Next Article in Journal
Intention to Purchase Active and Intelligent Packaging to Reduce Household Food Waste: Evidence from Italian Consumers
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Fourteen Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes by Observing Gas Exchange Parameters, Relative Water and Chlorophyll Content, and Yield Attributes under Drought Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Mudstone Fracture and Precursory Characteristics after Corrosion of Acidic Solution Based on Dissipative Strain Energy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals in Tropical Soils an Overview
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/su13084485
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Potential of a New Commercial Seaweed Extract in Stimulating Morpho-Agronomic and Bioactive Properties of Eruca vesicaria (L.) Cav.

by
Shimaa M. Hassan
1,
Mohamed Ashour
2,*,
Ahmed A. F. Soliman
3,
Hesham A. Hassanien
4,5,
Walaa F. Alsanie
6,
Ahmed Gaber
7 and
Mostafa E. Elshobary
8,9,*
1
Department of Vegetable, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby), Alexandria University, Alexandria 21545, Egypt
2
National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, NIOF, Cairo 11516, Egypt
3
National Research Center, Drug Bioassay-Cell Culture Laboratory, Pharmacognosy Department, Cairo 12622, Egypt
4
Animal and Fish Production Department, College of Agricultural and Food Sciences, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
5
Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
6
Department of Clinical Laboratories, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
7
Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
8
Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
9
School of Food & Biological Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(8), 4485; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084485
Submission received: 12 March 2021 / Revised: 13 April 2021 / Accepted: 15 April 2021 / Published: 17 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance: Physiological and Molecular Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Production)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to understand the effect of commercial seaweed extract as a biofertilizer, named True-Algae-Max (TAM®), on the yield, nutritional, antioxidant, and cytotoxic activity of Eruca vesicaria. Three concentrations of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%) were studied by foliar spray over the two cultivation years (2016 and 2017) without any chemical fertilizer, along with a control consisting of synthetic nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) fertilizers. The yield and composition of E. vesicaria were significantly improved in all treatments, particularly at 10% concentration of TAM®, which resulted in maximum yield (1.99 kg m−2) and significant amounts of chlorophyll, carotenoids, phenolic compounds, flavonoids and total nutrients. Compared to the NPK control, E. vesicaria grown with 10% of TAM® improved total antioxidant activity from 41.80 to 49.36 mg g−1 and cytotoxicity from 25.30 to 60.40% with an IC50 value 85.7 µg mL−1 against the hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2). These findings indicate that seaweed extract can generally be used as a safe potential multifunctional biofertilizer in the agricultural field. The use of seaweed as a biofertilizer could potentially help mitigate the adverse effects of main nutrient deficiencies, diminishing the use of chemical fertilizers.

1. Introduction

With rapid growth in the global population and increasing demand for foods with good nutritional and health values, there is growing pressure to produce sufficient food [1,2]. On the other hand, essential nutrients required for crop growth are gradually depleting from the soils, which results in lower crop yields per unit area of land [3]. As attempts to overcome these issues, chemical fertilizers are widely used. Although chemical fertilizers can increase the crops’ growth and yields, their overuse has various side effects, including hardening the soil, decreasing soil fertility, strengthening pesticides, and polluting water [4]. Moreover, these chemicals tend to increase the susceptibility of plants to pathogens by altering the soil microbiome composition and substantially influencing plant health and eventually pose a serious threat to consumers [5] as well as the whole ecosystem in the long run [6]. Therefore, modern agricultural practice is seeking alternatives to chemical fertilizers.
A promising approach is the use of biofertilizers in the form of mixtures of natural compounds, which could stimulate the growth and yield of plants and improve the tolerance efficiency to abiotic and biotic stresses with no side effect [7,8,9]. Marine organisms are good sources for bioactive compounds which have wide ranges of biological activities [10,11,12,13,14]. In this context, macroalgae would be potential options as biofertilizers [15,16]. In general, macroalgae are treasure chests of many organic and inorganic components, improving plants’ quantity and quality by enhancing plant growth, protection and immune stimulation [8,13,17]. In this aspect, screening native aquatic organisms should be considered to achieve a thriving commercial and biotechnological potential [18]. Algal cells are considered an attractive aquatic natural source of bioactive materials that can be successfully utilized in several applications [19,20,21]. However, Egypt has a wide variety of wild seaweeds throughout the year, either along the Mediterranean coast [22,23,24,25,26] or the Red Sea coast [27,28]. Along the Egyptian Mediterranean coast, especially the Alexandria coast, green algae such as Ulva lactuca (Chlorophyta) and red algae such as Jania rubens and Pterocladiella capillacea (Rhodophyta) are the most dominant native seaweed species.
Eruca vesicaria (L.) Cav. is becoming a significantly important leafy salad crop across the world. E. vesicaria (L.) Cav. (formerly E. sativa Mill.) belong to the Brassicaceae family (Cruciferae) and are widely used as a source of healthy phytochemicals and nutraceutics [29]. E. vesicaria seems to be a promising industrial food crop as it has many bioactive phytochemicals [30,31,32], making it a promising source for antioxidants and cytotoxicity properties for health and cosmetics applications [33,34,35,36,37,38]. Despite the fact that these seaweed extracts and their physiological effects have been widely described, the impact of these extracts on the bioactive components and enhancing their activities have been poorly studied and still need more investigation.
Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the suitability of the mixed seaweed extract as a commercial biofertilizer for Rocket salad, E. vesicaria (L.) Cav. In this context, a comparative evaluation was made on the performances between seaweed biofertilizers (three treatments without chemical NPK application) and chemical fertilizer (NPK control), considering the vegetative growth, yield, nutrient contents, and bioactive compounds. Further experiments were conducted to study the effects of the seaweed extract to improve antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of the E. vesicaria (L.) Cav.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Algae Source

A commercial seaweed liquid biofertilizer, namely True-Algae-Max (TAM®), that was prepared and used in the current study has been submitted at the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (Egypt Patents Office, Cairo, Egypt submission No.: 2046/2019) [39]. TAM® was prepared from the extract of the green alga Ulva lactuca (Linnaeus) and red algae Jania rubens (Linnaeus) and Pterocladiella capillacea (S.G. Gmelin) Santelices. These seaweeds were collected from Boughaz El-Maadya, Abu-Qir Bay (31°16′16.0″ N, 30°10′28.0″ E), Alexandria, Egypt. These three species are the most dominant native species along the Egyptian Mediterranean coast of Alexandria [23,24,40].

2.1.2. Plant Material

E. vesicaria seeds of local Egyptian cv. Balady were purchased from the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture stores and stored at 4 °C in a plastic bag containing silica gel until sown.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Phytochemical Analysis of TAM®

The crude TAM® was tested for physicochemical properties (color, odor, density, pH, organic matter, polysaccharides and total dissolved solids), macronutrients (N, P, K and Mg), micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Zn and Mn), and heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni and Ar) according to the standard methods as the following—total macro, micronutrients and heavy metals were determined in the seaweed extracts by using an Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometer (Perkin Elemer Emission Specrrophotometer- 6000 Series, Thermo Scientific) [41]. Total polysaccharides were determined using the micro phenol-sulfuric acid method [42], with glucose as a standard. Total organic matter was determined according to the method of Albrektienė [43]. GC-Mass Spectrophotometry analysis was performed according to Elshobary et al. [44]. NIST library was used to identify the unknown compounds. According to Ashour et al. [45], physical properties, chemical and biochemical composition, and phytochemical compounds of crude TAM® are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

2.2.2. Field Experiment and Soil Analysis

Field experiment with E. vesicaria (L.) Cav. was conducted for two successive years in 2016 and 2017 at the Abeis Experimental Farm Station, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, Egypt (31°11′25.9″ N 30°00′25.1″ E). The average maximum and minimum temperatures in the experimental period were 25 and 15 °C, respectively. Average relative humidity was 70 ± 5%, with an average monthly rainfall of 250 ± 5.5 mm, during cultivation season (March–May). E. vesicaria seeds were sown on the 25th March in both years. Before sowing the seeds, physical and chemical properties of the soils collected from up to 30 cm depth were determined by the standard procedures. To determine soil pH, 10 g of soil was mixed with 1:5 distilled water and the pH was determined using a pH meter. The total nitrogen content of 1 g of soil was determined using the micro-Kjeldahl process. The Lancaster method was used to calculate the amount of available phosphorus (P2O5) and nitrogen content in the soil. Potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium exchangeables were eluted with 1 N NH4OAc and then analyzed with a spectrophotometer. Regarding anions analysis, bicarbonate is generally determined in soil saturation extract by titration with 0.01 N H2SO4 to pH 4.5, respectively [54]. Soluble chloride is measured in the saturation extract of soil by silver nitrate titration [54]. Sulfate is determined by the wet digestion method with acid mixture (nitric: perchloric: sulfuric acid) at the ratio of (8:1:1) [54].

2.2.3. Treatments and Experimental Design

Three foliar spray concentrations (5, 10 and 15%) of TAM® were studied as the treatments without NPK application, while standard amounts of NPK chemical fertilizer were used as the control. The experimental layout was a randomized complete block design, as also studied earlier [55]. The experimental area was 150 m2 with three replicates. The area of each plot was (5 × 2.5 m2) 12.5 m2. The seeds were sowed by the broadcasting method at an amount of 28 kg h−1 [16]. The plots were randomly arranged under the sunlight at 22 ± 4 °C at mid-day. TAM® concentrations were added as foliar spray three times after planting at the 10th, 18th, and 26th days 2000 mL per plot (100–200 mL/m2) for each cut. The total amount of N, P and K of crude TAM® was 3136, 5376 and 2688 kg ha−1, respectively. NPK chemical fertilization was carried out according to the recommendations for commercial production of E. vesicaria plant [56]. The NPK treatment dose consisted of ammonium sulfate (20.5%N) at the rate of 529 kg ha−1, calcium superphosphate (15% P2O5), 302 kg ha−1 and potassium sulfate (48% K2O), 126 kg ha−1. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied thrice on the 10th, 18th, and 26th days. Phosphorus fertilizer was mixed during soil preparation. Potassium fertilizer was applied for 15 days.

2.2.4. Determination of Growth and Yield Parameters

In both years, the plants were harvested (cut) twice, at 35 and 65 days of sowing, from each plot (treatment) to determine total yield (kg−2). Five plants were randomly selected from each treatment of three replicates (15 samples) to measure plant height (cm), dry leaf weight (g), and the number of leaves per plant (No.).

2.2.5. Determination of Chlorophyll, Carotenoid, and Mineral Contents

Pigment contents in the plants were determined by extracting 0.2 g of fresh leaf sample in 25 mL of 80% acetone for 48 h at room temperature in the dark. Absorbances were read at 662, 645, and 652 nm in a spectrophotometer (UV-3802, UNICO, Dayton, Ohio, USA). Chlorophyll a, b and carotenoid were calculated using Equations (1)–(4) [57]:
Chlorophyll a = (11.75 × A662) − (2.69 × A645)
Chlorophyll b = (18.61 × A645) − (3.960 × A662)
Total chlorophyll = (Chl. a + Chl. b)
Total carotenoid content = (1000 × A470 − 2.270 × Chl. a − 81.4 × Chl. b)/227
where A is the absorbance of the sample on the spectrophotometer. The results were expressed as micrograms per gram fresh weight of the sample.
Nutrient contents (N, P, and K) in E. vesicaria were determined as a percentage of the dry weight of the leaves. Total nitrogen and phosphorus contents were determined using the spectrophotometric method [58], while potassium was determined in the atomic absorption spectrometry [59].

2.2.6. Preparation of Plant Extracts

The harvested samples of E. vesicaria in 2016 and 2017 were oven-dried at < 45 °C till constant weight (48 h) and then ground into fine powder. One gram of the plant powder (three replicates for each treatment) was extracted with 10 mL methanol for 10min in a sonication bath and then kept in methanol (90%) for 24 h at room temperature for further extraction [60]. These extracts were filtered with a Whatman® No. 1 filter paper. Filtrates were evaporated to dryness and resuspended in methanol to 100 μg mL−1 to evaluate the antioxidants and cytotoxic activities.

2.2.7. Determination of Antioxidant Activity and Phytochemicals

Free radical scavenging activity of the methanolic extract was performed by the DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) method described by Viturro et al. [61]. Total antioxidant activity (TAA) was determined by the phosphomolybdate method using ascorbic acid (µg ml−1) as the standard [62]. Total phenolic content (TPC) was determined by the Folin–Ciocalteu method modified from Kumar et al. [63]. Total flavonoid content (TFC) was estimated by the method described earlier [64] using quercetin as the standard.

2.2.8. Determination of Cytotoxic Activity

Cytotoxic activity of the E. vesicaria crude methanolic extracts (after evaporating methanol) was obtained from TAM® (three treatments) and the control using lung cancer cell line (A549) and hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2). Cell cultures were maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (ATCC 30-2002) for the A549 cell line and Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium (RPMI-1640) for the HepG2 cell line. The culture media were supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and incubated at 37 °C under 5% CO2 and 95% humidity. After that, a sub-culture of the cell lines was achieved using 0.15% trypsin-versene. In 96 well plates, 104 cells (obtained after 24 h culturing) were taken separately in each well for both A549 and HepG2 cell lines containing 100 µL respective serum-free media of each cell line. The final concentration of the plant extracts in each respective well was 100 μg mL−1. The experiments were performed in triplicate at 37 °C for 48 h. Doxorubicin and 0.5% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) were used as the positive and negative controls, respectively. Cell viability was determined using the MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay [65] by adding 50 µL of MTT solution (5 mg mL−1) into the treated cells to form formazan crystals within the living cell. To separate the formazan crystals, the mixtures were centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was disregarded, and 1 mL of DMSO was added to dissolve the precipitated formazan crystals. Absorbance was detected in a microplate reader (Model 680) at 595 nm. Cytotoxicity was calculated for all treatment and controls using Equation (5):
Cytotoxicity (%) = (1 − AX/ANC) × 100
where AX and ANC are the absorbance of the sample and control at OD595, respectively.
The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) was determined using different concentrations of the highly active extracts showing high cytotoxicity on the cancer cell lines.

2.2.9. Statistical Analysis

A comparison among the factors was statistically made by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan post hoc test, as well as two-way ANOVA using plant parameters as a dependent factor, while treatments, years and their interaction were used as independent factors using the IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM, v.23). Differences among means were considered significant at p < 0.05. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was determined for the relationship between phytochemical compounds and their biological activities in SPSS software. All morphometric and phytochemical parameters of untreated and TAM® treated plants were subjected to the principal component analysis (PCA) to discover relationships among parameters and treatments. We determined the effective treatment that gives the maximum yield and quality among TAM® concentrations using Paleontological Statistics (PAST3).

3. Results

3.1. Soil Analysis

Regarding the soil analysis, it was observed that the difference in physical properties between the two cultivation years was not significant at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test (Table 3).

3.2. Morpho-Agronomic Properties

The results showed that morpho-agronomic traits of E. vesicaria varied among the treatments and NPK control (p < 0.05), but variations in the parameters were not significant between the two experimental years (p < 0.05), except the plant height and number of leaves that varied significantly between the years at p < 0.05 using two-way ANOVA (Table A1). Plant height was increased with 10% and 15% TAM by 1.17 and 1.23 times over the control, while plant height with the NPK control was comparable to that with 5% seaweed extract (Table 4).
The different TAM® foliar extracts increased the number of leaves slightly over the NPK control treatment, which recorded the lowest number of leaves (seven leaves), where the maximum leaf number was observed with 15%, 5% and 10% TAM®, respectively (Table 4). Although the lowest dry matter was recorded with 10% seaweed extract, the results were comparable in all treatments, while with the NPK control, and in 2016 also for TAM® 5%, the results were significantly higher (Table 4). In 2016, the total yield of E. vesicaria was enhanced by the foliar TAM® spray over the NPK control. The highest increasing percentage (24%) was recorded with 10% TAM® over the NPK control. In 2017, the yield was higher than what was found in 2016, where the total yield was increased by 43% with 10% TAM® over the NPK control. The lowest yield was found in the NPK control in both years compared to any treatment (Table 4).

3.3. Pigment Content

It was observed that Chlorophyll a in E. vesicaria did not vary significantly among the treatments and NPK control as well as in both years (p < 0.05) (Figure 1). TAM® treatment did not affect the Chlorophyll b content compared with the control, and the 15% showed the lowest concentration and the highest content was observed with 5 and 10% TAM®. The highest carotene content was found with 10% TAM® in both years, which was considered the best TAM® concentration to act as a biofertilizer. Indeed, it was observed that there was no significant difference in all pigment contents in both studied years (Table A1).

3.4. Nutrient Content

In general, there was no significant variation in nitrogen content in the plants between two years (Table A1). Treatments consisting of 10% TAM® provided the highest nitrogen accumulation in both years, while 15% TAM® and the NPK control showed the lowest value with no significant difference at p < 0.05 (Figure 2). Regarding the phosphorus content, all TAM® treatments showed phosphorus content close to that of the NPK control (Figure 2). However, potassium content increased significantly in the TAM® treatments, mainly with 15% TAM® (2.38% in 2016 and 2.32% in 2017), over the NPK control in both years. The differences were not statistically significant among treatments.

3.5. Phytochemical Content

As shown in Figure 3, maximum phenolic content in E. vesicaria was achieved with 10% TAM® (106.38 mg g−1 in 2016 and 105.52 mg g−1 in 2017), while there was no significant difference between 5% and 15% TAM® treatments. On the other hand, the lowest phenolic content was provided by the NPK control. Likewise, treatment with 10% TAM® showed the highest total flavonoids (2.94 mg g−1 in 2016 and 2.97 mg g−1 in 2017), while the control, 5% and 15% TAM® were comparable. It was observed that there was no significant variation in phytochemical content in both studied years (Table A1).

3.6. Antioxidant Activity

The highest DPPH inhibition was achieved by 10% TAM® (63.63% in 2016), which was a little higher than the NPK control. However, 5% and 15% TAM® showed a lower DPPH scavenging activity than the NPK control in 2016, while in 2017, 5% TAM® showed comparable results with NPK treatment. Compared to the activity shown by the NPK control treatment, 10% TAM® showed the maximum total antioxidant activity (Figure 4). The highest total antioxidant activity was achieved with 10% TAM® (48.59 mg g−1 in 2016 and 52.43 mg g−1 in 2017), while the lowest activity was achieved with the NPK control. The same trend of antioxidant activities was observed in both years with no significance (Table A1).

3.7. Cytotoxic Activity

Cytotoxic effects of methanolic extracts (dissolved in 0.05% DMSO) of E. vesicaria obtained from the different treatments of TAM® and the NPK control were estimated against the human cancer cells HepG2 and A549. Cultures of two cell lines were firstly treated with a methanol extract of E. vesicaria (100 μg mL−1). Treatment with 10% TAM® showed 60.40% cytotoxicity against HepG2, which was more than 2-fold higher than that exhibited by the NPK control (Table 5). Likewise, TAM® 10% showed cytotoxic effect against the A549 cell line almost the same as the NPK control did. The IC50 value with 10% TAM® against HepG2 was found to be 85.7 μg mL−1 (Table 5). Noteworthily, the negative control showed no cytotoxic activity. The correlation coefficients (r) between the carotenoids with total phenolic and antioxidant activities were relatively high (0.91 and 0.96, respectively) (Table 6). On the other hand, cytotoxicity activity (HepG2) significantly correlated with carotenoids, total flavonoids and total antioxidant activity (0.73, 0.59 and 0.77, respectively) (Table 6).

3.8. Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

Three factors (PCs) were associated with Eigenvalues higher than one and accounted for 100% of the total variance. Factor 1 (PC1) explained 50.16% of the difference. The loading of the parameters on PC1 shows that plant height, number of leaves, total yield, phosphorous, potassium, total phenols, flavonoids and dry matter were the dominant variables, while plant height, Chl. a, carotenoids, Chl. b and nitrogen content were the dominant variables on the PC2, which explained 30.23%. PC3 explained the remaining 19.61% and showed Chl. a, Chl. b, and nitrogen as dominant variables (Table 7).
As shown in Figure 5, plotting data between PC1 and PC2 grouped 15% and 10% TAM® in the first upper positive quarter with plant height, total flavonoids and total yield, the NPK control in the second negative quarter with carotenoids and Chl. a, and 5% TAM® was located in the positive third quarter with mineral contents, the number of leaves and total phenols. In particular, regarding the interpretation of the components, it was observed that PC1 is strongly correlated with the morphometric trait variables including total yield, number of leaves and plant height, as well as nutrient and bioactive compounds such as P, K, total phenols and flavonoids. On the other hand, PC2 strongly correlated with carotene and Chl. a. However, PC3 was positively correlated with Chl. a, Chl. b and N% (Table 7).

4. Discussion

Seaweed extracts have been shown much interest over the past few years as biofertilizers of various plants for improving plant growth and the yield of crops [66]. These extracts can be added directly to the soil or with irrigation water, while foliar spraying is a popular and widely used method of applying seaweed extracts [67,68]. The influences of these seaweed extracts on crops are mainly based on the availability, solubility and biological activity of the algal biomolecules and their extraction methods.
Physical, chemical, and biochemical properties of TAM® were evaluated before applying it as a biofertilizer in the cultivation of E. vesicaria, as described by Ashour et al. [45]. Physical investigations (Table 1) showed an appropriate amount of nutrients, macronutrients, and micronutrients. These findings indicated that these seaweed extracts had potential for use as organic fertilizers. In fact, the positive effects of any seaweed extract application as biofertilizers are the result of their chemical and biochemical constituents that work synergistically, although the mode of action is still unknown [45,47,67,69]. The composition of TAM® revealed in this study is good compared to the green and red seaweed extracts detected in previous studies, which reported levels of various minerals such as Mg, Na, K, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu [70,71,72]. These results were in agreement with previous studies, which showed the beneficial effects of diluted seaweed extracts on plants, such as improved crop growth performance, nutrient contents, yield, and fruit quality [6,73].
GC-Mass analysis showed that TAM® extract contains different bioactive phytochemical compounds with many biological activities [45]. Methylated fatty acids and fatty acids represented about 83% of the total peak area of TAM®. Linoleic, γ-linolenic and oleic acid are the most abundant fatty acids found in seaweeds [23]. Biofertilizers in such fatty acids and their methyl ester have shown beneficial effects in antimicrobial and antioxidant activity [44]. In this context, seaweeds rich in fatty acids, minerals and polysaccharides stimulate the germination of many seeds, improve the quality of crop plants, enhance the resistance to climatic changes and insect pests, and prolong seeds and fruits preservation [74]. Phytol is one of the chlorophyll products that has been reported to have significant antioxidant effects [45,75]. Rhodopin, as a carotenoid compound in seaweeds, has antioxidant activity [49,51]. Nonadecane reported in many red, brown, and green seaweeds displayed antioxidant and antimicrobial activities [48,49,50]. This finding reflects the key role of these bioactive compounds as a protective effect against plant pathogens and invaders. Interestingly, TAM® showed new reported bioactive compounds, which for the first time were reported in seaweed extract [12] and utilized in the current study for the first time as plant foliar spray, such as milbemycin-oxime and 5-silaspiro[4.4]nona-1,3,6,8-tetraene,3,8-bis(diethylboryl)-2,7-diethyl-1,4,6,9-tetraphenyl. The milbemycin-oxime showed strong antiparasitic and insecticidal activities [52,53]. Moreover, 5-silaspiro[4.4]nona- is a phyto-bioactive compound and has two atoms of boron attached with one atom of silicon. Boron is an essential micronutrient required for the embryonic development and bone metabolism of plants [75,76]. However, many studies are still needed at this point.
Although the content of macro- and microelements in TAM® extract is lower than that used in the NPK control, its effect is almost better than the NPK control; this may be due to the fact that these elements are completely soluble in water and presented in the form of chelate that plants absorbed it efficiently over the soil fertilizer [77]. The enhancement of vegetative growth, yield, and bioactive ingredients of E. vesicaria was also reported earlier using different concentrations of commercial seaweed extract (Algamex) as a foliar spray on E. vesicaria [31]. Similar results were found using different foliar spray concentrations from the autoclaved cellular content of a blue-green alga, Arthrospira platensis (formerly Spirulina platensis), applied on E. vesicaria [60]. Yıldıztekın et al. [78] also recorded an enhancement in growth and plant yield when seaweed extracts from Ascophyllum nodosum were applied to Capsicum annuum. Applying red seaweed extracts of Kappaphycus alvarezii and Gracilaria edulis has been detected as plant growth and yield stimulants of wheat [79]. Applications of seaweed extracts have improved the total yield of Phaseolus radiate L. These results are overlapping those of Rathore et al. [80], in which applying seaweed extract (K. alvarezii) induced growth, yield and nutrient utilization in soybean plants. Mola et al. [81] detected that biostimulant applications of seaweed extracts (Ecklonia maxima) increased the yield of baby leaf lettuce by 13.4% over non treated plants. Another study proved that the addition of acid green seaweed extracts of Ulva lactuca at low concentrations (0.2%) can significantly increase seed germination rates and fresh and dry weight production of mung bean compared to the control treatments [82]. The nonsignificant difference of most morpho-agronomic parameters and bioactive significant components in both cultivated years might be because cultivation time was the same in both years, as well as insignificant differences in the climatic conditions and soil parameters.
Interestingly, E. vesicaria grown under all three treatments of TAM®contained significantly higher amounts of total phenol and total flavonoid compounds as well as antioxidant activity compared to those obtained from the NPK control. Colla et al. [83] found that the application of brown seaweed (Ecklonia maxima) increased the yield and content of mineral, lycopene, total phenols and ascorbic acid as well as antioxidant activity of Solanum lycopersicum. Our results on TAM were consistent with the findings of Ali et al. [84], who observed that the foliar application of Ascophyllum nodosum (0.5%) enhanced the plant quality of tomato by 54% relative to the control. Earlier, Bell and Wagstaff [85] reported that flavonoids and phenolic compounds are the major phytochemicals found in different parts of E. vesicaria. Flavonoids in this plant are usually found with sugars as conjugates and typically occur in relatively large quantities [86]. Recently, El-Wakeel et al. [87] have studied the effects of natural flavonoid compounds from E. vesicaria to manage two annual weeds of Pisum sativum (Pea) plants. PCA is a useful analytical approach for illustrating the impact of environmental factors and genetic traits on the productivity and quality of plants [83,88,89]. In this study, the PCA score plot was divided into the TAM®-treated and NPK control plant (untreated). Most of the morphometric (total yield, number of leaves, and plant height) and phytochemical parameters (N, P, K, Chl. b, total phenols, and flavonoid content) of E. vesicaria under the treatments fell in PC1. Finally, NPK control plants had the lowest nutritional quality compared to that of the treatments.
Rocket salad, E. vesicaria, is a good source of polyphenols, which work as natural antioxidants [90]. In this study, it was found that E. vesicaria, treated with three TAM® concentrations or NPK chemical fertilizers, showed considerable antioxidant activity either by DPPH or phosphmolypedate methods (Figure 4). These findings were in agreement with Hassan et al. [60], who reported that foliar spray of A. platensis increased antioxidant activities of E. vesicaria. The Pearson correlation coefficient obtained for antioxidant activity with carotenoids and phenolics (Table 6) further confirmed the above findings. Earlier, Gutiérrez et al. [91] also reported that antioxidant activity and the phenolic contents in E. vesicaria correlated significantly. Interestingly, TAM® could also increase cucumber Cucumis sativus yield due to improving its chemical and physical traits related to immunity, productivity, and stress defense, under greenhouse conditions [47].
Many Arabian medicinal plants have been used as alternative cytotoxic natural sources throughout history [37]. Khoobchandani et al. [92] demonstrated that isothiocyanates found in E. vesicaria seed oil had anti-melanoma activity and played an essential role in inhibiting cancer cell proliferation. However, there is little information on the cytotoxic activity of E. vesicaria on lung carcinoma (A549) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2). In the current study, among three different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, 10% showed the highest cytotoxic effect (60.40%) with an IC50 value equal to 85.7 μg mL−1 against HepG2 only. These findings agreed with the results obtained by Hassan et al. [60], who reported that foliar spray prepared from autoclaved cellular content of S. platensis could significantly increase cytotoxic activity by 61.3% against the hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2).

5. Conclusions

This study has shown that a new foliar spray formed of commercial seaweed extract (TrueAlgaeMax, TAM®) significantly improved the morpho-agronomic and bioactive properties of a Rocket salad, E. vesicaria, which were nicely comparable with those obtained from the NPK control. Among the three TAM® treatments, 10% concentration resulted in the maximum influence on the most morpho-agronomic, mineral and bioactive compounds of E. vesicaria. Interestingly, TAM® showed new reported bioactive compounds, which for the first time were reported in these seaweed extracts and utilized in the current study as plant foliar spray, such as milbemycin-oxime and 5-silaspiro[4.4]nona-1,3,6,8-tetraene,3,8-bis(diethylboryl)-2,7-diethyl-1,4,6,9-tetraphenyl; however, many studies are still needed to determine the actual effects of these phyto-bioactive compounds on plants. Eventually, E. vesicaria grown with 10% TAM® showed the highest antioxidant activity and cytotoxic activity (60.40% with an IC50 value 85.7 μg mL−1) against the hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2). This study shows that TAM® may be a feasible tool for improving the growth and yield of Rocket salad plants. Furthermore, the product’s preparation is easy, has no side effects and has much potential to be an alternative to NPK fertilizers. However, more research is needed to enable the adoption of TAM®.

6. Patents

Seaweed extract (TrueAlgaeMax, TAM®) is a patent submitted at the Egyptian Patents Office, Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (submission No.: 2046/2019).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.H., M.A., A.A.F.S., and M.E.E.; methodology M.A., S.M.H., and A.A.F.S.; software, M.E.E.; validation, S.M.H., M.A. and M.E.E.; formal analysis, S.M.H. and M.A.; investigation, M.E.E.; resources, M.A., H.A.H., W.F.A., and A.G.; data curation, H.A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.H., A.A.F.S., M.E.E. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A. and M.E.E.; visualization, S.M.H., M.A., H.A.H., W.F.A., A.G., and M.E.E.; supervision, S.M.H., M.A., and M.E.E.; project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, M.A., W.F.A., A.G., and H.A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), Egypt through a project titled: Prototype of sustainable marine integrated aquaculture farm for the production of seafood, valuable bio-products, and bio-diesel, SIMAF-Project, Project ID: 1429. Additionally, the authors would like to thank Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number TURSP-2020/39, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia for supporting the publication of this work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number TURSP-2020/39, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia, and the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), Egypt, for supporting this work. TAM® is produced and marketed based on the agreement cooperation with the Altahrir True Grow Company for Agriculture Fertilizers, Egypt, as an industrial partner of the SIMAF-Project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Two-Way Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) Performed for Different Parameters.
Table A1. Two-Way Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) Performed for Different Parameters.
ParametersFactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareF-Valuep-Value
Plant heightYears57.01157.01656.800.00
Treatments231.76377.25890.000.00
Interaction24.4838.1694.010.00
Number of leavesYears2.0512.056.040.03
Treatments4.4531.484.360.05
Interaction1.7830.591.750.20
Dry matter Years0.0610.060.190.67
Treatments14.1734.7213.890.00
Interaction0.1530.050.150.93
Total yieldYears0.0010.000.010.92
Treatments0.9030.303.460.04
Interaction0.2230.070.850.49
Chl. aYears0.0010.000.350.56
Treatments0.2230.0716.920.00
Interaction0.0330.012.530.09
Chl. bYears0.0910.090.180.68
Treatments54.99318.3339.030.00
Interaction0.9530.320.670.58
CaroteneYears0.0010.000.000.98
Treatments4.5731.5242.810.00
Interaction0.1030.030.890.47
Total phenolsYears19.15119.150.420.52
Treatments3485.7831161.9325.680.00
Interaction62.40320.800.460.71
NitrogenYears0.0010.000.700.42
Treatments0.1630.0515.600.00
Interaction0.0030.000.120.95
PhosphorusYears0.0010.000.050.82
Treatments0.0130.001.000.42
Interaction0.0030.000.200.90
PotassiumYears0.0010.000.100.75
Treatments4.8031.60137.480.00
Interaction0.0130.000.230.88
Total flavonoidsYears693.381693.380.860.37
Treatments9,586,325.4633,195,441.823950.880.00
Interaction507.463169.150.210.89
DPPHYears3.1113.110.600.45
Treatments1078.403359.4769.720.00
Interaction10.1533.380.660.59
Total antioxidantsYears8.8618.860.230.64
Treatments256.11385.372.230.12
Interaction30.36310.120.260.85

References

  1. Abbas, E.M.; Ali, F.S.; Desouky, M.G.; Ashour, M.; El-Shafei, A.; Maaty, M.M.; Sharawy, Z.Z. Novel comprehensive molecular and ecological study introducing coastal mud shrimp (Solenocera crassicornis) recorded at the Gulf of suez, Egypt. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ashour, M.; Abo-Taleb, H.; Abou-Mahmoud, M.; El-Feky, M.M.M. Effect of the integration between plankton natural productivity and environmental assessment of irrigation water, El-Mahmoudia Canal, on aquaculture potential of Oreochromis niloticus. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mur, L.A.J.; Simpson, C.; Kumari, A.; Gupta, A.K.; Gupta, K.J. Moving nitrogen to the centre of plant defence against pathogens. Ann. Bot. 2016, 119, 703–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Shambhavi, S.; Kumar, R.; Sharma, S.P.; Verma, G.; Sharma, R.P.; Sharma, S.K. Long-term effect of inorganic fertilizers and amendments on productivity and root dynamics under maize-wheat intensive cropping in an acid Alfisol. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2017, 9, 2004–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Huang, X.; Liu, L.; Wen, T.; Zhu, R.; Zhang, J.; Cai, Z. Illumina MiSeq investigations on the changes of microbial community in the Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense infected soil during and after reductive soil disinfestation. Microbiol. Res. 2015, 181, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hayat, S.; Ahmad, H.; Ali, M.; Hayat, K.; Khan, M.; Cheng, Z. Aqueous Garlic Extract as a Plant Biostimulant Enhances Physiology, Improves Crop Quality and Metabolite Abundance, and Primes the Defense Responses of Receiver Plants. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Nardi, S.; Pizzeghello, D.; Schiavon, M.; Ertani, A. Plant biostimulants: Physiological responses induced by protein hydrolyzed-based products and humic substances in plant metabolism. Sci. Agric. 2016, 73, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ertani, A.; Francioso, O.; Tinti, A.; Schiavon, M.; Pizzeghello, D.; Nardi, S. Evaluation of seaweed extracts from laminaria and ascophyllum nodosum spp. As biostimulants in zea mays L. using a combination of chemical, biochemical and morphological approaches. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Helaly, A.A.; Hassan, S.M.; Craker, L.E.; Mady, E. Effects of growth-promoting bacteria on growth, yield and nutritional value of collard plants. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Metwally, A.S.; El-Naggar, H.A.; El-Damhougy, K.A.; Bashar, M.A.E.; Ashour, M.; Abo-Taleb, H.A.H. GC-MS analysis of bioactive components in six different crude extracts from the Soft Coral (Sinularia maxim) collected from Ras Mohamed, Aqaba Gulf, Red Sea, Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2020, 24, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abo-Taleb, H.A.; Zeina, A.F.; Ashour, M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Sallam, A.E.; El-Feky, M.M. Isolation and cultivation of the freshwater amphipod Gammarus pulex (Linnaeus, 1758), with an evaluation of its chemical and nutritional content. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2020, 24, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sharawy, Z.Z.; Ashour, M.; Abbas, E.; Ashry, O.; Helal, M.; Nazmi, H.; Kelany, M.; Kamel, A.; Hassaan, M.; Rossi, W.; et al. Effects of dietary marine microalgae, Tetraselmis suecica, on production, gene expression, protein markers and bacterial count of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquac. Res. 2020, 51, 2216–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abo-Taleb, H.; Ashour, M.; El-Shafei, A.; Alataway, A.; Maaty, M.M. Biodiversity of Calanoida Copepoda in Different Habitats of the North-Western Red Sea (Hurghada Shelf). Water 2020, 12, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Elshobary, M.E.; Zabed, H.M.; Yun, J.; Zhang, G.; Qi, X. Recent insights into microalgae-assisted microbial fuel cells for generating sustainable bioelectricity. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 3135–3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ashour, M. Current and future perspectives of microalgae-aquaculture in Egypt, case study: SIMAF-prototype-project. Egypt. J. Anim. Prod. 2020, 57, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ashour, M.; El-Shafei, A.A.; Khairy, H.M.; Abd-Elkader, D.Y.; Mattar, M.A.; Alataway, A.; Hassan, S.M. Effect of Pterocladia capillacea Seaweed Extracts on Growth Parameters and Biochemical Constituents of Jew’s Mallow. Agronomy 2020, 10, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hamed, S.M.; Abd El-Rhman, A.A.; Abdel-Raouf, N.; Ibraheem, I.B.M.M.; El-Rhman, A.A.A.; Abdel-Raouf, N.; Ibraheem, I.B.M.M.; Abd El-Rhman, A.A.; Abdel-Raouf, N.; Ibraheem, I.B.M.M. Role of marine macroalgae in plant protection & improvement for sustainable agriculture technology. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ashour, M.; Elshobary, M.E.; El-Shenody, R.; Kamil, A.W.; Abomohra, A.E.F. Evaluation of a native oleaginous marine microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica for dual use in biodiesel production and aquaculture feed. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 120, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. El-Khodary, G.M.; El-Sayed, H.S.; Khairy, H.M.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; Qi, X.; Elshobary, M.E. Comparative study on growth, survival and pigmentation of Solea aegyptiaca larvae by using four different microalgal species with emphasize on water quality and nutritional value. Aquac. Nutr. 2020, anu.13211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zaki, M.A.; Ashour, M.; Heneash, A.M.M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Alprol, A.E.; Khairy, H.M.; Nour, A.M.; Mansour, A.T.; Hassanien, H.A.; Gaber, A. Potential Applications of Native Cyanobacterium Isolate (Arthrospira platensis NIOF17/003) for Biodiesel Production and Utilization of Its Byproduct in Marine Rotifer (Brachionus plicatilis) Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Heneash, A.M.M.; Ashour, M.; Matar, M. Effect of Un-live Microalgal diet, Nannochloropsis oculata and Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis, Comparing to Yeast on Population of Rotifer, Brachionus plicatilis. Mediterr. Aquac. J. 2015, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elshobary, M.E.; El-Shenody, R.; Abomohra, A.E.E.E.; El-Shenody, R.A.; Abomohra, A.E.E.E.; El-Shenody, R.; Abomohra, A.E.E.E. Sequential biofuel production from seaweeds enhances the energy recovery: A case study for biodiesel and bioethanol production. Int. J. Energy Res. 2020, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Osman, M.E.H.; Abo-Shady, A.M.; Elshobary, M.E.; Abd El-Ghafar, M.O.; Abomohra, A.E.-F.F. Screening of seaweeds for sustainable biofuel recovery through sequential biodiesel and bioethanol production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 32481–32493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Osman, M.E.H.H.; Abu-Shady, A.M.; Elshobary, M.E.; Aboshady, A.; Elshobary, M.E.; Abu-Shady, A.M.; Elshobary, M.E.; Aboshady, A.; Elshobary, M.E. The Seasonal Fluctuation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Some Macroalgae Collected from Alexandria Coast, Egypt. In Salmonella—Distribution, Adaptation, Control Measures and Molecular Technologies; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 173–186. [Google Scholar]
  25. Osman, M.E.H.; Aboshady, A.M.; Elshobary, M.E. Production and characterization of antimicrobial active substance from some macroalgae collected from Abu- Qir bay (Alexandria) Egypt. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12, 6847–6858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Osman, M.E.H.; Abushady, A.M.; Elshobary, M.E. In vitro screening of antimicrobial activity of extracts of some macroalgae collected from Abu- Qir bay Alexandria, Egypt. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 7203–7208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El-Shenody, R.A.; Ashour, M.; Ghobara, M.M.E. Evaluating the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of three Egyptian seaweeds: Dictyota dichotoma, Turbinaria decurrens, and Laurencia obtusa. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2019, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Shabaka, S.H. Checklist of seaweeds and seagrasses of Egypt (Mediterranean Sea): A review. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2018, 44, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bogani, P.; Visioli, F. Antioxidants in the Mediterranean Diets: An Update. In More on Mediterranean Diets; KARGER: Basel, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 97, pp. 162–179. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jaafar, N.S.; Jaafar, I.S. Eruca sativa linn.: Pharmacognostical and pharmacological properties and pharmaceutical preparations. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2019, 12, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bell, L.; Oruna-Concha, M.J.; Wagstaff, C. Identification and quantification of glucosinolate and flavonol compounds in rocket salad (Eruca sativa, Eruca vesicaria and Diplotaxis tenuifolia) by LC–MS: Highlighting the potential for improving nutritional value of rocket crops. Food Chem. 2015, 172, 852–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gugliandolo, A.; Giacoppo, S.; Ficicchia, M.; Aliquò, A.; Bramanti, P.; Mazzon, E. Eruca sativa seed extract: A novel natural product able to counteract neuroinflammation. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 17, 6235–6244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Neriman, T.B.; Mehmet, E.I.; Mahmut, T. Mineral content of the rocket plant (Eruca sativa). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 14080–14082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alruwaih, N.A.; Yaylayan, V.A. Comparative evaluation of bioactive compounds in lyophilized and tray-dried rocket (Eruca sativa). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2017, 41, e13205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Doležalová, I.; Duchoslav, M.; Dušek, K. Biology and Yield of Rocket (Eruca sativa Mill.) under Field Conditions of the Czech Republic (Central Europe). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2013, 41, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Omri, A.H.; Mosbah, H.; Majouli, K.; Besbes, M.H.; Ben, H.J.; Flamini, G.; Aouni, M.; Selmi, B. Chemical composition and biological activities of Eruca vesicaria subsp. longirostris essential oils. Pharm. Biol. 2016, 54, 2236–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Ahmad, T.S. Effect of Organic Fertilizer Addition and Spraying Seaweed Extract on Some Growth Characters, Yield and Active Ingredient of Arugula Plant (Eruca sativa Mill). J. Tikrit Univ. Agri. Sci. 2018, 18, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cohen, A.; Burgos-Aceves, M.A.; Bar-Ziv, N.; Smith, Y. Cruciferous vegetables consumption and lung cancer prevention: Epidemiological studies and molecular mechanisms. J. Xiangya Med. 2019, 4, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ashour, M. Bioactive Compounds Extracted from Marine Algae Improve the Growth and Immunity of Plants, Fish and Marine Crustaceans. Egypt Patent Application 2046, 23 December 2019. under processing. [Google Scholar]
  40. Khairy, H.M.; El-Sheikh, M.A. Antioxidant activity and mineral composition of three Mediterranean common seaweeds from Abu-Qir Bay, Egypt. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 623–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Allen, L.B.; Siitonen, P.H.; Thompson, H.C. Methods for the Determination of Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Tin in Sucrose, Corn Syrups, and High-Fructose Corn Syrups by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Elshobary, M.E.; Osman, M.E.H.; Abushady, A.M.; Piercey-Normore, M.D. Comparison of lichen-forming cyanobacterial and green algal photobionts with free-living algae. Cryptogam. Algol. 2015, 36, 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Albrektienė, R.; Rimeika, M.; Zalieckienė, E.; Šaulys, V.; Zagorskis, A. Determination of organic matter by UV absorption in the ground water. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2012, 20, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Elshobary, M.E.; El-Shenody, R.A.; Ashour, M.; Zabed, H.M.; Qi, X. Antimicrobial and antioxidant characterization of bioactive components from Chlorococcum minutum. Food Biosci. 2020, 35, 100567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ashour, M.; Mabrouk, M.M.; Ayoub, H.F.; El-Feky, M.M.M.; Sharawy, Z.Z.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Rossi, W.; Van Doan, H.; El-Haroun, E.; Goda, A.M.-S. Effect of dietary seaweed extract supplementation on growth, feed utilization, hematological indices, and non-specific immunity of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus challenged with Aeromonas hydrophila. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 3467–3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hassan, S.M.; Ashour, M.; Sakai, N.; Zhang, L.; Hassanien, H.A. Impact of Seaweed Liquid Extract Biostimulant on Growth, Yield, and Chemical Composition of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Agriculture 2021, 11, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abdel-Latif, H.H.; Shams El-Din, N.G.; Ibrahim, H.A.H. Antimicrobial activity of the newly recorded red alga Grateloupia doryphora collected from the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria, Egypt. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 125, 1321–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. El-Din, S.M.M.; El-Ahwany, A.M.D.; Mohy El-Din, S.M.; El-Ahwany, A.M.D. Bioactivity and phytochemical constituents of marine red seaweeds (Jania rubens, Corallina mediterranea and Pterocladia capillacea). J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2016, 10, 471–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. WM Hassan, S.; H Shobier, A. GC/MS identification and applications of bioactive seaweed extracts from Mediterranean coast of Egypt. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2018, 22, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hirayama, O.; Nakamura, K.; Hamada, S.; Kobayasi, Y. Singlet oxygen quenching ability of naturally occurring carotenoids. Lipids 1994, 29, 149–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Prichard, R.; Ménez, C.; Lespine, A. Moxidectin and the avermectins: Consanguinity but not identity. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2012, 2, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kumar, S.; Sahoo, D.; Levine, I. Assessment of nutritional value in a brown seaweed Sargassum wightii and their seasonal variations. Algal Res. 2015, 9, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Santos, I.J.M.; Melo Coutinho, H.D.; Ferreira Matias, E.F.; Martins da Costa, J.G.; Nóbrega Alves, R.R.; de Oliveira Almeida, W. Antimicrobial activity of natural products from the skins of the semiarid living lizards Ameiva ameiva (Linnaeus, 1758) and Tropidurus hispidus (Spix, 1825). J. Arid Environ. 2012, 76, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Olsen, S.R.; Sommers, L.E.; Page, A.L. Methods of Soil Analysis; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA; Soil Science Society of America location: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  55. Digruber, T.; Sass, L.; Cseri, A.; Paul, K.; Nagy, A.V.; Remenyik, J.; Molnár, I.; Vass, I.; Toldi, O.; Gyuricza, C.; et al. Stimulation of energy willow biomass with triacontanol and seaweed extract. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2018, 120, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. FAO. Fertilizer Use by Crop in Egypt First Version; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2005; 57p. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lichtenthaler, H.K. [34] Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enzymol. 1987, 148, 350–382. [Google Scholar]
  58. Evenhuis, B. Simplified Methods for Foliar Analysis, Parts I–VII.; Royal Tropical Institute: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cottenie, A.; Verloo, V.; Velghe, G.; Camerlynck, R. Chemical Analysis of Plant and Soils; Laboratory of Analytical and Agrochemistry State University: Ghent, Belgium, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hassan, S.; Ashour, M.; Soliman, A. Anticancer Activity, Antioxidant Activity, Mineral Contents, Vegetative and Yield of Eruca sativa Using Foliar Application of Autoclaved Cellular Extract of Spirulina platensis Extract, Comparing to N-P-K Fertilizers. J. Plant Prod. 2017, 8, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Viturro, C.; Molina, A.; Schmeda-Hirschmann, G. Free radical scavengers from Mutisia friesiana (asteraceae) and Sanicula graveolens (apiaceae). Phytother. Res. 1999, 13, 422–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kubola, J.; Siriamornpun, S. Phenolic contents and antioxidant activities of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) leaf, stem and fruit fraction extracts in vitro. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kumar, S.; Dhankhar, S.; Yadav, S.; Yadav, J.P. Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Stem and Root Extracts of Salvadora oleoides, a Medicinal Plant. J. HerbsSpices Med. Plants 2014, 20, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chang, C.-C.; Yang, M.-H.; Wen, H.-M.; Chern, J.-C. Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colometric methods. J. Food Drug Anal. 2020, 10, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mosmann, T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J. Immunol. Methods 1983, 65, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Papenfus, H.B.; Kulkarni, M.G.; Stirk, W.A.; Finnie, J.F.; Van Staden, J. Effect of a commercial seaweed extract (Kelpak®) and polyamines on nutrient-deprived (N, P and K) okra seedlings. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 151, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pohl, A.; Kalisz, A.; Sękara, A. Seaweed extracts’ multifactorial action: Influence on physiological and biochemical status of Solanaceae plants. Acta Agrobot. 2019, 72, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ozbay, N.; Demirkiran, A.R. Enhancement of growth in ornamental pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Plants with application of a commercial seaweed product, stimplex®. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 4361–4375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fornes, F.; Sánchez-Perales, M.; Guardiola, J.L. Effect of a Seaweed Extract on the Productivity of “de Nules” Clementine Mandarin and Navelina Orange. Bot. Mar. 2002, 45, 486–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Anantharaman, P.; Karthikaidevi, G.; Manivannan, K.; Thirumaran, G.; Balasubramanian, T. Mineral composition of marine macroalgae from Mandapam coastal regions; southeast coast of India. Recent Res. Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 58–67. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ahmad, K.; Ali, A.; Afridi, W.A.; Somayya, R.; Ullah, M.J. Antimicrobial, hemagglutination and phytotoxic activity of crude ethanolic and aqueous extracts of Seriphidium kurramense. J. Tradit. Chin. Med. 2018, 38, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ashour, M.; Kamel, A. Enhance Growth and Biochemical Composition of Nannochloropsis oceanica, Cultured under Nutrient Limitation, Using Commercial Agricultural Fertilizers. J. Mar. Sci. Res. Dev. 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Raghunandan, B.L.; Vyas, R.V.; Patel, H.K.; Jhala, Y.K. Perspectives of Seaweed as Organic Fertilizer in Agriculture. In Soil Fertility Management for Sustainable Development; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 267–289. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hong, D.D.; Hien, H.M.; Son, P.N. Seaweeds from Vietnam used for functional food, medicine and biofertilizer. J. Appl. Phycol. 2007, 19, 817–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Timotiwu, P.B.; Agustiansyah, A.; Ermawati, E.; Amalia, S. The Effects of Foliar Boron and Silica Through the Leaves on Soybean Growth and Yield. J. Agric. Stud. 2018, 5, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Laane, H.-M. The Effects of Foliar Sprays with Different Silicon Compounds. Plants 2018, 7, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Abid, A.L.I.; Hussain, M.; Habib, H.S.; Kiani, T.T.; Anees, M.A.; Rahman, M.A. Foliar spray surpasses soil application of potassium for maize production under rainfed conditions. Turk. J. Field Crop. 2016, 21, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yıldıztekın, M.; Tuna, A.L.; Kaya, C. Physiological effects of the brown seaweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) and humic substances on plant growth, enzyme activities of certain pepper plants grown under salt stress. Acta Biol. Hung. 2018, 69, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Sylvia, S.; Baluswami, M.; Parthasarathy, V.M.D.; Krishnamurthy, V. Effect of liquid seaweed fertilizers extracted from Gracilaria edulis (Gmel.) Silva, Sargassum wightii greville and Ulva lactuca Linn. on the growth and yield of Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench. Indian Hydrobiol 2005, 7, 69–88. [Google Scholar]
  80. Rathore, S.S.; Chaudhary, D.R.; Boricha, G.N.; Ghosh, A.; Bhatt, B.P.; Zodape, S.T.; Patolia, J.S. Effect of seaweed extract on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max) under rainfed conditions. South Afr. J. Bot. 2009, 75, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Di Mola, I.; Cozzolino, E.; Ottaiano, L.; Giorda no, M.; Rouphael, Y.; El Nakhel, C.; Leone, V.; Mori, M. Effect of seaweed (Ecklonia maxima) extract and legume-derived protein hydrolysate biostimulants on baby leaf lettuce grown on optimal doses of nitrogen under greenhouse conditions. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2020, 1456–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Castellanos-Barriga, L.G.; Santacruz-Ruvalcaba, F.; Hernández-Carmona, G.; Ramírez-Briones, E.; Hernández-Herrera, R.M. Effect of seaweed liquid extracts from Ulva lactuca on seedling growth of mung bean (Vigna radiata). J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 2479–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Colla, G.; Cardarelli, M.; Bonini, P.; Rouphael, Y. Foliar Applications of Protein Hydrolysate, Plant and Seaweed Extracts Increase Yield but Differentially Modulate Fruit Quality of Greenhouse Tomato. HortScience 2017, 52, 1214–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ali, O.; Ramsubhag, A.; Jayaraman, J. Biostimulatory activities of Ascophyllum nodosum extract in tomato and sweet pepper crops in a tropical environment. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Bell, L.; Wagstaff, C. Glucosinolates, Myrosinase Hydrolysis Products, and Flavonols Found in Rocket (Eruca sativa and Diplotaxis tenuifolia). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 4481–4492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Podsędek, A. Natural antioxidants and antioxidant capacity of Brassica vegetables: A review. Lwt Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 40, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. El-Wakeel, M.A.; El-Desoki, E.R.; Ahmed, S.E.-D. Bioherbicidal activity of Eruca sativa fresh shoot aqueous extract for the management of two annual weeds associating Pisum sativum plants. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rouphael, Y.; Giordano, M.; Cardarelli, M.; Cozzolino, E.; Mori, M.; Kyriacou, M.; Bonini, P.; Colla, G. Plant- and Seaweed-Based Extracts Increase Yield but Differentially Modulate Nutritional Quality of Greenhouse Spinach through Biostimulant Action. Agronomy 2018, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Giordano, M.; El-Nakhel, C.; Kyriacou, M.C.; De Pascale, S. Foliar applications of a legume-derived protein hydrolysate elicit dose-dependent increases of growth, leaf mineral composition, yield and fruit quality in two greenhouse tomato cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 226, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Martínez-Sánchez, A.; Gil-Izquierdo, A.; Gil, M.I.; Ferreres, F. A comparative study of flavonoid compounds, vitamin C, and antioxidant properties of baby leaf Brassicaceae species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 2330–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Gutiérrez, D.R.; Chaves, A.R.; Rodríguez, S.D.C. UV-C and ozone treatment influences on the antioxidant capacity and antioxidant system of minimally processed rocket (Eruca sativa Mill.). Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 138, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Khoobchandani, M.; Ganesh, N.; Gabbanini, S.; Valgimigli, L.; Srivastava, M.M. Phytochemical potential of Eruca sativa for inhibition of melanoma tumor growth. Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 04485 g001 550
Figure 1. Pigment content in E. vesicaria treated with different foliar sprays of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%), compared with NPK control (TAM® 0%). Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. n.s., nonsignificant.
Figure 1. Pigment content in E. vesicaria treated with different foliar sprays of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%), compared with NPK control (TAM® 0%). Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. n.s., nonsignificant.
Sustainability 13 04485 g001
Sustainability 13 04485 g002 550
Figure 2. Nutrient content (%) in E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%), compared with NPK control (TAM 0%). Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. n.s., nonsignificant.
Figure 2. Nutrient content (%) in E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%), compared with NPK control (TAM 0%). Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. n.s., nonsignificant.
Sustainability 13 04485 g002
Sustainability 13 04485 g003 550
Figure 3. Phytochemical content in E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, compared with NPK control treatment. Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 3. Phytochemical content in E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, compared with NPK control treatment. Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Sustainability 13 04485 g003
Sustainability 13 04485 g004 550
Figure 4. Antioxidant activity of E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, compared with NPK control treatment. Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 4. Antioxidant activity of E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, compared with NPK control treatment. Different letters in each plotted series indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Sustainability 13 04485 g004
Sustainability 13 04485 g005 550
Figure 5. Principal component plot and scores of principal component analysis (PCA) for morpho-agronomic and biochemical traits of E. vesicaria in response to different foliar spray concentrations of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%), compared with NPK control (TAM® 0%). D.M.: dry mater, N: nitrogen, K: potassium, P: phosphorus, T: total, P: plant.
Figure 5. Principal component plot and scores of principal component analysis (PCA) for morpho-agronomic and biochemical traits of E. vesicaria in response to different foliar spray concentrations of TAM® (5, 10, and 15%), compared with NPK control (TAM® 0%). D.M.: dry mater, N: nitrogen, K: potassium, P: phosphorus, T: total, P: plant.
Sustainability 13 04485 g005
Table
Table 1. Physical, chemical and biochemical analyses of True-Algae-Max (TAM®). *.
Table 1. Physical, chemical and biochemical analyses of True-Algae-Max (TAM®). *.
ItemValue
Physical analyses
ColorDark brown
OdorSeaweed
Density1.20
pH9–9.5
Biochemical analyses (% DM)
Total polysaccharides15
Total organic matter23.2
Total dissolved solids2.6
Chemical analyses
Macroelements
Potassium (%)12
Phosphorus (%)2.4
Total nitrogen (mg/kg)1400
Microelements (mg/kg)
Copper0.39
Iron16.18
Magnesium19.72
Zinc1.19
Manganese3.72
Heavy metals (mg/kg)
CadmiumLOQ **
ChromiumLOQ **
LeadLOQ **
NickelLOQ **
Arsenic0.55
* Cited from Ashour et al. [45]. ** LOQ: Less than the limit of quantification.
Table
Table 2. Phytochemical constituents of crude TAM®.*.
Table 2. Phytochemical constituents of crude TAM®.*.
Peak NoRetention TimeCompound NamePhytochemical GroupFormulaMolecular WeightContent %ApplicationsRef.
19.0225-Silaspiro [4.4]nona-1,3,6,8-tetraene,3,8-bis(diethylboryl)-2,7-diethyl-1,4,6,9-tetraphenylSilanesC44H50B2Si628.381.93%Immune response enhancer[45,46]
216.824NonadecaneAlkane hydrocarbonC19H40628.393.61%Antioxidant, antimicrobial activities[45,47,48,49]
319.284Rhodopin (6E,8E,10E,12E,14E,16E,18E,20E,22E,24E,26E)-2,6,10,14,19,23,27,31-octamethyldotriaconta-6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,30-dodecaen-2-ol)CaroteneC40H58O268.310.81%Antioxidant activity, immune response enhancer[46,48,50]
420.071Milbemycin A4 5-oxime (1R,4S,5′S,6R,6′R,8R,10E,13R,14E,16E,20R,24S)-6′-ethyl-24-hydroxy-21-hydroxyimino-5′,11,13,22-tetramethylspiro[3,7,19-trioxatetracyclo[15.6.1.14,8.020,24]pentacosa-10,14,16,22-tetraene-6,2′-oxane]-2-one)Macrocyclic lactonesC32H44ClNO7589.284.75% Antiparasitic and insecticidal activities [45,51,52]
520.514Octadecenoic acid methyl ester (9,12-octadecadienoic acid, methyl ester, (E,E))Methylated fatty acids C17H32O2554.4552.20%Antioxidant activities[44,45,46]
620.901Tridecanoic acid methyl esterC14H28O2268.242.79%
723.748γ-Linolenic acid methyl ester (6,9,12-Octadecatrienoic acid, methyl ester)C19H32O2228.2114.78%
821.627Oleic Acid (cis-9-Octadecenoic acid)Fatty acidC18H34O2292.2412.55%Antioxidant activities[44]
924.295Phytol (3,7,11,15-Tetramethylhexadec-2-en-1-ol)PhytolC20H40O294.266.59%Antioxidant activities[45,53]
* Cited from Ashour et al. [45].
Table
Table 3. Physical and chemical properties of soil of the experimental field determined before cultivation in 2016 and 2017.
Table 3. Physical and chemical properties of soil of the experimental field determined before cultivation in 2016 and 2017.
Soil Parameters20162017
Particle size distribution
Sand (%)32.3 ± 1.631.5 ± 1.2
Silt (%)25.2 ± 2.528.7 ± 2.2
Clay (%)42.5 ± 3.639.8 ± 3.1
Soil textureClay loamClay loam
pH7.45 ± 0.57.35 ± 0.3
Chemical Properties
Soluble Cations (mmol g−1 soil)
Ca2+1.44 ± 0.41.40 ± 0.5
Mg2+1.45 ± 0.40.98 ± 0.2
Na+3.63 ± 0.54.75 ± 0.7
K+0.54 ± 0.050.36 ± 0.03
Soluble Anions (meq L−1)
HCO3ˉ1.66 ± 0.11.78 ± 0.2
Clˉ2.00 ± 0.31.80 ± 0.2
SO42-1.70 ± 0.51.65 ± 0.6
Total nitrogen (TN) (%)0.16 ± 0.030.15 ± 0.01
Available phosphorus (mg L−1)0.32 ± 0.020.27 ± 0.01
Each value is the mean of three replicates ± SD. All data showed no significant differences (p < 0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Table
Table 4. Plant structure and yield of E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, compared with NPK control treatment.
Table 4. Plant structure and yield of E. vesicaria treated with different foliar spray concentrations of TAM®, compared with NPK control treatment.
ParametersCultivated YearTAM® Treatments
0% (Control)5%10%15%
Plant height (cm)201634.00 ± 2.65 b33.67 ± 2.31 b40.00 ± 2.65 a42.66 ± 0.58 a
201739.60 ± 1.53 BC37.00 ± 2.65 C43.33 ± 1.13 A42.67 ± 1.15 AB
Number of leaves (No.)20167.00 ± 0.04 c8.33 ± 0.60 a7.66 ± 0.58 b8.02 ± 0.03 ab
20177.60 ± 0.55 C8.00 ± 0.02 B8.70 ± 0.58 AB9.06 ± 1.00 A
Dry matter (%)201617.12 ± 0.31 a16.73 ± 0.65 a15.07 ± 1.10 b15.93 ± 0.39 ab
201717.31 ± 1.48 A16.75 ± 0.75 AB15.38 ± 0.23 B15.82 ± 0.43 AB
Total yield (kg m−2)20161.61 ± 0.19 b1.89 ± 0.02 ab1.99 ± 0.47 a1.82 ± 0.07 ab
20171.59 ± 0.11 B1.64 ± 0.27 B2.28 ± 0.17 A1.85 ± 0.13 B
Each value is the mean of three replicates ± SD. Different superscript letters in each row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Table
Table 5. Cytotoxicity of methanol extracts (100 µg ml−1) on human tumor cell lines, lung carcinoma (A549) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2).
Table 5. Cytotoxicity of methanol extracts (100 µg ml−1) on human tumor cell lines, lung carcinoma (A549) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2).
TAM TreatmentsCytotoxicity%
A549HepG2
0% (Control)27.33 ± 1.60 b25.30 ± 0.72 c
5%15.80 ± 1.39 c13.20 ± 1.80 d
10%27.00 ± 0.89 b60.40 ± 1.61 b
15%13.00 ± 1.00 d12.10 ± 1.80 d
Doxorubicin87.33 ± 0.61 a88.83 ± 0.90 a
IC50ND85.7 μg mL−1
Represented data are mean ± SD. Different superscript letters in each column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test. ND, not detected.
Table
Table 6. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the studied features of E. vesicaria extracts and its biological activities.
Table 6. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the studied features of E. vesicaria extracts and its biological activities.
TCTPCTFCTAACyto% (A549)Cyto% (HepG2)
TC1.00
TPC0.91 **1.00
TFC0.440.381.00
TAA0.96 **0.858 **0.381.00
Cyto% (HepG2)0.73 **0.440.59 *0.77 **1.00
Cyto% (A549)0.030.43−0.04−0.07−0.581.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). TC: Total carotenoids; TPC: Total phenolic content; TFC: Total flavonoid content; TAA: Total antioxidant activity; Cyto% (A549) and Cyto% (HepG2): Cytotoxicity% (HepG2) and cytotoxicity% (A549), respectively.
Table
Table 7. Eigenvalues, variance percentages and loadings values of some variables on the axes identified by PCA for NPK control and TAM treatments of E. vesicaria.
Table 7. Eigenvalues, variance percentages and loadings values of some variables on the axes identified by PCA for NPK control and TAM treatments of E. vesicaria.
Principal ComponentsPC 1PC 2PC 3
% variance50.1630.2319.61
Eigenvalue6.023.622.35
Eigenvectors
Plant height0.63 *0.65 *−0.41
Leaves no.0.85 *−0.24−0.48
Total yield0.92 *0.270.28
Dry matter−0.93 *−0.380.00
Chl. a−0.020.72 *0.70 *
Chl. b−0.01−0.65 *0.76 *
Carotenoids−0.170.97 *0.19
Nitrogen%0.26−0.74 *0.62 *
Phosphorus%0.98 *−0.130.13
Potassium%0.83 *−0.51−0.23
Total phenols0.98 *−0.21−0.04
Total flavonoids0.70 *0.440.57
The values with asterisks indicate the most significant characters for each principal component.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hassan, S.M.; Ashour, M.; Soliman, A.A.F.; Hassanien, H.A.; Alsanie, W.F.; Gaber, A.; Elshobary, M.E. The Potential of a New Commercial Seaweed Extract in Stimulating Morpho-Agronomic and Bioactive Properties of Eruca vesicaria (L.) Cav. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084485

AMA Style

Hassan SM, Ashour M, Soliman AAF, Hassanien HA, Alsanie WF, Gaber A, Elshobary ME. The Potential of a New Commercial Seaweed Extract in Stimulating Morpho-Agronomic and Bioactive Properties of Eruca vesicaria (L.) Cav. Sustainability. 2021; 13(8):4485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084485

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hassan, Shimaa M., Mohamed Ashour, Ahmed A. F. Soliman, Hesham A. Hassanien, Walaa F. Alsanie, Ahmed Gaber, and Mostafa E. Elshobary. 2021. "The Potential of a New Commercial Seaweed Extract in Stimulating Morpho-Agronomic and Bioactive Properties of Eruca vesicaria (L.) Cav." Sustainability 13, no. 8: 4485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084485

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop