International Journal of Chemical Studies 2019; 7(3): 4393-4397
P-ISSN: 2349–8528
E-ISSN: 2321–4902
IJCS 2019; 7(3): 4393-4397
© 2019 IJCS
Received: 25-03-2019
Accepted: 27-04-2019
Kavya Umesh
M.Sc. Student, Department of
Soil Science & Agricultural
Chemistry, TNAU, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu, India
RK Kaleeswari
Professor (Soil Science &
Agricultural Chemistry),
Department of Soil Science &
Agricultural Chemistry), TNAU,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
KB Sujatha
Assistant Professor (Crop
Physiology), Department of
Fruit Crops, HC & RI, TNAU,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Correspondence
RK Kaleeswari
Professor (Soil Science &
Agricultural Chemistry),
Department of Soil Science &
Agricultural Chemistry), TNAU,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Assessment of humic acid coated phosphatic
fertilizers on soil p status, yield and quality of
hybrid tomato
Kavya Umesh, RK Kaleeswari and KB Sujatha
Abstract
The field experiment was laid out in Randomized Completely Block Design (RBCD) and consisted of ten
treatments and replicated thrice. The treatments comprised of T1: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1
as MAP, T2: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as SSP, T3: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as
HA coated MAP (5%), T4: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (10%), T5: 100%
NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (15%), T6: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as
HA coated MAP (20%), T7: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (5%), T8: 100%
NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (10%), T9: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as
HA coated SSP (15%), T10: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (20%).
The results revealed that genetic characters like plant height and quality parameters (lycopene content,
ascorbic acid content, titrable acidity) of tomato fruit was not significantly affected by change in humic
acid concentrations of coatings of MAP and SSP. But tomato yield and soil available phosphorous was
significantly affected. A significantly higher yield was observed in T4 which was statistically identical to
T1 and T3 treatments. The lowest yield was recorded for T2 and T10. T3 and T4 recorded the highest soil
available P compared to others. MAP treatments performed better compared to SSP treatments.
Keywords: Humic acid, hybrid tomato, soil available phosphorous, yield, quality.
Introduction
A limiting nutrient is the one which is used nutrient before other nutrients. Limiting nutrients
prevent growth with their absence. When returned to the deficient environment, limiting
nutrients jump-start productivity, which continues until the limiting nutrient again is depleted.
Phosphorus (P), next to nitrogen, is often the most limiting nutrient for crop production.
Inherent soil properties and climate affect crop growth and how crops respond to applied P
fertilizer, and regulate processes that limit P availability. P availability can be managed by
liming acid soils, using measures that increase organic matter, and proper placement of P
fertilizer using methods like fertigation and increasing P use efficiency of fertilizers by coating
them with organic polymers like organic acids affecting how efficiently P is used by crops.
Considering the low recovery (less than 20%) of applied and native P and the high cost of
chemical phosphatic fertilizers in addition to an increasing concern about environmental
degradation, it is important to find viable source of P to increase fertilizer use efficiency
(Sarkar et al., 2017) [23]. It has been estimated that the percentage of the fertilizer dose
recovered by plants when applied in conventional forms may amount to only 30 to 50%
(Koivunen and Horwath, 2005) [16]. As a result of coating of fertilizers using organic polymers
like humic acid, maximal utilization of the fertilizer from plant systems, a remarkable decrease
with respect to fertilizer application rate, the least possible losses of the fertilizer through
volatilization or leaching, prevention of seeding damage and full protection of the ecosystem
in the case of biodegradable carriers. Dangler and Locascio (1990) [11] reported that tomato
yields were lower with application of 100% recommended dose of N and K as preplant,
compared to when 50% of recommended dose of N and K was applied by fertigation. Humic
substances are recognized as a key component of soil fertility properties, since they control
chemical and biological properties of the rhizosphere. This results in higher soil moisture and
nutrient content in the surface soils (Nardi et al., 2002) [17]. The effect of humic acid (HA) on
increased availability and uptake of P and micronutrients has been given particular attention
(Ayuso et al., 1996). Similarly humic acid acts as soil conditioner and improves the ability of
soil to hold more nutrients which are available to plant (Iqbal and Mastorakis, 2014) [14].
~ 4393 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies
Although positive influences of HAs on plant growth and
development have been well established for many species
(Buckerfield et al., 1999; Atiyeh et al., 2000, Turkmen et al.,
2004) [9, 5, 25], their effects on fruit yield and quality in crops
have not received much attention. Hence keeping the above
points, the present study was undertaken to standardize humic
acid coating for phosphatic fertilizers to increase the yield as
well as P use efficiency in hybrid tomato.
Materials and Methods
Coating of phosphatic fertilizers, Monoammonium phosphate
and Single superphosphate with humic acid was carried out.
Required quantity of MAP and SSP was taken and calculated
quantity of humic acid required for coating at different
percentages was mixed (For eg. If 100 g MAP/SSP is taken 5,
10, 15, and 20 g of humic acid is required for coating at 5, 10,
15 and 20 % respectively) and made into a solution. A small
amount of starch was added. The fertilizer solution was dried
in hot water bath for several hours and the material was
ground and used. Field experiment was conducted during
Rabi season (November – February) at a Farmer’s field at
Thondamuthur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu with an objective of
“Assessment of Humic acid coated Phosphatic fertilizer on
soil P status, yield and quality of Tomato (Hybrid)”.The
experiment was conducted in a Farmer’s field at
Thondamuthur, Coimbatore. The experimental site is
geographically located at 10.9° N latitude and 76.8° E
longitude at an altitude of 450 m above MSL. Coimbatore is
located in semi-arid tropics. Coimbatore normally receives a
mean annual rainfall of 731.5 mm distributed over 48 rainy
days (mean of past 50 years – 1968 to 2017). The mean
maximum and minimum temperatures were 31.5˚C and 21˚C,
respectively. The mean relative humidity ranges from 49.1 per
cent (1422 hours) to 84.9 per cent (0722 hours). The initial
composite soil samples were collected from the experimental
field and analysed for the physico-chemical properties. The
texture of the soil was sandy loam. The soil was low in
available N, high in available P, and high in medium in
available K. The field experiment was laid out in Randomized
Completely Block Design (RBCD) and consisted of ten
treatments and replicated thrice. The treatments comprised of
T1: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as MAP, T2: 100%
NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as SSP, T3: 100% NK as
KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (5%), T4: 100%
NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (10%),
T5: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP
(15%), T6: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA
coated MAP (20%), T7: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-
1
as HA coated SSP (5%), T8: 100% NK as KNO3 + P @ 250
kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (10%), T9: 100% NK as KNO3 + P
@ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (15%), T10: 100% NK as
KNO3 + P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (20%).
The cultural operations were carried out as per CPG (2012).
The hybrid tomato seedlings were raised in the nursery for
transplanting. The raised beds of 2.5 m x 1.5 m x 0.15 m size
were prepared and 15 kg of FYM to each bed were mixed
thoroughly in the soil. The tomato seeds were sown on the
raised beds in by line sowing, keeping the distance of 10 cm
between two successive rows. Irrigation was applied by
surface method. Hybrid tomato seedlings were grown on
raised beds and transplanted. Such vigorous seedlings were
selected and transplanted on the slope of ridges prepared. The
ridges were 30 cm in height while the planting was done on
slopes of the ridge at a height of about 15 cm. The plots
received normal cultural practices such as weeding, irrigation
~ 4394 ~
and plant protection and were preformed from time to time.
Nitrogen and Potassium was applied through water soluble
fertilizer KNO3 (13-0-45) as per the fertigation schedule for
hybrid tomato. Phosphorous was applied in the form of HA
coated MAP and SSP. Recommended dose for hybrid tomato
is 200:250:200 kg NPK ha-1. The fertilizer was applied as per
the fertigation schedule of tomato hybrid at different growth
stages. Four hand weedings were done to keep the crop free
from weeds. Irrigations were given as and when required.
Timely plant protection sprays were followed. The
recommended cultural operations were carried out timely as
and when required for better crop growth. For harvesting of
tomato first picking of fruit was started as the fruits get
marketable size. Five plants in each plot other than guard row
were randomly selected and tagged for recording observations
on growth and yield parameters. The plant height was
recorded in centimeters from earlier selected five plants from
ground level to the growing tip of the main stem with the help
of metallic strip tape at different growth stages. The total
yield from each of the treatment plots were calculated and
expressed in kg. The total fruit yield was calculated by
converting the per plot fruit yield on hectare basis and
expressed in q ha-1. The soil samples were analysed for
available P at different growth stages oh hybrid tomato by
using Olsen’s extractant. Soil sample (5.0 grams) soil was
weighed into 100 ml polythene shaking bottles and add a
pinch of P free charcoal. Add 50 ml of extracting solution
(0.5M NaHCO3) to each flask and shake at 200 or more RPM
for 30 minutes at a room temperature of 24 to 270 C on an
electric shaker. Filter extracts through Whatman No 1 filter
paper or through a similar grade of paper. Prepare a blank
with all the reagents except the soil. Pipette out 5 ml of the
extract in a 25ml volumetric flask, and add 4 ml of reagent B
and make up the volume. The transmittance/absorbance of the
samples as well as that of blank was measured using
spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 660 nm and calculate
the concentration of P in the extracts. (Olsen et al., 1954) [18].
The per cent acidity of tomato sample was estimated by
volumetric titration method. Twenty five ml of juice was
taken and diluted with distilled water to make a volume of
250ml. Twenty five ml of this diluted juice was titrated with
0.1 N NaOH using phenolphthalein as an indicator. The
acidity was expressed as grams of citric acid per 100g of
NaOH. Lycopene content of tomato sample was estimated.
The gram of tomato pulp was extracted repeatedly with
acetone using pestle and mortar until the residue was
colorless. The acetone extract was pooled and transferred to a
separating funnel containing about 20 ml petroleum ether and
mixed gently. Twenty ml of 5 per cent sodium sulphate
solution was added to the separating funnel. A clear
separation of two layers was noticed. The lower aqueous
phase was re-extracted with additional 20 ml petroleum ether
until the aqueous phase was colourless. The petroleum ether
extract containing carotenoids was poured into a brown bottle
containing about ten grams of anhydrous sodium sulphate and
was kept aside for 30 min. The petroleum ether extract was
decanted into 100 ml volumetric flask through a funnel
containing cotton wool. The volume was made upto the mark
and absorbance was measured on Spectrophotometer at 503
nm using petroleum ether as blank. The lycopene content was
expressed as mg 100 g-1 of the sample. Ascorbic acid content
was determined by the A.0.A.C. (1975) method. Ten ml of
juice was diluted to 250 ml with 2 per cent oxalic acid. Ten
ml of this solution was then titrated with previously
International Journal of Chemical Studies

standardized 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol dye. The ascorbic
acid content was expressed as mg 100 g-1 of juice.
Results and Discussion
Plant height (cm)
Plant height at all growth stages of tomato was found
statistically identical at all treatments. The plant height is a
genetically made character which might not vary with the
difference in humic acid concentrations. The results were
confirmed with the findings of Rasheed et al., (2017) [22],
Adani et al., (2008) [2] and Abdel-Mawgoud et al., (2007) [1].

Table 1: Effect of HA coated phosphatic fertilizers on plant height (cm) at different growth stages of hybrid tomato.
Treatment
T1: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as MAP
T2: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as SSP
T3: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (5%)
T4: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (10%)
T5: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (15%)
T6: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (20%)
T7: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (5%)
T8: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (10%)
T9: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (15%)
T10: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (20%)
SEd
CD (P = 0.05)
10 DAT 28 DAT 56 DAT 79 DAT
21.48 44.77 139.7 141.67
21.71 47.80 141.1 142.13
21.43 48.40 140.6 142.70
21.78 49.07 142.7 144.20
21.88 46.03 122.4 124.00
22.07 49.93 139.9 141.37
20.46 51.37 143.1 145.03
21.26 48.67 131.9 133.87
22.67 46.95 123.2 125.53
22.34 45.09 135.6 137.87
1.31 2.95 9.59 8.66
NS NS NS NS

Available P in soil (kg ha-1)
Plants, developing more rapidly under the influence of humic
substance treatments are capable to regulate the processes of
phosphorus mobilization more actively (Bezuglova et al.,
2017) [8]. Taking Ludhiana of India as an example, available P
in the soil increased from the initially low status (8.0kgha−1)
to very high (85.8kgha−1) due to continuous application of P
fertilizer during 22 years of crop rotation in field soils. (Benbi
and Biswas, 1999) [7]. The initial soil available P of the
experimental field was high. The available P in soil showed
significant variation in different growth stages of tomato. T3
and T4 recorded the highest soil available P compared to
others. Available P was increased with HA application and
HA applied at low concentrations to increased plant nutrient
content as well as nutrient uptake. The results were confirmed
with the findings of Pal and Sengupta (1985) [20], Fagbenro
and Agboola (1993) [13] and Dursun et al., (2002) [12].

Table 2: Effect of HA coated phosphatic fertilizers on available soil P status (kg ha-1) at different growth stages of hybrid tomato
Transplanting to Flower initiation to Flowering Alternate day
Treatment
plant establishment flowering to fruit set from picking
T1: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as MAP 77.15 56.07 57.25 51.27
T2: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as SSP 81.84 35.65 46.26 52.31
T3: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (5%) 145.54 90.50 51.23 47.07
T4: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (10%) 72.33 65.27 110.25 56.52
T5: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (15%) 80.94 46.81 53.45 42.72
T6: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (20%) 75.46 55.08 65.21 44.13
T7: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (5%) 81.50 50.64 64.32 69.23
T8: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (10%) 81.25 46.19 88.26 60.09
T9: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (15%) 78.94 75.42 57.47 65.90
T10: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (20%) 85.30 51.76 54.85 55.96
SEd 6.94 4.34 5.08 4.21
CD (P = 0.05) 14.59 9.12 10.68 8.85

Lycopene content (mg 100 g-1)
The statistical results were found to be non-significant. The
lycopene content is a genetically made character which might
not vary with the difference in humic acid concentrations. The
values for lycopene content ranged from 3.45 to 3.88. Similar
results were reported by Yildirim et al., (2007) [27].
Ascorbic acid content (mg 100 g-1)
The statistical results were found to be non-significant. The
ascorbic acid content is a genetically made character which
might not vary with the difference in humic acid
concentrations. The values for ascorbic acid content ranged
from 3.63 to 3.92. Similar results were reported by Yildirim et
al., (2007) [27].
Titratable acidity (%)
The statistical results were found to be non-significant. The
titrable acidity is a genetically made character which might
not vary with the difference in humic acid concentrations. The
values for ascorbic acid content ranged from 0.73 to 0.85. The
results were confirmed with the findings of Asri et al., (2015)
[4]
.

~ 4395 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies

Table 3: Effect of HA coated phosphatic fertilizers on quality parameters of hybrid tomato.

Ascorbic acid
Treatment Lycopene content (mg 100 g-1) Titrable acidity (%)
content (mg 100 g-1)
T1: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as MAP 3.45 0.75 3.63
T2: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as SSP 3.53 0.76 3.68
T3: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (5%) 3.64 0.75 3.86
T4: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (10%) 3.76 0.73 3.74
T5: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (15%) 3.47 0.82 3.81
T6: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (20%) 3.52 0.79 3.73
T7: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (5%) 3.75 0.76 3.92
T8: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (10%) 3.82 0.85 3.64
T9: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (15%) 3.72 0.82 3.71
T10: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (20%) 3.88 0.78 3.86
SEd 0.26 0.05 0.26
CD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS

Average fruit weight (g)
The humic acid concentrations had no significant effect on the
fruit weight. Similar results were obtained by Rasheed et al.,
(2017) [22].
Yield per plot (kg)
There existed a significant difference in yield per plot due to
different concentrations of humic acid coatings. A
significantly higher yield was observed in T4 (66.50 kg) which
was statistically identical to T1 (53.78 kg) and T3 (58.95 kg)
treatments. The lowest yield was recorded for T2 (42.35 kg)
and T10 (45.25 kg). MAP treatments recorded better
performance in terms of yield parameters compared to SSP
treatments. The results were confirmed with the findings of
Asri et al., (2015) [4]. Similar results were reported by
Karakurt et al., (2009), Adani et al., (1998) [2] and Padem and
Ocal (1999) [19].
Yield per hectare (q ha-1)
There existed a significant difference in yield per hectare due
to different concentrations of humic acid coatings. A
significantly higher yield was observed in T4 (303.30 q ha-1)
which was statistically identical to T1 (268.90 q ha-1) and T3
(294.75 q ha-1) treatments. The lowest yield was recorded for
T2 (211.75 q ha-1) and T10 (226.25 q ha-1). MAP treatments
recorded better performance in terms of yield parameters as
compared to SSP treatments. The results were confirmed with
the findings of Asri et al., (2015) [4]. Similar results were
reported by Karakurt et al., (2009), Adani et al., (1998) [2] and
Padem and Ocal (1999) [19].

Table 4: Effect of HA coated phosphatic fertilizers on yield parameters of hybrid tomato.

Treatment Average fruit weight (g) Yield per plot (kg) Yield per hectare (q ha-1)
T1: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as MAP 78.63 53.78 268.90
T2: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as SSP 77.23 42.35 211.75
T3: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (5%) 74.43 58.95 294.75
T4: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (10%) 75.23 66.50 303.30
T5: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (15%) 78.10 46.60 233.00
T6: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated MAP (20%) 75.95 48.01 240.05
T7: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (5%) 73.87 46.75 233.75
T8: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (10%) 77.53 46.17 260.40
T9: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (15%) 75.77 47.78 238.90
T10: P @ 250 kg ha-1 as HA coated SSP (20%) 74.50 45.25 226.25
SEd 5.23 3.74 19.81
CD (P = 0.05) 10.99 7.86 41.64

Conclusion mineral nurtrition. J Plant Nutr. 1998; 21:561-575.

The field experiment inferred that humic acid coatings at
lower concentrations (5% and 10%) performed better in terms
of yield and available soil P status. It was also inferred that
MAP treatments were better as compared to SSP treatments.
Hence the present study revealed that MAP with 5% and 10%
HA coating was appropriate to obtain higher yield as well as a
higher soil P status.
References
1. Abdel-Mawgoud, AMR, El-Greadly NHM, Helmy YI,
Singer SM. Responses of Tomato Plants to Different
Rates of Humic-based Fertilizer and NPK Fertilization.
Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 2007; 3(2):169-
174.
2. Adani F, Genevini P, Zaccheo PP, Zocchi G. The effect
of commercial humic acid on tomato plant growth and
~ 4396 ~
3. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Lee S, Byrne R. Effects of
humic acids from vermicomposts on plant growth.
European Journal of Soil Biology. 2006; 42:65-69.
4. Asri FO, Demirtas N. Ari. Changes in fruit yield, quality
and nutrient concentrations in response to soil humic acid
applications in processing tomato. Bulg. J Agric. Sci.
2015; 21:585-591.
5. Atiyeh RM, Edwards CA, Subler S, Metzger J.
Earthworm-processed organic wastes as components of
horticultural potting media for growing marigold and
vegetable seedlings. Compost Science and Utilization.
2000; 82:215-223.
6. Ayuso M, Hernandez T, Garcia C, Pascual JA.
Stimulation of barley growth and nutrient absorption by
humic substances originating from various organic
materials. Bioresource Technology. 1999; 57(3):251-257.
International Journal of Chemical Studies

7. Benbi DK, Biswas CR. Nutrient budgeting for Temperature and Moisture Regimes. Proc. Natl. Acad.
phosphorus and potassium in a long-term fertilizer trial, Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2017; 87(4):1299-1308.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 1999; 5425:132. 24. Suman S, Spehia RS, Sharma V. Humic acid improved
8. Bezuglova OS, Polienko EA, Gorovtsov AV, Lyhman efficiency of fertigation and productivity of tomato.
VA, Pavlov PD. The effect of humic substances on Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2016; 40(3):439-446.
winter wheat yield and fertility of ordinary chernozem. 25. Turkmen O, Dursun A, Turan M, Erdinc C. Calcium and
Annals of Agrarian Science. 2017; 15:239-242. humic acid affect seed germination, growth, and nutrient
9. Buckerfield JC, Flavel T, Lee KE, Webster KA. content of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) seedlings
Vermicompost in solid and liquid form as a plant-growth under saline soil conditions. Acta Agriculturae, 2004.
promoter. Pedobiologia. 1999; 43:753-759. 26. Unlu HO, Unlu H, Karakurt Y, Padem H. Changes in
10. Cimrin KM, Yilmaz I. Humic acid applications to lettuce fruit yield and quality in response to foliar and soil humic
do not improve yield but do improve phosphorus acid application in cucumber. Scientific Research and
availability. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section B, Essays. 2011; 6(13):2800-2803.
Soil and Plant Science. 2005; 55:58-63. 27. Yildirim, Ertan. Foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid
11. Dangler JM, Locasio SJ. Yield of Trickle-irrigated affect productivity and quality of tomato. Acta
Tomatoes as Affected by Time of N and K Application. J Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant
Americ Soc for Horticul Sci. 1990; 115:585-589. Science. 2007; 57(2).
12. Dursun A, Guvenc I, Turan M. Effects of different levels
of humic acid on seedling growth and macro and
micronutrient contents of tomato and eggplant. Acta
Agrobotanica. 2002; 56:81-88.
13. Fagbenro JA, Agboola AA. Effect of different levels of
humic acid on the growth and nutrient uptake of teak
seedlings. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1993, 16(8).
14. Iqbal S, Matorakis N. Effect of various growth mediums
on on the germination and growth of Jatropha curcas.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of
Geodesy & Geomatics Engineering. (GENG'14), Brasov,
Romania. 2014; 26(28):147-156.
15. Karakurt Y, Unlu H, Unlu H, Padem H. The influence of
foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid on yield and
quality of pepper. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. 2009.
Section B Soil & Plant Science, 2013; 59(3):233-237.
16. Koivunen ME, Horwath WR. Methylene urea as a slow-
release nitr. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosys. 2005, 71:177.
17. Nardi S, Pizzeghello D, Muscolo A, Vianello A.
Physiological effects of humic substances on higher
plants. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 2002; 34:1527-
1536.
18. Olsen SR, Cole V, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimations
of available phosphorus in soils by extractions with
sodium bicarbonate. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Cric. 939,
USDA, Washington, DC, 1954.
19. Padem H, Ocal A. Effects of humic acid applications on
yield and some characteristics of processing tomato.
ISHS 6th International Symposium on Processing
Tomato. Pamplona, Navarra, Spain, 25-28 May 1998.
Acta Horticulturae. 1999; 487:159-163.
20. Pal S, Sengupta MB. Nature and properties of humic acid
prepared from different sources and its effect on nutrient
availability Plant Soil. 1985, 88:71.
21. Rafael da Silva Teixeira, Ivo Ribeiro da Silva, Rodrigo
Nogueira de Sousa, Edson Márcio Mattiello, Emanuelle
Merces Barros Soares. Organic acid coated-slow-release
phosphorus fertilizers improve P availability and maize
growth in a tropical soil. Journal of Soil Science and
Plant Nutrition. 2016; 16(4):1097-1112.
22. Rasheed SMS, Abdullah HO, Ali ST. Response of Two
Hybrids of Tomato (Lycupersicun esculentum Mill) to
Four Concentration of Humic Acid Fertilizers in Plastic
House Condition. Journal Tikrit Univ. For Agri. Sci.
2017; (17):1
23. Sarkar A, Biswas, DR, Datta SC, Manjaiah KM, Roy T.
Release of Phosphorus from Laboratory Made Coated
Phosphatic Fertilizers in Soil Under Different
~ 4397 ~