Next Article in Journal
Hybrid Coded Excitation of the Torsional Guided Wave Mode T(0,1) for Oil and Gas Pipeline Inspection
Next Article in Special Issue
Advances, Applications, and Comparison of Thermal (Pasteurization, Sterilization, and Aseptic Packaging) against Non-Thermal (Ultrasounds, UV Radiation, Ozonation, High Hydrostatic Pressure) Technologies in Food Processing
Previous Article in Journal
Skin Depigmenting Agents in Anti-Aging Cosmetics: A Medicinal Perspective on Emerging Ingredients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Design of a Low-Power Radio Frequency Unit and Its Application for Bacterial Inactivation under Laboratory Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/app12020776
applsci-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

How Does the Addition of Biostimulants Affect the Growth, Yield, and Quality Parameters of the Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)? How Is This Reflected in Its Nutritional Value?

by
Aly Farag El Sheikha
1,2,3,4,5,*,†,
Ayman Younes Allam
5,†,
Mohamed Taha
6 and
Theodoros Varzakas
7,*
1
College of Bioscience and Bioengineering, Jiangxi Agricultural University, 1101 Zhimin Road, Nanchang 330045, China
2
School of Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 25 University Private Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
3
Bioengineering and Technological Research Centre for Edible and Medicinal Fungi, Jiangxi Agricultural University, 1101 Zhimin Road, Nanchang 330045, China
4
Jiangxi Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Fungal Resources, Jiangxi Agricultural University, 1101 Zhimin Road, Nanchang 330045, China
5
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Minufiya University, Shibin El Kom 32511, Minufiya Government, Egypt
6
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Minufiya University, Shibin El Kom 32511, Minufiya Government, Egypt
7
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Peloponnese, Antikalamos, 24100 Kalamata, Greece
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(2), 776; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020776
Submission received: 19 December 2021 / Revised: 8 January 2022 / Accepted: 11 January 2022 / Published: 13 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Food Production: New Approaches in Detection, Processing and Packaging Methods)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Featured Application

Our study proved that the addition of moringa leaf extract and vermicompost tea positively affects the growth, yield, and quality parameters of the snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and is also positively reflected in its nutritional value. Thus, this study shows the efficiency of the proposed biostimulants as organic, safe, cheap, eco-friendly, and sustainable solutions, as well as their ability to replace traditional methods of agriculture.

Abstract

Recently, the use of biostimulants as natural and eco-friendly fertilizers has received increasing attention because of their efficiency in terms of improving crops’ qualitative and quantitative parameters, i.e., growth, yield, and chemical composition. We studied the effect of four biostimulants—humic acid (20 g/L), vermicompost tea (15 mL/L), moringa leaf extract (1:30 v/v), and yeast extract (5 g/L), with tap water as a control treatment—on the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of snap beans. The experiment was designed using a complete randomized block with triplicates. The results showed a significant improvement in treated plant performance (growth and yield), chlorophyll, and chemical composition compared to untreated plants. Using moringa leaf extract increased the plant height, number of leaves and branches/plant, and fresh and dry weight. Additionally, the diameter of the treated plant stems and the quality of the crop and pods were also significantly higher than those of plants treated with vermicompost or humic acid extract. It is also noted that the profile of amino acids was improved using all tested biostimulants. This leads to the conclusion that the addition of moringa leaf extract and vermicompost tea not only positively affects the qualitative and quantitative properties of snap bean but is also reflected in its nutritional value as a plant-based food.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the main goal of modern horticultural production is to increase its quality. Recently, several innovative technologies have been suggested to improve the sustainability of agricultural production systems by significantly reducing synthetic agrochemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers. A promising and eco-friendly innovation is the use of natural plant biostimulants (PBs) that enhance flowering, plant growth, fruit set, crop productivity, and nutrient use efficiency and improve the tolerance against abiotic stressors [1]. Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is among the most important leguminous crops that are of great interest in Egypt and in many developing countries, whether on the local consumer level or as a distinct export commodity [2]. The cultivated area of green beans in Egypt occupies 27,363 hectares, which is equivalent to 10,000 m2, and the annual production of this area is 284,299 tons of green beans [3]. With the escalation of challenges in meeting the global requirements for food crops in terms of quantity, quality, and safety, there is a need to confront these challenges by searching for new effective, safe, and environmentally friendly agricultural systems, such as organic agriculture, which is currently successfully applied in some areas around the world [4,5]. Biostimulants can be an interesting option in the face of degraded agricultural areas and uncertainties related to the changing climate. A biostimulant is defined as a complex product consisting of components of biological origin or microorganisms applied to plants either via root drench, foliar spray, or a combination of both, and is intended to improve plant productivity through new or emerging properties from its complex form and not as a sole result of the presence of known essential plant nutrients, plant growth regulators, or plant-protective compounds [6,7]. Depending on their composition and expected results, biostimulants can be applied to soil or leaves [8]. Natural stimulants are often included under the term biostimulants, including humic acid, microorganisms (i.e., yeast), moringa leaf extract (MLE), or vermicompost tea extract [9,10,11,12,13]. Although primarily associated with the enhancement of root growth [14], humic acid has also been shown to confer other benefits, such as increasing the mobilization of nutrients; improving photosynthetic rates, respiration, and water balance; and increasing the content of photosynthetic pigments [15]. Hanafy et al. [16] found that the addition of humic acid at 20 g/L, novavol at 2.5 mL/L, or varimax at 0.2 mL/L significantly increased the height of snap bean plants, several leaves, branches/plant, leaf area, and the dry weights of shoots and roots among various biological changes. It is known that yeast is considered a natural source of cytokinins that stimulate cell division and enlargement, as well as the synthesis of proteins, nucleic acids, and chlorophyll [17]. Foliar application of yeast extract increased amino acids, auxins, and cytokinins 75 days after the sowing of broad bean [18]. Moringa leaf extract (MLE) is a potent plant biostimulant and can be used as a natural and alternative source of minerals, cytokinins, antioxidants, amino acids, flavonoids, carotenoids, and vitamins [12]. The application of moringa leaf extract concentrations at 1:20, 1:30, and 1:40 positively affected the growth, biochemical properties, yield and yield-related traits, and pod quality of the snap bean compared to untreated plants [19]. How is vermicompost made? Vermicompost is formed through the process of converting organic materials into humus-like substances called vermicast, which is rich in organic matter and mineral nutrients, and the conversion process is carried out by earthworms and microorganisms [20,21,22]. It has been proven through many studies that vermicompost tea has many positive effects on the growth and productivity of crops, in addition to its ability to control plant diseases [13]. The mechanism of action of vermicompost tea is centered on the improvement of plant health, productivity, and quality from three aspects [23,24,25,26]:
  • Promotion of an increase in the number of beneficial microbial communities, which will positively affect their impact on both soil and plants;
  • Improvement of the utilization of mineral nutrients for plants;
  • Stimulation of the production of plant defense compounds that may have beneficial biological activities for humans.
Nutritionally, beans are known as a high source of protein, having more than 2–3 times that of cereal grains, as well as higher dry matter content and dietary fiber, minerals, starch, and vitamins compared to rice crops [27]. In addition to these factors, snap beans also include a rich variety of antioxidant activities, phytochemicals, and a comprehensive array of flavonoids, such as flavonoids and anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins flavanols, and phenolic acids.
We hypothesized that exogenous application of these biostimulants might positively impact the biochemical traits and improve the growth, productivity, and quality attributes of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Consequently, this study was designed to investigate green beans’ response to the foliar application of moringa leaf extract, humic acid, vermicompost tea, and yeast extract compared to the untreated control under field conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

Consecutive field experiments were carried out at the Vegetable Experimental Farm of Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Menoufia University, Shibin El-Kom, Egypt, on snap bean plants cv. Polista during the two fall growing seasons of 2018 and 2019 on clay loam soil with a surface irrigation system. Another laboratory experiment was performed at the Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Menoufia University, to investigate the effect of the foliar use of four biostimulants, i.e., humic acid, vermicompost tea, moringa leaf extract, and yeast extract, on growth, yield, and plant components, as well as on the chemical composition of snap bean. The soil type used in this study was clay.

2.1. Preparation of Tested Biostimulants

Fully ripened fresh moringa leaves were collected, and the extraction process was carried out by mixing 30 g of fresh leaves with 300 mL of distilled water in a home blender for 15 min [28]. Then, the collected extracts were frozen overnight, pressurized, and purified twice using filter paper (Whatman No. 1). The extracts were then centrifuged at 8000× g for 15 min. Then, the supernatant was diluted with distilled water to reach the concentrations required for foliar spraying by adding 1 mL of supernatant to 30 mL of water. This diluted solution (1:30) of MLE was ready for spraying on the plant leaves [29].
Yeast extract was prepared from active dry yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). It was dissolved in water to a concentration of 5 g/L, and sugar was added at a ratio of 1:1. The solution was kept in a warm place for 10 min to induce activation and reproduction.
The vermicompost tea (VC tea) used in this study was obtained from Novel Farm Worm Company, Toukh, Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt. VC tea was prepared separately for each application using the same batch of vermicompost. Vermicompost tea was prepared by mixing equal volumes of vermicast with tap water and mixed at a ratio of 1:10 (v/v) in a 19 L plastic container, after which it was aerated using a commercial compost tea system consisting of coiled PVC tubing attached to the air pump. The aerator of the brewer was pressed securely to the bottom of the bucket. Then, 11 L of water and 1.1 kg of vermicompost were placed in the bucket, covered, and aerated for 12 continuous hours per the manufacturer’s instructions. The content was filtered through nylon aperture and then filtered using filter paper (Whatman No. 2) just before application, as described by Ingham [26].

2.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

Foliar spray treatments were applied 25, 40, and 55 days after planting (DAP) throughout the growing season using the following four natural biostimulants for the tested treatments:
  • T1—Control (spraying with water);
  • T2—Yeast extract (5 g/L);
  • T3—Humic acid (20 g/L);
  • T4—Moringa leaf extract (MLE) (1:30 v/v);
  • T5—Vermicompost tea (15 mL/L).
Bean seeds were scattered on the 20th of September during the 2018 and 2019 seasons, changing day by year. A complete randomized block (CRB) with three replications was the design of the experiments. Every experimental plot area was 8.4 m2 and consisted of four rows with a gap of 15 cm between plants (3 m long with a width of 0.70 m). According to the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation recommendations, the soil was supplemented with a full dose of NPK fertilizer during soil preparation and plant growth. These recommendations are 450 kg fed−1 calcium superphosphate (15.5% P2O5), 120 kg fed−1 ammonium sulfate (20.5% N), and 60 kg fed−1 potassium sulfate (48% K2O) during seed-bed preparation. An additional 120 kg fed−1 of ammonium sulfate and 60 kg fed−1 of potassium sulfate were added in the first irrigation 2 weeks after sowing. All other recommended agricultural practices were followed according to the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation recommendations.
Tween-20 (0.1%) was added to foliar sprays as a surfactant to complete the process for optimum penetration of the used biostimulants into the leaf tissue. Spraying was carried out three times at 15-day intervals, i.e., 25, 40, and 55 days after planting. The control plants were sprayed with water containing the same surfactant at the same time as the biostimulation treatments. Harvesting began 70 days after sowing in both seasons.

2.3. Physical and Chemical Analyses of Soil

The physical and chemical analyses of soil were performed according to Jackson [30], as shown in Table 1.

2.4. Chemical Analysis of Tested Biostimulants

The moringa leaf extract (MLE) was analyzed as described by AOAC [31] and Natsir et al. [32]. Its chemical composition is shown in Table 2. The analysis of the chemical composition of yeast extract was conducted as per the method of AOAC [33] and Podpora et al. [34]. Its chemical composition is shown in Table 3. The chemical composition of VC tea was analyzed as described by Weltzien [13] and is presented in Table 4.

2.5. Data Recorded

2.5.1. Vegetative Growth Characteristics

Five plants from each subplot were sampled randomly 65 days after sowing to determine the following parameters:
  • Plant height (cm);
  • Number of leaves/plant;
  • Number of branches/plant;
  • Total fresh and dry weights of the vegetative parts of the plant (leaves and stems) (g);
  • Diameter of the stem (cm);
  • Total leaf chlorophyll content of the leaf, which was calculated using the Minolta chlorophyll meter SPAD-501.

2.5.2. Yield and Pod Quality

  • Total weight of pods/plant (g);
  • Number of pods/plant;
  • Length of pod (cm);
  • Diameter of pod (cm);
  • Fresh weight of pod (g);
  • Total pod yield (kg/fed);
  • Dry matter (%) of pods.

2.5.3. Laboratory Experiment for Chemical Contents in the Pods

Green pods of snap bean were sorted to ensure freedom of defects and uniformity and separated into subgroups for three replicates. After harvest, 150 g of air-dried pods of each bean accession were ground using hand milling for the following analyses. The three replicates were carried out by the Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Menoufia University.

2.6. Proximate Analyses of Snap Bean Pods

Triplicate analyses of samples for moisture, crude fat, crude fiber, and total ash were performed using AOAC methods [31]. The crude protein was determined according to Thiex [35]. Total carbohydrates were determined by difference [36]. A sample of green pods was subjected to oil extraction using a Dionex Accelerated Solvent Extractor (Dionex ASE 300 TM: Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

2.7. Preparation of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters (FAMEs) of Snap Bean Pods

The preparation of fatty acid methyl esters from the pods was performed according to Hewavitharana et al. [37]. The detection of fatty acids was conducted by transforming fatty acids into FAMEs by GC (Unicam 4600, UK) equipped with a flame ionization capillary column (fused silica) (30 m × 0.25 (I.D.) mm, film thickness: 0.22 μm). Helium was used as a gas carrier. The temperature of the sample was then raised to 180 °C at 20 °C/min, and it remained at this temperature for 10 min. Then, the temperature was raised to 210 °C at the same rate. The detector and injector temperatures were set to 250 °C [38].

2.8. Ascorbic Acid Determination of Snap Bean Pods

Vitamin C content was determined using the titrimetric method with 2,6-dichlorophenolindophenol as described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemistry [39].

2.9. Mineral Analysis of Snap Bean Pods

The mineral content was determined using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Solar 969 Unicam) except for sodium and potassium, which were determined using a flame photometer (model 405, Corning, UK). In the ash solution, the contents of Mn, Fe, and Zn were analyzed using an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrophotometer (ICP-MS) (Perkin Elmer ELAN DCR-e fitted with a Scott Spray Chamber 103: Norwalk, CT, USA) using the method of Topuz et al. [40] and calculated as mg/kg.

2.10. Amino Acid Analysis of Snap Bean Pods

Spackman and others’ [41] method was used for the quantification of amino acids using an automated amino acid analyzer (Technicon Sequence Multi-Sample Analyzer, TSM). The same sample lysis method was used to determine all amino acids except for tryptophan, for which the sample was hydrolyzed in constant boiling hydrochloric acid for 22 h under nitrogen flush.

2.11. Statistical Analysis

The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with three replications. The investigation was performed three times, and the quantitative results derived were pooled. The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the SPSS 13.3 program. Statistical differences between means were determined by the Tukey–Kramer multiple range test at p < 0.05. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD). Significant differences are indicated by different upper- or lowercase letters on the bars, while values with the same upper- or lowercase letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Correlation coefficients (r) were calculated using XLTAT 2018 version 2.509188 for all nutritional content (Addinsoft: Paris, France).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Biostimulant Application on Growth Parameters of Snap Bean

The data in Table 5 show that foliar application of biostimulants significantly enhanced all tested growth parameters, i.e., the height of the plant, number of leaves and branches/plant, total fresh and dry weight of leaves and stems, and the diameter of stems, of treated snap bean plants compared to the untreated plants in both seasons. The maximum plant height, number of leaves and branches/plant, total fresh and dry weights of leaves and stems, and diameter of the stem were 82.33 and 84.56 (cm), 22.11 and 24.11, 6.11 and 7.00, 133.44 and 157.89 (g), 25.39 and 31.14 (g), and 1.07 and 1.10 (cm) in the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. These variances were the result of a foliar spray of moringa extract. The minimum plant height, number of leaves and branches/plant, total fresh and dry weights of leaves and stems, and stem diameter were 60.44 and 65.33 (cm), 13.67 and 14.56, 3.78 and 3.89, 91.11 and 92.89 (g), 16.46 and 18.71 (g), and 0.78 and 0.79 (cm) in the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively, in the control treatment. The maximum plant height, the number of leaves and branches/plant, total fresh and dry weights of leaves and stems, and diameter of the stem were 76.78 and 78.44 (cm), 19.11 and 21.33, 4.44 and 5.00, 114.11 and 118.56 (g), 23.17 and 23.05 (g), and 0.88 and 0.90 (cm) in 2018 and 2019, respectively, in plants treated with a foliar spray of humic acid with statistical variance, followed by yeast extract treatment, the values of which were 73.67 and 74.44 (cm), 16.78 and 17.44, 3.89 and 4.44, 103.89 and 106.89 (g), 17.14 and 22.45 (g), and 0.87 and 0.88 (cm) in 2018 and 2019, respectively.
It should be noted that the effect of humic acid on plant growth is attributed to its supply of growth hormones. This was confirmed by Nardi et al. [42], who reported that humic acid contains gibberellins, auxins, a higher quantity of phenolic compounds, and a large amount of acids. Kaya et al. [43] studied the influence of foliar spraying of humic acid (2000 mL/L) on common bean plants, and they found that humic acid contributed to a significant increase in plant height. It was also proven that the addition of foliar humic acid at 1, 2, or 3 g/L significantly affected all vegetative growth parameters (plant height, number of leaves and branches, and fresh and dry weight) of whole snap bean plants cv. Paulista grown under sandy soil conditions compared with the control plants [44]. Additionally, yeast extract contains vitamins, especially B-complex, enzymes, and phytohormones, such as auxins and cytokines [45,46]. The improvement of some vegetable crop attributes with the application of yeast extract was reported by previous studies [47,48,49,50] on the flowering characteristics of cucumber, as well as on melon growth [51].
Furthermore, the advantages of spraying yeast on flowering characteristics could be due to its essential bioconstituents, i.e., carbohydrates, protein, hormones (GAs, IAA, and cytokines), minerals, and vitamins, particularly B-complex, which affects physiological and biochemical processes in plants such as ion uptake, cell division, and elongation, as well as hormonal and enzymatic activities, which are reflected in the induction of growth and flowering ([45,51]). As shown in Table 2, the enhancement of the growth characteristics of plants treated with MLE is due to its high content of growth-promoting hormones (i.e., auxins, gibberellins, and cytokinins). In general, these hormones act as catalysts for plant growth and play a regulatory role in the physiological relationships between different plant organs [52]. In particular, auxins regulate cell elongation and promote stem growth, lateral root formation, and fruit development, while gibberellins regulate plant height, and cytokinins regulate cell division [53]. The increase in the number of branches and plant differentiation may be due to increased cell division and cell elongation in axillary buds [54]. In a study conducted by Abdalla [55] on the effect of adding MLE to watercress (Eruca sativa) at a rate of 2%, a positive effect was observed on all parameters of watercress growth.
The number of pods, yield of pods per plant, total pod yield per fed, and pod quality (i.e., the length, diameter, and mean fresh weight of pods) per treatment significantly differed in plants treated with the foliar application of biostimulants compared to the control in both seasons (Table 6 and Table 7). However, maximum yield values per plant and total yield were obtained with VC tea. The increase in yield with the foliar spray of MLE compared to untreated plants may be due to the increased number of pods per plant, which increased by about 90.6% and 49.9% in the first and the second seasons, respectively. The implementation of MLE not only enhanced the yield quantity of snap beans but also enhanced yield quality. Furthermore, the dry matter percentage in pods in the MLE treatment was significantly increased compared to the control.

3.2. Effect of Biostimulant Application on Chemical Composition of Snap Bean

The chemical composition of snap bean pods, including organic nutrients such as crude protein and total sugars, as well as inorganic nutrients (N, P, and K), were significantly enhanced by MLE applications compared to control and other treatments (Table 8). The chlorophyll concentration was significantly enhanced compared with that in the control in all extract treatments (Table 9). Previous results revealed that moringa leaf extract possesses high phytohormone content, particularly zeatin, gibberellins, and ABA [56,57]. However, the present study revealed that MLE is rich in different phytohormone classes, particularly salicylates, including benzoic, cinnamic, and salicylic acids. In addition, the leaves of moringa extract are rich in fundamental amino acids, minerals, vitamins (A, B1, B2, B3, C, and E), and antioxidant compounds such as phenolics [58,59,60,61]. The chemical composition in the different treatments moderately matched both the ash and fat. Remarkably, there was an increase in crude protein and carbohydrates in plants treated with moringa extract and vermicompost compared with other biostimulants and the control. There were statistically significant differences in protein content between accessions. Vermicompost tea and moringa leaf extract treatments enhanced crude protein contents, which ranged from 29.22% to 29.98%, while humic acid, yeast extract, and the control (spraying with water) had protein content ranging from 25.42% to 28.17%, respectively. The fat content of the plants ranged from 0.32% to 0.36%. Plants that received the moringa leaf extract treatment had the highest fat content (0.36%). The increase in total sugars in snap bean pods due to MLE treatment may be attributed to the increased content of photosynthetic pigments.
The results in Table 9 show that the highest concentrations of photosynthetic chlorophyll pigments in bean leaves were measured in plants treated with MLE, followed by vermicompost tea. This increase in chlorophyll concentration is due to the presence of large amounts of chemicals in the chlorophyll composition in moringa leaves [29], including carotenoids [62] and minerals such as Mg [61,63]. The results of our study are in agreement with the results obtained when using MLE with common beans [57,58], maize [58,59], tomatoes [64], and wheat [63,64]. The addition of MLE also contributes to a delay in leaf aging because it contains zeatin, ascorbate, and potassium, as mentioned by Yasmeen et al. [65].
The total macro- and microelement contents are shown in Table 10. There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in the contents of S, N, P, Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Mn between the bean sets of plants treated with extracts and those of the control. The Mn, Zn, and Fe mineral contents in the bean pods of the accessions were determined and compared between the bean sets of plants treated with extracts and those of the control. The plants treated with moringa leaf extract had the highest Ca content (0.48 mg/kg), followed by the humic acid, yeast extract, and control treatments, which produced 92.7 mg/kg, 91.5 mg/kg, and 92.9 mg/kg, respectively. The highest Fe content was observed in plants treated with vermicompost (5.41 mg/kg), followed by the control, yeast extract, humic acid treatments (5.22 mg/kg, 5.17 mg/kg, 5.12 mg/kg, respectively), and moringa extract (5.12 mg/kg). These results are consistent with Smykal et al. [66]. Beans are a major source of micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals and are considered superior to cereals as a micronutrient source [67,68,69,70]. The Zn content in bean pods ranged from 4.0 to 4.9 mg/kg, ranging from 4.2 to 4.4 mg/kg in the control and yeast extract treatments. Plants treated with humic acid extract had the highest Zn content at 4.9 mg/kg. However, Yin et al. [71] recorded 7.33 mg Zn per 100 g, which is higher than that in the present analysis. Many investigators have reported that Mn, Zn, and Fe have important and substantial health benefits, such as a decrease in cancer risk and reinforcement of the immune system.
It is known that cytokinins contribute to mediating plant growth through their role in creating source–sink relationships in plants in relation to both carbohydrates and amino acids in the context of plant biotic interactions for growth enhancement [72]. Concordant results were obtained by [19,55,59] when applying MLE on maize and rocket, respectively. The latter mentioned that the increase in total sugars in rocket plants in response to MLE application might be attributed to the high sugar and starch contents in moringa leaves. Moringa leaf extract and vermicompost treatments (17.80% and 16.60%, respectively) had the highest linoleic acid content, one of the most essential fatty acids, while humic acid, yeast extract, and control treatments (15.30%, 7.94%, and 5.30%, respectively) had the lowest linoleic acid content (Table 11). There was no statistically significant variation in the increases in fat content among the accessions, while there were statistically significant differences in oleic and linoleic acids (p < 0.05) among the accessions. Fat is a common synthetic acid that has a very important place in the diet of humans. The fat content was 0.35–0.32%, linoleic acid content was 5.30–17.80%, and oleic acid content was 15.87–22.50% on average when using moringa extract, vermicompost, and other biostimulants on the snap bean. Omega fatty acids, including linoleic acid and oleic acid, help protect against obesity, strengthen the immune system, and lower cholesterol [73]. The application of moringa leaf extract produced the highest linoleic acid content (17.80%), while the yeast extract and control treatments had the lowest linoleic acid content among the accessions.
The content of oleic and linoleic acids in the pods was 13.9% and 12.4%, respectively [74]. In the common bean, oleic and linoleic acids were determined to be 7.8−13.8% and 16.7–20.8%, respectively [75]. In that study, the oleic acid content was higher than the current research findings, and the linoleic acid content was higher. The oleic acid content in moringa extract and vermicompost tea treatments was higher (Table 11) than in previous studies. In addition, vitamin C and minerals, including potassium, calcium, magnesium, zinc, copper, and iron, were measured in the snap bean. The obtained results (Table 12) indicate that there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in any experimental extractions of vitamin C content in snap bean pods.
The major amino acid composition of different snap bean protein fractions is shown in Table 13. Leucine and lysine, essential amino acids, had the highest concentrations (7.5–8.2 g/100 g crude protein) on average in snap bean treated with moringa leaf extract, vermicompost tea, and other biostimulants, while glutamic was the amino acid with the highest concentration (13.4 g/100 g crude protein) in the moringa leaf extract treatment compared with the untreated control sample, as is expected in snap bean. Tryptophan, leucine, threonine, and tyrosine concentrations were enhanced in our experiment with the use of humic acid, moringa leaf extract, and vermicompost tea. In this study, aspartic and glutamic acids (non-essential amino acids) made up 13.4 and 9.8 g/100 g crude protein in the moringa leaf extract treatment and were the most abundant amino acids in the plant food sample, as reported by some research studies [76,77].
El-Desuki and El-Greadly [78] stated that the foliar application of yeast extract increased the concentration of free amino acids in pea plants compared with control plants. The essential amino acids cysteine and valine were the lowest in yeast extract, humic acid, and the control samples, while methionine (0.6 g/100 g crude protein) was the lowest in the pods of plants treated with moringa leaf extract and vermicompost tea. The non-essential amino acids histidine, arginine, aspartic acid, and serine showed an increase in plants treated with a foliar application of moringa leaf extract and vermicompost tea compared with the control, followed by yeast extract and humic acid, and the contents of proline and alanine were reduced [79,80,81]. Transamination and deamination reactions might be responsible for the negligible changes in the amino acid profiles of control samples and other experimental extracts of pods. Bean proteins, like other legume proteins, also contain the most essential amino acids, including lysine, which is deficient in some cereal grains. Therefore, beans and cereal proteins are nutritionally complementary concerning essential amino acids, and the consumption of both beans and cereals can alleviate these mutual deficiencies to ensure a balanced diet [82,83,84,85].

4. Conclusions

Keeping pace with the challenge of the population increase facing the world, the demand for increased agricultural production is increasing in light of limited natural resources. Among the most notable sustainable solutions are biostimulants because of their natural origins, as well as their ability to replace traditional methods of agriculture. The agro-ecological conditions of cultivation and farm management influence the high variability in the seeds’ agro-morphological and chemical composition in common bean landraces. Therefore, the data indicated that green beans provide an important portion of essential minerals and not just protein and carbohydrates. The best treatment was moringa extract, followed by vermicompost tea and humic acid, compared with yeast extract and the control (spraying with water). This is consumer-related information because specialized organic markets require products that include these secondary food ingredients. Our study proved that moringa leaf extract and vermicompost tea not only provide essential nutrients for the establishment of snap bean seeds but also positively affect their growth, yield, and nutritional value. Furthermore, our study shows the efficiency of the proposed biostimulants as organic, safe, cheap, eco-friendly, and sustainable solutions, as well as their ability to replace traditional methods of agriculture.

Author Contributions

A.F.E.S. and A.Y.A. are considered the first authors. A.Y.A. and M.T. conducted the experiments. A.F.E.S. was responsible for conceptualization, data curation, and writing and revising the manuscript. T.V. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Research Start-Up Fund from Jiangxi Agricultural University, China, that was granted to Aly El Sheikah (Fund N° 9232307245). We would like also to thank Minufiya University for intellectual and research support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Buono, D.D. Can biostimulants be used to mitigate the effect of anthropogenic climate change on agriculture? It is time to respond. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 751, 141763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT Agriculture Data. 2020. Available online: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  4. Mishra, A.; Sahni, S.; Kumar, S.; Prasad, B.D. Seaweed—An eco-friendly alternative of agrochemicals in sustainable agriculture. Curr. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2020, 39, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pascual, J.A.; Ceglie, F.; Tuzel, Y.; Koller, M.; Koren, A.; Roger Hitchings, R.; Tittarelli, F. Organic substrate for transplant production in organic nurseries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Yakhin, O.I.; Lubyanov, A.A.; Yakhin, I.A.; Brown, P.H. Biostimulants in plant science: A global perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Olarewaju, O.O.; Arthur, G.D.; Fajinmi, O.O.; Coopoosamy, R.M.; Naidoo, K.K. Biostimulants: Potential benefits of enhancing nutrition efficiency in agronomic and horticultural crops. In Biostimulants for Crops from Seed Germination to Plant Development. A Practical Approach; Gupta, S., Staden, J.V., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 427–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kunicki, E.; Grabowska, A.; Sękara, A.; Wojciechowska, R. The effect of cultivar type, time of cultivation, and biostimulant treatment on the yield of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Folia Hort. 2010, 22, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Baltazar, M.; Correia, S.; Guinan, K.J.; Sujeeth, N.; Bragança, R.; Gonçalves, B. Recent advances in the molecular effects of biostimulants in plants: An overview. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Shalaby, T.A.; El-Ramady, H. Effect of foliar application of bio-stimulants on growth, yield, components, and storability of garlic (Allium sativum L.). Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2014, 8, 271–275. Available online: http://www.cropj.com/shalaby_8_2_2014_271_275.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2022).
  11. Taha, M.A. The complementary effect of biostimulants and nitrogen fertilizer on improving the growth and productivity of squash (Cucurbita pepo L.). Menoufia J. Plant Prod. 2021, 6, 491–505. Available online: https://journals.ekb.eg/article_207234.html (accessed on 7 January 2022). [CrossRef]
  12. Ali, O.; Ramsubhag, A.; Jayaraman, J. Biostimulant properties of seaweed extracts in plants: Implications towards sustainable crop production. Plants 2021, 10, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Weltzien, H.C. Biocontrol of foliar fungal diseases with compost extracts. In Microbial Ecology of Leaves; Andrews, J.H., Hirano, S.S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 430–450. Available online: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4612-3168-4_22.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  14. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; Jones, D.L.; Nebbioso, A.; Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A. Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Godara, A.; Bakshi, M. Effect of application of bio stimulants like humic acid and vermiwash on the growth, quality and yield of plant—A review. Plant Cell Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. 2021, 22, 22–30. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanafy, A.A.H.; Nesiem, M.R.; Hewedy, A.M.; Sallam, H.E.S. Effect of some simulative compounds on growth, yield and chemical composition of snap bean plants grown under calcareous soil conditions. J. Am. Sci. 2010, 6, 552–569. Available online: http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/am0610/64_3478am0610_552_569.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  17. Fathy, E.S.L.; Farid, S. The possibility of using vitamin Bs and yeast to delay senescence and improve growth and yield of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 1996, 21, 1415–1423. [Google Scholar]
  18. Abou El-yazied, A.; Mady, M.A. Effect of boron and yeast extract foliar application on growth, pod setting and both green and seed yield of broad bean (Vicia faba L.). J. Am. Sci. 2012, 8, 517–534. [Google Scholar]
  19. Emongor, V.E. Effects of moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaf extract on growth, yield and yield components of snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2015, 6, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arancon, N.Q.; Pant, A.; Radovich, T.; Hue, N.V.; Potter, J.K.; Converse, C.E. Seed germination and seedling growth of tomato and lettuce as affected by vermicompost water extracts (teas). HortScience 2012, 47, 1722–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Lim, S.L.; Wu, T.Y.; Lim, P.N.; Shak, K.P.Y. The use of vermicompost in organic farming: Overview, effects on soil and economics. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 1143–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Akinnuoye-Adelabu, D.B.; Steenhuisen, S.; Bredenhand, E. Improving pea quality with vermicompost tea and aqueous biochar: Prospects for sustainable farming in Southern Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 123, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hoitink, H.A.J.; Stone, A.G.; Grebus, M.E. Suppression of plant diseases by composts. In The Science of Composting; de Bertoldi, M., Sequi, P., Lemmes, B., Papi, T., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scheuerell, S.; Mahaffee, W. Compost tea: Principles and prospects for plant disease control. Compost Sci. Util. 2002, 10, 313–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carpenter-Boggs, L. Diving into compost tea. BioCycle 2005, 46, 61. Available online: https://www.biocycle.net/diving-into-compost-tea/ (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  26. Ingham, E.R. The Compost Tea Brewing Manual, 5th ed.; Soil Foodweb Inc.: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2005; Available online: https://forum.lepeuplier.ca/uploads/default/original/1X/f0bada96cecaa70408f5f4b11abeb64b163be032.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  27. Costa, G.E.d.A.; Queiroz-Monici, K.d.S.; Reis, S.M.P.M.; Oliveira, A.C.d. Chemical composition, dietary fibre and resistant starch contents of raw and cooked pea, common bean, chickpea and lentil legumes. Food Chem. 2006, 94, 327–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Phiri, C.; Mbewe, D.N. Influence of Moringa oleifera leaf extracts on germination and seedling survival of three common legumes. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2010, 12, 315–317. Available online: http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/35759_..pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  29. Yasmeen, A.; Basra, S.M.A.; Ahmad, R.; Wahid, A. Performance of late sown wheat in response to foliar application of Moringa oleifera Lam. leaf extract. Chilean J. Agric. Res. 2012, 72, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis, 2nd ed.; Parallel Press: Madison, WI, USA, 2005; Available online: https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=VcEOK9QCkVEC&pg=PP1&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  31. Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Food Composition, Additives Natural Contaminants, 15th ed.; Adrich, R.C., Ed.; Association Official Analytical Chemists Inc.: Arlington, VA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  32. Natsir, H.; Wahab, A.W.; Laga, A.; Arif, A.R. Inhibitory activities of Moringa oleifera leaf extract against α-glucosidase enzyme in vitro. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 979, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 16th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemistry: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  34. Podpora, B.; Świderski, F.; Sadowska, A.; Rakowska, R.; Wasiak-Zys, G. Spent brewer’s yeast extracts as a new component of functional food. Czech. J. Food Sci. 2016, 34, 554–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Thiex, N. Evaluation of analytical methods for the determination of moisture, crude protein, crude fat, and crude fiber in distillers dried grains with solubles. J. AOAC Int. 2009, 92, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Bender, D.A. A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hewavitharana, G.G.; Perera, D.N.; Navaratne, S.B.; Wickramasinghe, I. Extraction methods of fat from food samples and preparation of fatty acid methyl esters for gas chromatography: A review. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 6865–6875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Moayedi, A.; Rezaei, K.; Moini, S.; Keshavarz, B. Chemical compositions of oils from several wild almond species. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2011, 88, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC): Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  40. Topuz, O.K.; Yerlıkaya, P.; Yatmaz, H.A.; Kaya, A.; Alp, A.C.; Kiliç, M. Comparison of essential trace element profiles of rainbow trout fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) meat and egg. Anim. Sci. 2017, LX, 316–319. Available online: http://animalsciencejournal.usamv.ro/pdf/2017/Art56.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  41. Spackman, D.H.; Stein, W.H.; Moore, S. Automatic recording apparatus for use in chromatography of amino acids. Anal. Chem. 1958, 30, 1190–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nardi, S.; Pizzeghello, D.; Reniero, F.; Muscolo, A. Biological activity of humic substances extracted from soils under different vegetation cover. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1999, 30, 621–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kaya, M.; Atak, M.; Khawar, K.M.; Çiftçi, C.Y.; Özczn, S. Effect of Pre-sowing seed treatment with zinc and foliar spray of humic acids on yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2005, 7, 875–878. Available online: http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/63857_..pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  44. El-Bassiony, A.M.; Fawzy, Z.F.; Abd El-Baky, M.M.H.; Mahmoud, A.R. Response of snap bean plants to mineral fertilizers and humic acid application. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2010, 6, 169–175. Available online: http://www.aensiweb.net/AENSIWEB/rjabs/rjabs/2010/169-175.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  45. Barnett, J.A.; Payne, R.W.; Yarrow, D. Yeasts: Characteristics and Identification, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  46. Glick, B.R. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Can. J. Microbiol. 1995, 41, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hamail, A.F.; Hamada, M.S.; Tartoura, E.A.; Abd El-Hady, M.A. Effect of N-forms and bio-stimulants on productivity of cucumber: 2- Flowering characters, yield and its components. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2014, 5, 573–583. Available online: https://jpp.journals.ekb.eg/article_53723_7cb2b3daa11343c1862399f5c1a5a243.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021). [CrossRef]
  48. Shehata, S.A.; Hassan, H.A.; Tawfik, A.A.; Farag, M.F. Improving the productivity and quality of the cucumber crop grown under greenhouse conditions using some stimulants and spraying amino acids. J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2016, 7, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nassef, D.M.T.; El-Aref, H.M. Response of cucumber to yeast and royal jelly foliar applications. Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 47, 633–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Morsy, N.M.; Abdel-Salam, M.A.; Shams, A.S. Comparing response of melon (Cucumis melo) to foliar spray of some different growth stimulants under two nitrogen fertilizer forms. Egypt. J. Hort. 2018, 45, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Vieira, E.F.; Carvalho, J.; Pinto, E.; Cunha, S.; Almeida, A.A.; Ferreira, I.M.P.L.V.O. Nutritive value, antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds profile of brewer’s spent yeast extract. J. Food Compost. Anal. 2016, 52, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Duca, M. Plant Physiology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E. Plant Physiology, 3rd ed.; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mok, D.W.S.; Mok, M.C. Cytikinin metabolism and action. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 2001, 52, 89–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Abdalla, M.M. The potential of Moringa oleifera extract as a biostimulant in enhancing the growth, biochemical and hormonal contents in rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) plants. Int. J. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 5, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rady, M.M.; Varma, C.B.; Howladar, S.M. Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seedlings overcome NaCl stress as a result of presoaking in Moringa oleifera leaf extract. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 162, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rady, M.M.; Mohamed, G.F. Modulation of salt stress effects on the growth, physio-chemical attributes and yields of Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants by the combined application of salicylic acid and Moringa oleifera leaf extract. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Basra, S.M.A.; Iftikhar, N.; Afzal, I. Potential of moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaf extract as priming agent for hybrid maize seeds. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2011, 13, 1006–1010. [Google Scholar]
  59. Afzal, I.; Hussain, B.; Basra, S.M.A.; Rehman, H. Priming with moringa leaf extract reduces imbibitional chilling injury in spring maize. Seed Sci. Technol. 2012, 40, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moyo, B.; Masika, P.J.; Hugo, A.; Muchenje, V. Nutritional characterization of Moringa (Moringa oleifera Lam.) leaves. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 12925–12933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Howladar, S.M. A novel Moringa oleifera leaf extract can mitigate the stress effects of salinity and cadmium in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 100, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yasmeen, A.; Nouman, W.; Basra, S.M.A.; Wahid, A.; Rehman, H.-U.; Hussain, N.; Afzal, I. Morphological and physiological response of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) to natural and synthetic cytokinin sources: A comparative study. Acta Physiol. Plant 2014, 36, 3147–3155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. El Sohaimy, S.A.; Hamad, G.M.; Mohamed, S.E.; Amar, M.H.; Al-Hindi, R.R. Biochemical and functional properties of Moringa oleifera leaves and their potential as a functional food. Glob. Adv. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 4, 188–199. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ashfaq, M.; Basra, S.M.A.; Ashfaq, U. Moringa: A miracle plant of agro-forestry. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. 2012, 8, 115–122. Available online: http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/72236_..pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  65. Yasmeen, A.; Basra, S.M.A.; Farooq, M.; Rehman, H.-U.; Hussain, N.; Athar, H.U.R. Exogenous application of moringa leaf extract modulates the antioxidant enzyme system to improve wheat performance under saline conditions. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 69, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Smýkal, P.; Coyne, C.J.; Ambrose, M.J.; Maxted, N.; Schaefer, H.; Blair, M.W.; Berger, J.; Greene, S.L.; Nelson, M.N.; Besharat, N.; et al. Legume crops phylogeny and genetic diversity for science and breeding. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2015, 34, 43–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Welch, R.M.; House, W.A.; Beebe, S.; Cheng, Z. Genetic selection for enhanced bioavailable levels of iron in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seeds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 3576–3580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cabrera, C.; Lloris, F.; Giménez, R.; Olalla, M.; López, M.C. Mineral content in legumes and nuts: Contribution to the Spanish dietary intake. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 308, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wu, X.; James, R.; Anderson, A. Mineral contents in seed coat and canning quality of selected cultivars of dark red kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2005, 29, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Reetika Mahajan, R.; Zargar, S.M.; Salgotra, R.K.; Singh, R.; Wani, A.A.; Nazir, M.; Sofi, P.A. Linkage disequilibrium based association mapping of micronutrients in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): A collection of Jammu & Kashmir, India. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Yin, S.-W.; Tang, C.-H.; Wen, Q.-B.; Yang, X.-Q. Conformational and thermal properties of phaseolin, the major storage protein of red kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dyer, D.; Cotterman, J.; Cotterman, C.; Kerr, P.S.; Carlson, D.R. Cytokinins as metabolic stimulants which induce pod set. In Plant Growth Substances; Pharis, R.P., Rood, S.B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ali, E.F.; Hassan, F.A.S.; Elgimabi, M. Improving the growth, yield and volatile oil content of Pelargonium graveolens L. Herit by foliar application with moringa leaf extract through motivating physiological and biochemical parameters. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2018, 119, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yameogo, C.W.; Bengaly, M.D.; Savadogo, A.; Nikiema, P.A.; Traore, S.A. Determination of chemical composition and nutritional values of Moringa oleifera leaves. Pak. J. Nutr. 2011, 10, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Zhang, G.; Ao, Z.; Hamaker, B.R. Slow digestion property of native cereal starches. Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 3252–3258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hernández-Saavedra, D.; Mendoza-Sánchez, M.; Hernández-Montie, H.L.; Guzmán-Maldonado, H.S.; Loarca-Piña, G.F.; Salgado, L.M.; Reynoso-Camacho, R. Cooked common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) protect against β-cell damage in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2013, 68, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aragão, F.; Faria, J. First transgenic geminivirus-resistant plant in the field. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 1086–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. El-Desuki, M.; El-Gereadly, N.H.M. Response of pea plants to foliar application of yeast extract. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 2006, 31, 6667–6674. [Google Scholar]
  79. Broughton, W.J.; Hernández, G.; Blair, M.; Beebe, S.; Gepts, P.; Vanderleyden, J. Beans (Phaseolus spp.)—Model food legumes. Plant Soil 2003, 252, 55–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Iqbal, A.; Khalil, I.A.; Ateeq, N.; Khan, M.S. Nutritional quality of important food legumes. Food Chem. 2006, 97, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Howladar, S.M. Compared to traditional extract, Moringa oleifera leaf extract nanoparticles effectively boost the performances and antioxidant defense systems in cadmium-stressed Phaseolus vulgaris plants. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2020, 24, 461–472. Available online: http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/5882_doi%2015.1460%20IJAB-19-1690%20(12).pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  82. Al-madhagi, I. Effect of humic acid and yeast on the yield of greenhouse cucumber. J. Hortic. Postharvest Res. 2019, 2, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Elsa Calderon, E.; Mortley, D.G. Vermicompost soil amendment influences yield, growth responses and nutritional value of Kale (Brassica oleracea Acephala group), Radish (Raphanus sativus) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L). J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manag. 2021, 12, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Słupski, J. Effect of cooking and sterilisation on the composition of amino acids in immature seeds of flageolet bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars. Food Chem. 2010, 121, 1171–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Emilia, D.A.; Luisa, D.A.; Stefania, D.P.; Petronia, C. Use of biostimulants to improve salinity tolerance in agronomic crops. In Agronomic Crops; Hasanuzzaman, M., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Average values from physical and chemical analyses of experimental soil prior to conducting the experiment.
Table 1. Average values from physical and chemical analyses of experimental soil prior to conducting the experiment.
Physical PropertiesChemical PropertiesBulk Density (g/cm3)
Particle Size DistributionTexturepHOrganic Matter (%)Cation (meq/L)Anion (meq/L)1.55
Sand (%)Silt (%)Clay (%)Clay loam7.51.73Ca++Mg++Na++Cl−HCO3−SO4−
31.8923.9344.180.750.560.304.350.602.00
Table
Table 2. Chemical components of watery moringa leaf extract (MLE).
Table 2. Chemical components of watery moringa leaf extract (MLE).
OsmoprotectantsAntioxidants
ComponentValueComponentValue
Total amino acids (g kg−1 DW *)156.00Salicylic acid78.60
Proline (g kg−1 DW)32.00Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g FW **)34.80
Total soluble sugars (g kg−1 DW)176.00Vitamin A (mg kg−1 DW)163.00
Mineral nutrientsVitamin B1 (mg kg−1 DW)26.00
Nitrogen (N) (g kg−1 DW)30.80Vitamin B2 (mg kg−1 DW)210.00
Magnesium (Mg) (g kg−1 DW)4.50Vitamin B3 (mg kg−1 DW)800.00
Calcium (Ca) (g kg−1 DW)9.64Vitamin E (mg kg−1 DW)1130.00
Potassium (K) (g kg−1 DW)21.70Phytohormones
Phosphorus (P) (g kg−1 DW)5.78Auxins (µg g−1 DW)2.77
Sulfur (S) (g kg−1 DW)2.68Gibberellins (µg g−1 DW)2.91
Manganese (Mn) (g kg−1 DW)0.88Cytokinins (µg g−1 DW)2.32
Iron (Fe) (g kg−1 DW)1.44
Zinc (Zn) (g kg−1 DW)0.39
Copper (Cu) (g kg−1 DW)0.19
* DW: dry weight. ** FW: fresh weight.
Table
Table 3. Chemical analysis of activated yeast extract (mg/100 g DW *).
Table 3. Chemical analysis of activated yeast extract (mg/100 g DW *).
MineralsAmino AcidsVitamins
Total N7.23Arginine1.99Thiamine2.71
P2O551.68Histidine2.63Riboflavin4.96
K2O34.39Isoleucine2.31Nicotinic acid39.88
MgO5.76Leucine3.09Pantothenic acid19.56
CaO3.05Lysine2.95Biotin0.09
SiO21.55Methionine0.72Pyridoxine2.90
SO20.49Phenylalanine2.01Folic acid4.36
NaCl0.30Threonine2.09Cobalamin (μg/100 g DW)153
Fe0.92Tryptophan0.45Enzymes
Ba157.6Valine2.19Oxidase0.350
Co67.8Glutamic acid2.00Peroxidase0.290
Pd438.6Serine1.59Catalase0.063
Mn81.3Aspartic acid1.33Carbohydrates
Sn223.9Praline1.53Carbohydrates23.20
Zn335.6Tyrosine1.49
* DW: dry weight.
Table
Table 4. Chemical composition of vermicompost tea extract.
Table 4. Chemical composition of vermicompost tea extract.
ComponentValue
pH6.9
N (mg g−1 DW *)18
NO3N (mg g−1 DW)2.2
C (mg g−1 DW)237
P (mg g−1 DW)23
K (mg g−1 DW)7
Ca (mg g−1 DW)169
Mg (mg g−1 DW)11
Na (mg g−1 DW)2
Fe (µg g−1 DW)1683
Mn (µg g−1 DW)828
Zn (µg g−1 DW)552
Cu (µg g−1 DW)91
B (µg g−1 DW)56
* DW: dry weight.
Table
Table 5. Influence of different biostimulant extracts on vegetative growth characteristics of green bean (65 days after sowing) in the growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 5. Influence of different biostimulant extracts on vegetative growth characteristics of green bean (65 days after sowing) in the growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
TreatmentsPlant Height (cm)No. of Leaves/PlantNo. of Branches/PlantFresh Weight of Leaves and Stems (g)Dry Weight of Leaves and Stems (g)Diameter of Stem (cm)
201820192018201920182019201820192018201920182019
Control60.44 c65.33 d13.67 d14.56 d3.78 d3.89 d91.11 d92.89 d16.46 c18.71 c0.78 c0.79 b
Yeast73.67 b74.44 c16.78 c17.44 c3.89 c4.44 c103.89 c,d106.89 c17.14 b,c22.45 b,c0.87 b,c0.88 a,b
Humic76.78 a,b78.44 b,c19.11 b21.33 b4.44 b,c5.00 a,b114.11 b,c118.56 c23.17 a,b23.05 b,c0.88 b,c0.90 a,b
Moringa82.33 a84.56 a22.11 a24.11 a6.11 a7.00 a133.44 a157.89 a25.39 a31.14 a1.07 a1.10 a
Vermicompost tea81.22 a81.56 a,b21.00 a,b22.89 a,b5.00 a,b5.33 a,b127.67 a,b138.56 b25.15 a27.24 a,b0.96 a,b0.98 a,b
Values with different letters in columns (a–d) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 6. Effect of different biostimulant extracts on the number of pods and green bean yield in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 6. Effect of different biostimulant extracts on the number of pods and green bean yield in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
TreatmentsNo. of Pods/PlantYield of Pods/Plant (g)Total Pods Yield (Ton/Fed.)
201820192018201920182019
Control35.89 c48.89 b158.78 d186.33 c2.32 c4.58 d
Yeast45.67 b,c64.33 a,b286.44 c299.44 b5.39 b,c7.17 c
Humic57.22 a,b66.00 a,b325.78 b,c346.44 a,b6.05 a,b7.64 b,c
Moringa68.44 a73.33 a397.33 a422.67 a8.22 a9.37 a
Vermicompost tea67.00 a68.33 a,b338.89 b358.67 a,b6.94 a,b8.99 b
Values with different letters in columns (a–d) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 7. Effect of different biostimulant extracts on pod quality of green bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 7. Effect of different biostimulant extracts on pod quality of green bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
TreatmentsLength of Pod (cm)Diameter of Pod (cm)Fresh Weight of Pod (g)Dry Matter Content of Pod (%)
20182019201820192018201920182019
Control14.72 d14.72 c0.75 c0.77 d5.00 c5.79 c9.74 c10.06 d
Yeast15.78 c16.06 b0.89 b0.90 c5.87 b6.46 b10.09 b,c10.17 c
Humic16.00 b,c16.28 a,b0.92 a,b0.92 b,c6.58 a,b6.96 a,b10.32 a,b10.59 b,c
Moringa16.17 a16.72 a0.98 a1.01 a7.17 a7.78 a11.38 a11.44 a
Vermicompost tea16.11 b16.44 a,b0.97 a0.98 a,b6.54 a,b6.97 a,b10.95 b11.07 b
Values with different letters in columns (a–d) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 8. Effect of biostimulants on the proximate chemical composition (%) of snap bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 8. Effect of biostimulants on the proximate chemical composition (%) of snap bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
TreatmentsMoisture
(g/100 g)		Ash *
(g/100 g)		Lipids *
(g/100 g)		Crude Proteins *
(g/100 g)		Crude Fibers *
(g/100 g)		Carbohydrates
(g/100 g) **		Energy ***
(kJ/100 g−1)		Fatty Acids
(%) ****
2018
Control12.30 c ± 0.454.01 a ± 0.350.41 a ± 0.4125.42 b ± 1.293.22 a ± 0.5054.64 a ± 0.521376.190.328
Yeast12.50 c ± 0.253.96 a ± 0.220.37 a ± 0.3025.17 b ± 2.283.01 a ± 0.2254.99 a ± 0.581376.410.296
Humic11.90 d ± 0.153.06 b ± 0.140.32 a ± 0.4229.17 a ± 1.223.12 a ± 0.2452.43 b ± 0.701397.510.256
Moringa11.01 d ± 0.343.09 b ± 0.330.45 a ± 0.3229.98 a ± 1.453.23 a ± 0.2852.34 b ± 0.381416.090.360
Vermicompost tea11.14 d ± 0.253.10 b ± 0.410.35 a ± 0.2231.22 a ± 2.443.25 a ± 0.3450.94 c ± 0.981402.670.280
2019
Control13.14 b ± 0.334.15 a ± 0.310.44 a ± 0.3624.17 b ± 1.293.01 a ± 0.4555.09 a ± 0.571238.350.352
Yeast14.18 a ± 0.294.02 a ± 0.250.40 a ± 0.2924.90 b ±2.302.99 a ± 0.2753.51 a ± 0.501349.250.320
Humic12.87 c ± 0.173.08 b ± 0.190.38 a ± 0.4129.85 a ± 1.222.88 a ± 0.2650.94 c ± 0.651336.810.304
Moringa11.19 d ± 0.253.04 b ± 0.290.41 a ± 0.3330.94 a ± 1.872.96 a ± 0.2151.46 c ± 0.291364.210.328
Vermicompost tea10.05 e ± 0.223.22 b ± 0.380.39 a ± 0.2232.07 a ± 2.453.14 a ± 0.2951.13 c ± 0.871428.830.312
* Values on dry weight basis; ** carbohydrates calculated by difference; *** energy (kJ/100 g−1) = [(protein × 17) + (fat × 37) + (carbohydrate × 17)]; **** fatty acids (%) = 0.8 × crude fat. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD). Values with different alphabetical letters (small letters, a–e) within columns differ significantly (p < 0.05). All readings were taken in triplicate.
Table
Table 9. Effect of different biostimulant extracts on total chlorophyll in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 9. Effect of different biostimulant extracts on total chlorophyll in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
TreatmentsChlorophyll (SPAD) *
20182019
Control43.74 c43.89 d
Yeast44.49 b44.98 c
Humic51.24 a,b56.78 b,c
Moringa55.79 a64.53 a
Vermicompost tea55.07 b57.07 b
* Values with different letters in columns (a–d) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 10. Effect of biostimulants on mineral content (mg/kg) of snap bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 10. Effect of biostimulants on mineral content (mg/kg) of snap bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
ControlYeastHumic AcidMoringaVermicompost Tea
2018201920182019201820192018201920182019
Macroelements
N61.5 c ± 0.2262.3 c ± 0.2365.14 b,c ± 0.2166.89 b,c ± 0.2770.57 a ± 0.2371.81 a ± 0.4572.45 a ± 0.4173.45 a ± 0.4279.12 a ± 0.2285.10 a ± 0.23
K898.3 d ± 10.4901.15 c,d ± 9.4908.12 c ± 11.4915.12 c ± 9.4927.12 c ± 8.4945.15 b,c ± 11.4955.12 a ± 10.4964.34 a ± 8.4969.40 a ± 11.4978.20 a ± 10.4
Mg115.12 c ± 0.2117.45 c ± 0.2120.54 b,c ± 0.2123.45 b,c ± 0.2127.24 a,b ± 0.2129.20 a,b ± 0.2130.45 a ± 0.2132.45 a ± 0.2134.21 a ± 0.2135.24 a ± 0.2
Ca92.9 a ± 0.1799.8 a ± 0.2291.5 a ± 0.2598.17 a ± 0.1992.7 a ± 0.1395.32 a ± 0.2194.23 a ± 0.2599.5 a ± 0.4395.4 a ± 0.2398.24 a ± 0.25
S68.10 a ± 0.4571.02 a ± 0.2345.5 b ± 0.2249.36 b ± 0.4442.2 b ± 0.4544.12 b ± 0.4541.9 b ± 0.3542.35 b ± 0.3142.5 b ± 0.3243.58 b ± 0.33
P365.01 a ± 0.4369.12 a ± 0.2263.41 b ± 0.2265.32 b ± 0.3255.08 b ± 0.3261.00 b ± 0.4225.08 b ± 0.4231,02 b ± 0.2228.5 b ± 0.4233.61 b ± 0.2
Microelements
Fe5.22 a ± 0.335.87 a ± 0.235.21 a ± 0.255.01 a ±0.225.14 a ± 0.195.17 a ± 0.175.21 a ± 0.135.12 a ± 0.125.41 a ± 0.255.33 a ± 0.22
Zn4.20 a ± 0.354.67 a ± 0.434.39 a ± 0.234.40 a ± 0.424.69 a ± 0.144.91 a ± 0.224.22 a ± 0.244.04 a ± 0.414.24 a ± 0.244.13 a ± 0.34
Cu1.22 a ± 0.171.48 a ± 0.181.45 a ± 0.141.52 a ± 0.231.28 a ± 0.251.12 a ± 0.231.23 a ± 0.211.12 a ±0.241.14 a ± 0.151.17 a ± 0.14
Mn2.80 a ± 0.452.97 a ± 0.422.45 a ± 0.412.50 a ± 0.331.48 a ± 0.361.24 a ± 0.312.04 a ± 0.391.93 a ± 0.321.87 a ± 0.361.69 a ± 0.32
Values with different letters in rows (a–d) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 11. Effect of biostimulants on fatty acid composition (%) of snap bean pods in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 11. Effect of biostimulants on fatty acid composition (%) of snap bean pods in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Fatty
Acid (%)		ControlYeastHumic AcidMoringaVermicompost Tea
2018201920182019201820192018201920182019
Linoleic acid 5.30 b ± 0.155.55 b ± 0.127.52 b ± 0.147.94 b ± 0.1415.30 a ± 0.1815.87 a ± 0.1317.80 a ± 0.1417.98 a ± 0.1216.60 a ± 0.1216.82 a ± 0.15
Oleic acid13.12 b ± 0.7613.87 b ± 0.9214.11 b ± 0.8114.50 b ± 0.6619.45 a ± 0.8119.84 a ± 0.9321.99 b ± 0.7222.50 b ± 0.7120.40 a ± 0.9221.45 a ± 0.85
Values with different letters in rows (a, b) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 12. Effect of biostimulants on vitamin C composition (mg/kg, dry weight basis) in snap bean pods in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 12. Effect of biostimulants on vitamin C composition (mg/kg, dry weight basis) in snap bean pods in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
TreatmentsVitamin C (mg/kg, Dry Weight Basis)
20182019
Control8.79 A,a ± 0.158.89 A,a ± 0.22
Yeast8.81 A,a ± 0.218.91 A,a ± 0.23
Humic8.75 A,a ± 0.258.86 A,a ± 0.25
Moringa8.79 A,a ± 0.248.84 A,a ± 0.21
Vermicompost tea8.81 A,a ± 0.148.99 A,a ± 0.27
Values with same alphabetical letter (small letter, a) within columns do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Values with same alphabetical letter (capital letter, A) within rows do not differ significantly from each other (p > 0.05) (n = 6).
Table
Table 13. Effect of biostimulants on amino acids content (g/100 g crude protein) of snap bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 13. Effect of biostimulants on amino acids content (g/100 g crude protein) of snap bean in growing seasons of 2018 and 2019.
ControlYeastHumic AcidMoringaVermicompost Tea
2018201920182019201820192018201920182019
Total essential amino acids
Lysine6.2 c6.4 c7.0 a,b7.2 a,b6.1 c6.0 c7.5 a7.5 a6.5 b,c6.3 b,c
Threonine2.4 a2.3 a2.1 a2.3 a4.0 a4.2 a3.7 a3.4 a2.9 a2.9 a
Cystine1.0 a1.2 a0.8 a0.9 a0.9 a1.1 a1.2 a1.3 a1.5 a1.6 a
Valine3.7 a3.6 a3.9 a3.9 a4.3 a4.5 a4.5 a4.6 a4.5 a4.6 a
Methionine1.5 a1.5 a1.4 a1.5 a1.0 b1.2 b1.2 b1.3 b1.3 b1.4 b
Isoleucine3.4 a3.6 a3.1 a3.3 a3.2 a3.3 a2.4 b2.6 b2.8 b2.9 b
Leucine7.9 a7.8 a6.2 a6.5 a8.2 a8.2 a7.9 a7.8 a7.7 a7.7 a
Phenylalanine2.2 b2.3 b2.4 b2.3 b3.9 a3.9 a4.2 a4.3 a4.8 a4.9 a
Tryptophan3.5 a3.4 a3.2 a3.4 a3.9 a3.8 a4.5 a4.6 a4.5 a4.5 a
Tyrosine3.1 a3.2 a2.6 a2.6 a3.2 a3.3 a3.1 a3.1 a3.5 a3.3 a
Total non-essential amino acids
Histidine2.9 a,b2.7 a,b2.4 b2.3 b2.5 b2.6 b3.2 a3.2 a3.1 a3.3 a
Arginine6.1 a6.3 a6.3 a6.2 a6.7 a6.8 a6.9 a6.7 a6.8 a6.9 a
Aspartic acid6.5 c6.4 c7.2 b,c7.5 b,c9.1 a9.1 a9.8 a9.6 a8.9 a8.7 a
Serine3.0 a3.3 a3.1 a3.4 a3.3 a3.3 a3.5 a3.3 a3.4 a3.5 a
Glutamic acid11.8 b11.5 b12.5 a,b12.8 a,b11.5 b11.5 b13.4 a13.1 a12.9 a12.9 a
Proline2.6 a2.8 a2.7 a2.9 a2.6 a2.5 a2.2 a2.3 a2.5 a2.6 a
Glycine4.5 a4.9 a4.1 a4.4 a3.8 a3.7 a4.5 a4.2 a4.1 a4.3 a
Alanine4.1 a4.2 a3.8 a3.9 a3.9 a3.8 a3.7 a3.5 a3.7 a3.8 a
Values with different letters in rows (a–c) differ significantly (p < 0.05) (n = 6).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

El Sheikha, A.F.; Allam, A.Y.; Taha, M.; Varzakas, T. How Does the Addition of Biostimulants Affect the Growth, Yield, and Quality Parameters of the Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)? How Is This Reflected in Its Nutritional Value? Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020776

AMA Style

El Sheikha AF, Allam AY, Taha M, Varzakas T. How Does the Addition of Biostimulants Affect the Growth, Yield, and Quality Parameters of the Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)? How Is This Reflected in Its Nutritional Value? Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(2):776. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020776

Chicago/Turabian Style

El Sheikha, Aly Farag, Ayman Younes Allam, Mohamed Taha, and Theodoros Varzakas. 2022. "How Does the Addition of Biostimulants Affect the Growth, Yield, and Quality Parameters of the Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)? How Is This Reflected in Its Nutritional Value?" Applied Sciences 12, no. 2: 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020776

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