vianello A. 2002. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants. Soil Biol Biocchem 34:1527-1536.
Pouneva I. 2005. Effect of humic substances on the growth of microalgal cultures. Russ J Plant Physl 52:410-413.
Burkowska A, Donderski W. 2007. Impact of humic substances on bacterioplankton in eutrophic lake. Polish J Ecol 55:155-160.
Cacco G, Dell Agnolla G. 1984. Plant growth regulator activity of soluble humic substances. Can J Soil Sci 64:25-28.
Russo RO, Berlyn GP. 1990. The use of organic biostimulants to help low input sustainable agriculture. J Sustain Agric 1:19-42.
Brownell JR, Nordstrom G, Marihart J, Jorgrnsen G.1987. Crop responses from two new leonardite extracts. Sci Total Environ 62:491-499.
Karakurt Y, Unlu H, Unlu H, Padem U. 2009. The influence of foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid on yield and quality of pepper. Acta Agr Scand B-S
P 59:233-237.
Ameri A, Tehranifar A. 2012. Effect of humic acid on nutrient uptake and physiological characteristic Fragaria ananassa var: Camarosa. J Biol Environ Sci
6:77-79 .
Hosseini Farahi M, Aboutalebi A, Eshghi S, Dastyaran M, Yosefi F. 2013. Foliar application of humic acid on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of
Aromas strawberry in soilless culture. Agri Commun 1:13-16.
Rauthan BS, Schnitzer M. 1981. Effects of soil fulvic acid on the growth and nutrient content of cucumber (Cucumus sativus) plants. Plant Soil 63:491-495.
Slimestad R, Verheul MJ. 2005. Seasonal variations in the level of plant constituents in glasshouse production of cherry tomatoes.J Agric Food Chem
53:31143119.
Mohammadipour E, Golchin A, Mohammadi J, Negahdar N, Zarchini M. 2012. Effect of humic acid on yield and quality of marigold (Calendula officinalis
L.). Ann Biol Res 3:5095-5098.
Atiyeh RM, Edwards CA, Subler S, Metzger J. 2000. Earthworm-processed organic wastes as components of horticultural potting media for growing
marigold and vegetable seedlings. Compost Sci Util 82:215-223.
Turkmen O, Dursun A, Turan M, Erdinc C. 2004. Calcium and humic acid affect seed germination, growth, and nutrient content of tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum L.) seedlings under saline soil conditions. Acta Agr Scand B-S P 54:168-174.
Brand-Williams W, Cuvelier ME, Berset C. 1995. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT - Food Sci and Techno 28:2530.

Soheila Kamari Shahmaleki *, Golam Ali Peyvast, Mahmood Ghasemnezhad

316

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (10), October, 2014.

[22] Abbas T, Ahmad S, Ashraf M, Shahid MA, Yasin M, Balal RM, Pervez MA, Abbas S. 2013. Effect of humic and application at different growth stages of
kinnow mandarin (citrus reticulata blanco) on the basis of physio-biochemical and reproductive responses. Academia J Biotechnol 1(1):014-020.
[23] Yildirim E. 2007. Foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid affect productivity and quality of tomato. Acta Agr Scand B-S P 57:182-186.
[24] Premuzic Z, Bargiela M, Garcia A, Rendina A, Iorio A. 1998. Calcium, iron, potassium, phosphorus, and vitamin C content of organic and hydroponic
tomatoes. HortScience 33:255257.
[25] Aminifard MH, Aroiee H, Azizi M, Nemati H, Hawa Z, Jaafar E. 2012. Effect of humic acid on antioxidant activities and fruit quality of hot pepper
(Capsicum annuum L.). J Herbs Spices Med Plants 18:360-369.