Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Quality and Possible Use of a New Generation of Agricultural Nets for Packing Bulk Materials in Terms of the Aspect of Reducing the Environmental Burden
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Cage and Floor Housing Systems on Muscle Fiber Characteristics, Carcass Characteristics, and Meat Quality of Slow-Growing Meat-Type Chickens
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/agriculture13020366
agriculture-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

Properties of Nano-Amendments and Their Effect on Some Soil Properties and Root-Knot Nematode and Yield Attributes of Tomato Plant

by
Asmaa Khader
1,
Mahmoud Ibrahim
2,
Fahad Alkhathami
3,
Hany Elsawy
3,4,*,
Nasser Abd El-Kader
2,
Eman Shaker
1,
Azza Sedky
5,6 and
Esawy Mahmoud
2,*
1
Soil Improvement and Conservation Research Department, Soils, Water, and Environment Research Institute (SWERI), Agriculture Research Center (ARC), Giza 12112, Egypt
2
Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Tanta 31111, Egypt
3
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta 31111, Egypt
5
Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21521, Egypt
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(2), 366; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020366
Submission received: 10 January 2023 / Revised: 25 January 2023 / Accepted: 29 January 2023 / Published: 2 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Soils)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of green nano-amendments is a promising approach for improving soil health and providing sustainable options to reduce root-knot nematodes (RKN) and thus increase yields. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to identify the characteristics of nano-amendments such as nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB) and their effect on the root-knot nematodes and tomato yield at levels of 3 and 6 mg kg−1 in sandy loam soil. The results showed that the GnB and MnB contain many functional groups (such as O-H, C=C, S-H, H-C=O, C-O, and H–O–H) and minerals (such as magnetite, ferrous sulfate monohydrate, and quartz), and they also had an elevated specific surface area. The application of the investigated soil nano-amendments significantly increased soil organic matter (OM) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and decreased the root-knot nematodes, playing a major role in increasing tomato growth. The highest significant values of OM and MBC were found in the soil amended by GnB at 6 mg kg−1, with increases of 84.7% and 71.5% as compared to the control, respectively. GnB6 significantly decreased the number of root galls, the egg mass, and number of nematodes per 250 cm3 soil by 77.67, 88.65, and 74.46%, respectively, compared to the control. Green nanobiochar was more efficient in accelerating the growth and yield components of the tomato plant. The addition of GnB is an effective strategy and an environmentally friendly technology to control plant parasitic nematodes and increase tomato yield. Therefore, the results recommend adding GnB at a rate of 6 mg kg−1 in sandy loam soil.

1. Introduction

Nanoagriculture is the application of nanomaterials such as nanopesticides and nanofertilizers to improve soil quality and provide sustainable options for increasing plant health. Nanoparticles (NPs) have a high surface area and small size (1 to 100 nm), making them applicable in different fields such as environment, medicine, food, catalysis, electronics, biosensors, and agriculture [1,2]. Green nanotechnology, which uses natural sources such as plants and microbes to manufacture non-toxic, ecologically friendly, and low-cost nanomaterials, has received a lot of interest in recent years [3]. Synthesis of metal NPs using fungi and bacteria is expensive, and a pollution-free source of insulation must be provided [4]. Nanoparticles play an important role in agricultural sustainable development challenges, especially in managing diseases and reducing environmental risks. There are many nanoparticles that have an effective role in strategies to suppress plant diseases and promote plant health, such as metal oxides, metalloids, nonmetals, and carbon nanomaterials [5]. Gkanatsiou et al. [6] found that low concentrations of CuNPs and FeNPs are more effective than Fostiazet (chemical nematodes) in reducing root-knot nematodes (RKN) of tomato plants. In most parts of the world, plant parasitic nematodes cause diseases of fruits, vegetables, and food crops [7]. One of the most annoying pests that decimate the roots of numerous crops and significantly reduces their productivity is the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. One of the common methods of controlling plant parasitic nematodes is the use of synthetic chemicals [8]. Given the high cost of these materials and their impact on the environment, scientists resorted to searching for environmentally friendly and low-cost alternatives to control nematodes [9]. Amendments from organic sources such as compost, biochar, crop residues, livestock manure, and poultry litter have been introduced to significantly improve soil health and control root diseases, and thus they serve as an alternative method for managing plant parasitic nematodes [10]. The application of organic amendment improves plant growth and productivity and is also useful in pest management [11]. The addition of organic fertilizers is necessary to reduce the number of nematodes [12]. Biochar application has shown promising results for improving soil quality, increasing crop growth and yield, eliminating biomass waste, and mitigating climate change. It also adds amounts of organic matter to the soil, which increases the abundance of living organisms in the soil, which may cause anti-parasitic nematode effects [13,14,15]. On the other side, the application of biochar in the soil can negatively affect the growth of earthworms, reduce the thermal conductivity of the soil [16], and also affect the availability of some elements such as phosphorus and iron when added in large quantities. Moreover, its addition works to absorb pesticides and herbicides, which reduces its effectiveness [17].
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is the most widely grown vegetable in Egypt and the world [18]. In Egypt, the cultivated area is 170,862 ha, with an output of 6,731,220 tons in 2020, and Egypt ranks fifth in tomato production, coming in at the forefront of the top four countries: China (64,768,158 tons), India (20,573,000 tons), Turkey (13,204,015 tons), and the United States of America (12,227,402 tons) [19,20]. However, the majority of Egypt’s vegetables are subject to the harmful effects of climatic change, such as heat, water stress, and salinity, with an expected decrease in yield to about 11% in 2050 [20].
Nanobiochar is used to reduce salinity stress on crop yield and to improve soil quality on degraded or low-fertility loamy soils. However, the novelty of this investigation is the utilization of green nanomaterials using compost tea to reduce root-knot nematodes infesting tomato plants and improving soil biochemical properties. It is hypothesized that the addition of green nanoparticles is able to reduce the RKN of tomato plants in sandy loamy soil.

2. Materials and Methods

The soil samples were collected from near El Nubaria City, Beheira Governorate, Egypt, 180 km west of Cairo Alexandria desert road, located at 30°9′11.52″ N 30°40′59.88″ E. The soil is classified as Haplocalcid (Aridisols order) [21]. Undisturbed samples were taken from the study area at a depth of 0–20 cm from ten farms and mixed with each other thoroughly to form a composite sample used in the experiment. Chemical properties of the investigated soil and nanobiochar are presented in Table 1.

2.1. Synthesis of Nano-Biochar (nB)

Rice straw was collected during the month of September (rice harvest season) 2020 from Basuon village, Gharbia Governorate, Egypt. The collected rice straw was washed with tap water to remove any adherent dust, dried for 12 h at 80 °C in the oven, and then grinded. Rice straw biochar was produced by utilizing a batch pyrolysis system under oxygen-limited condition, and the temperature rose over 450 °C and was then maintained for 4 h until no further smoke exhaust. The resulting biochar was then ground and sieved through a 0.25 mm mesh before further application. In this study, nanobiochar (nB) was produced by a mill (DING CANG DC-500A).

2.2. Synthesis of Green Nanobiochar (GnB)

Compost tea (rice straw as feedstock and with turned windrow composting used) was acquired from the Microbiology Unit, Department of Microbiology, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt (using turned windrow composting). A total of 200 mL of compost tea was added to 1.2 g nB and stirred for 30min using a magnetic stirrer at room temperature (25 °C). Then, the mixture was separated by vacuum filtration to obtain solid nanoparticles, after which distilled water was used to clean them, followed by ethanol three times, and then the mixture was centrifuged at 1000 rpm for 3 min and dried at 70 °C for 24 h.

2.3. Synthesis of Magnetic Nanobiochar (MnB)

We added 100 mL FeSO4 (0.884 M) to 5 g nB and stirred the mixture for 30 min with adjusted the pH to 11 until a black mixture was formed. This indicated the successful synthesis of magnetic biochar suspensions. Then, the mixture was separated by vacuum filtration to obtain solid black nanoparticles, which were sequentially washed with distilled water once and ethanol three times, followed by centrifugation at 1000 rpm for 3 min, after which it was dried at 105 °C for 12 h [22].

2.4. Extraction of Nematode Eggs

Root-knot nematode (RKN) inoculum for the experiments was extracted by collecting infected tomato plants. The galled roots were taken to the laboratory and washed with water to remove the suspended dust. The roots were cut with sterile scissors into 0.5–3 cm small pieces and stirred for 2–3 min in a 1% sodium hypochlorite solution, followed by passing through a series of sieves of different diameters of 150, 250, and 350 mm. Then, they were transferred to a 100 mL beaker with 50 mL of sterile distilled water until use [23]. The number of eggs were calculated by Peters’ chamber and adjusted to 100 eggs per ml.

2.5. Pot Experiment

An outdoor pot experiment was conducted at the Basuon village, Gharbia Governorate, Egypt, from 1 July to 5 September 2021. The seeds of the tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) were Hybrid T-186, Origin: China, Lot: 1720191, Treatment: Thiram, Importer: the source of the seeds from Technogreen Company for Agricultural Projects. One tomato seedling was planted in plastic pots 30 cm in diameter and 25 cm in height, which were filled with 10 kg of composite soil and irrigated before planting until stabilizing. The following seven treatments were carried out in a completely randomized experimental design with three replicates: control (C) soil without amendments, nanobiochar level of 3 mg kg−1 soil (nB3), nanobiochar level of 6 mg kg−1 soil (nB6), green nanobiochar level of 3 mg kg−1 soil (GnB3), green nanobiochar level of 6 mg kg−1 soil (GnB6), magnetic nanobiochar level of 3 mg kg−1 soil (MnB3), magnetic nanobiochar level of 6 mg kg−1 soil (MnB6). In this study, the levels were based on a previous study by Zhou et al. [24]. The soil was mixed with the nanomaterials by taking about 500 g of the same soil, then putting it through a sieve and adding it to the surface of the soil to ensure a homogeneous distribution. They were added after the second day of irrigation, followed by planting tomato seedlings. After that, tomato seedlings were inoculated with root-knot nematodes by adding approximately 5000 eggs after one week from seedlings by poking six holes with a glass rod in the soil close to the root zone without damaging the root of tomato seedlings [20]. During the experiment, all pots were covered with a sheet, and the temperature ranged between 17 and 25 °C. Irrigation was in equal amounts for all tops during the experiment, and no chemical fertilizers were used. After 60 days from seedling, the plants were harvested, and plant and nematode parameters were recorded (Figure 1).

2.6. Plant Growth Measurements

After nine weeks of planting, measurements of the various plants’ growth characteristics, such as shoot length, fresh weight, and dry weight, were made. From the first flower’s appearance to the sixth week, the number of flowers was counted [25].

2.7. Soil Samples and Green Nanobiochar Analysis

pH (H2O) of the soil was measured at a 1:2.5 ratio (w/v ratio), and the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil was measured in soil paste. Meanwhile, the pH and EC of nB were measured in a 1:10 (w/v) ratio utilizing a pH meter and a conductivity meter, respectively. Organic matter (OM) of nB was assessed by the combustion technique according to Page et al. [26]. Organic matter of soil was measured by Walkley and Black technique after wet digestion according to Nelson and Sommers [27]. The totals of N, P, and K were measured according to Page et al. [22]. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) was measured according to Graber et al. [28], utilizing ammonium acetate solution (NH4CH3CO2) 1.0N with pH 7.0. Specific surface area (SSA) was calculated by Sauter formula: S = 6000/ρ × D, where S is the specific surface area, ρ is the density of the synthesized material, and D is the size of the particles [29].

2.8. Spectroscopic Analysis

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was used to evaluate the size of nB, GnB, and MnB amendments, and this was carried out under a microscope FEI TECNAI G20 (200KV- LaB6 emitter) at the Electron Microscope Unit, Mansoura University, Egypt. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) system JEOL (JSM-7610F FEG-SEM) was used to examine the surface morphology of the investigated soil amendments.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was utilized to examine the functional groups on the investigated soil amendments. Fourier transform infrared spectra of nanomaterials were registered by TENSOR 27- Bruker using KBr discs in a wavelength ranging from 400 to 4000 cm−1.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to identify the minerals of the investigated nanomaterials. Samples were conducted by a GNR X-ray Diffractometer (APD 2000 PRO), and the diffraction peaks were observed between 2θ = 15° and 2θ = 75°.

2.9. Nematode Parameters

Nematodes are prevalent in the root zone, and the blade can be used to collect samples down to a depth of around 20 cm. Soil disturbance must be minimized to prevent nematode damage from abrasion. The number of galls on roots of each treatment was scored by utilizing the root gall index [30]. This root gall index measures the severity of galling on a 0–10 scale, with 10 being the most severe. Root systems were also rated for the number of egg masses produced [31]. A total of 250 cm3 of soil of each pot was processed for nematode extraction by sieving (250, 350 μm) and a 48 h decanting period using the modified Baerman–pan technique [32]. The number of eggs was determined by rinsing the eggs of each root system in 1% sodium hypochlorite to release the eggs from the root system. Next, a stereoscopic microscope was used to count the eggs suspended in water.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

SAS software was used to perform statistical analysis on the collected data. Duncan’s multiple domain test (DMRT) with a statistical significance level of P < 0.05 was employed to compare the treatments.

3. Results

3.1. Properties of the Investigated Soil Amendments

The synthesized morphologies of nB, GnB, and MnB are shown by SEM in Figure 2. It is noted that the nB surfaces had some pores and had a spherical particle shape ranging in sizes between 27 and 92 nm. GnB was characterized by the cover on the surface, the presence of some pores, spherical and rod shapes, and some agglomerations of nanoparticles with a sizes ranging between 27 and 92 nm. MnB was also characterized by a black color on the surface of particles with spherical and rod shapes and some agglomeration of nanoparticles with sizes ranging between 21 and 57 nm. This was supported by the surface area measured for GnB = (291.71 m2 g −1) and MnB = (260.18 m2g−1) compared to nB = (288.04 m2g−1).
The FTIR analysis of nB, GnB, and MnB is illustrated in Figure 3. The FTIR spectra of MnB showed strong adsorption peaks at 1638 cm−1 and 3923 cm−1, and new peaks 1092.85 cm−1, 1458.61 cm−1, and 3970.62 cm−1 as compared to nB and GnB. Conversely, GnB showed strong adsorption peaks at 483.97 cm−1, 563.32 cm−1, 1637.19 cm−1, and 3451.58 cm−1, and new peaks at 2095.85 cm−1 as compared to nB and MnB.
The X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of nB, GnB, and MnB are seen in Figure 4. Sharp peaks in nB imply the existence of calcium bromide hexahydrate (Br2CaH12O6), H2O2Zn, C4Fe2Na6O16S, quartz, calcite, and Ca2H12O6. Conversely, CHO-N, CHO-K, CHO-Fe, CHO-P, H2O2Zn, NH4K2HPO3F, and calcite were the dominant minerals in GnB. The XRD spectrum of the MnB found that ferrous sulfate monohydrate, FeH2O5S, Fe2O3, Ca4 Fe O7Si, Fe3O4, and Fe3C were the dominant compounds.

3.2. Impact of Nano-Amendments on Soil pH, OM, and MBC

With the application of nano-amendments to the soil at various rates, the MBC and OM of the soil dramatically increased (Table 2). The addition of GnB6 gave the highest significant increase in the soil MBC and OM compared to other treatments, with increase rates of 71.5% and 84.7% as compared to the control, respectively. Soil MBC and OM increased with increasing rates of nano-amendment addition. The increase in the soil MBC and OM in GnB-treated pots was greater than that in MnB-treated pots at the same rate. There was no significance in the soil MBC between nB3 and nB6.
The soil pH decreased significantly with the application of nano-amendments to the soil at various levels (Table 2). Soil pH decreased from 7.79 in the control to 7.44 and 7.57 with the application of GnB and MnB at a level of 6 mg kg−1, respectively. Soil pH was lower in MnB-treated pots than in GnB-treated pots, indicating that MnB reduced soil alkalinity. There was no significant change in the soil pH when 3 and 6 mg kg−1 of the same type of nanoparticles were used.

3.3. Effect of Nano-Amendments on Root-Knot Nematodes

The number of root galls per tomato plant was significantly reduced with the application of nano-amendments to the soil at various levels (Table 3). It ranged from 71.67 to 16.00 galls. The application of GnB6 gave the greatest significant reduction in the number of root galls per tomato plant compared to other treatments, with a decrease rate of 77.7% when compared to the control.
The number of egg masses per tomato plant ranged from 9.00 to 79.33, and the data revealed a notable variation between treatments (Table 3). MnB, nB, and GnB at a rate of 6 mg kg−1 soil addition decreased the egg mass weight by 65.96, 77.8%, and 88.65%, respectively. The decrease in the number of nematodes per 250 cm3 soil in GnB-treated pots was greater than that in MnB-treated pots at the same rate. The number of nematodes per 250 cm3 decreased with increasing rates of nB and GnB addition, while they increased with increasing MnB. There was no significant change in the numbers of root galls and egg mass and nematodes per 250 cm3 soil between adding 3 and 6 mg kg−1 of the same type of nanoparticles used.

3.4. Correlation between Number of Nematodes per 250 cm3 and Soil pH, OM, and MBC

Figure 5 shows the existence of a statistically significant correlation between the number of nematodes per 250 cm3 and soil pH, OM, and MBC. The following equations were obtained:
Number of nematodes per 250 cm3 = −3262.8 pH + 25326.
Number of nematodes per 250 cm3 = −1622.4 OM + 3524.3.
Number of nematodes per 250 cm3 = −12.022 MBC + 3942.4.
The regression coefficients (R2) between number of nematodes per 250 cm3 and soil pH, OM, and MBC were 0.928, 0.889, and 0.925, respectively.

3.5. Impact of Nano-Amendments on Tomato Growth

Fresh and dry weight of tomato plants ranged from 60.23 and 12.4 g in the control to 88.82 and 24.65 g in the GnB6, and a clear difference emerged between the different treatments, except for MnB3 and MnB6 (Table 4). The addition of nB3 and nB6 increased the dry weights by 55.5 and 75.0%, respectively. The fresh and dry weight of tomato plants increased with increasing rates of nano-amendments added to the soil.
The root length was enhanced significantly with the application of nano-amendments to the soil at various levels (Table 4). The maximum root length (26.64 cm) was found in pots treated with GnB6 (Table 4), while the minimum root length was 19.35 cm in the control plants growing in the soil only. Root length was greater in GnB- treated pots than in MnB-treated pots, denoting that GnB increased plant growth. There was no significant difference in root length between the application of 3 and 6 mg kg−1 nB and GnB used. The maximum plant height (60.03 cm) was observed in pots treated with GnB6 (Table 4). Conversely, the minimum plant height was 28.30 cm in the control plants growing in the soil only. There was no significant difference in plant height between the addition of 3 and 6 mg kg−1 of the same type of nano-amendments used. The largest number of laterals of tomato plants was observed in the soil amended with GnB. The number of laterals of tomato plants increased with increasing levels of nano-amendments added to the soil. It increased from 12.0 in the control to 49.43 and 57.13 with the application of GnB at 3 and 6 mg kg−1, respectively.
The number of flowers of tomato plants rose significantly with the application of nano-amendments to the soil at various levels. The largest number of flowers of tomato plants was observed in the soil amended with GnB as compared with other treatments.

4. Discussion

The bands at 3451 cm−1 in GnB and 3449 cm−1 and 3970 cm−1 in MnB were identified from the O-H stretching and bending from the phenolic group presented in the compost tea [32]. The peaks at 2095 cm−1 in MnB were related to the C-H and H-C=O stretching vibrations [33]. The peak at 1458 cm−1 in MnB represented the S-H and S=O stretching [34]. It refers to the use of ferrous sulfate during the synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles. The peaks at 1101 cm−1 in nB and GnB represent the symmetric C-O stretching. The peaks at 1636 cm−1 in nB and 1637 cm−1 in GnB were related to H–O–H and C=C stretching, which indicates phenolic compounds [35]. The shift in peaks in the range from 400 to 4000 cm indicated that these functional groups in the compost tea were bound to the surface of the biochar nanoparticles.
The data showed the spinel phase structure of magnetite (Fe3O4), Fe3O4TiO, and ferrous sulfate monohydrate, which is consistent with the XRD standard for magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles [36]. The peaks at 2ϴ = 23.2°, 35.4°, 45.3°, and 47.2° in GnB, were identified as organic compounds due to the use of compost tea, which contains high biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) was not shown. Conversely, the peaks at 2ϴ = 26.2°, 35.6°, and 44.2° in MnB were identified as ferrous sulfate monohydrate due to the use of ferrous sulfate during the synthesis of nanomagnetics.
The SEM image demonstrated that the nB and the modified nB surfaces had a beneficial porous texture, with the ability to absorb elements and nutrients, acting as slow-release fertilizers [36].
An excellent measure of soil quality and biological activity is soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC), which is often positively associated with SOM concentration and soil pH [37]. In our study, the high MBC in pots treated with nB or GnB is likely owing to their greater amount of nutrients, OC, and CEC (Table 1). Similar findings were made by Mahmoud et al. [38], who discovered that the addition of biochar caused a considerable rise in MBC. Moreover, enhanced microbial biomass with the application of nanobiochar was due to the presence of labile C fractions and the availability of elements from it, and it served to provide a suitable environment for the growth of living organisms.
The application of materials high in elements and OM leads to an increase in the number of microbes in the soil and thus enhances the MBC of the soil [39]. The application of compost tea to the nanobiochar increased nutrients and humic substances, changed the surface chemistry on the nanobiochar, and provided a suitable environment for the growth of soil organisms, thus increasing the microbial biomass more than the addition of the nanobiochar alone, as in our current study. The increase in MBC in MnB-treated pots was due to the organisms’ supply of iron and sulfur used in synthesis, which are positively correlated with sulfur and iron, and this was confirmed by Heinze et al. [40].
The decrease in soil pH with nano-amendments was due to the organic acid produced during the decomposition of organic matter present in the soil and naobiochar [41]. The soil pH decreased with the addition of MnB to a greater degree than that with GnB and nB (Table 2). This can be explained by the fact that magnetic nanobiochar is acidic. When it hydrolyzes, sulfuric acid is formed, which lowers the pH of the soil. Moreover, bacteria in the soil oxidize sulfur and iron and release H+ into the soil, which helps in lowering the pH of the soil [9]. In a similar study, Aihemaiti et al. [42] found that the addition of ferrous-sulfate-modified sludge biochar led to a reduce in soil pH. The decrease in pH could be explained with the addition of nB3 and nB6 compared to the control as follows:
(1) It was clear from the results that the addition of nB3 and nB6 led to an increase in root length more than 34% (Table 4). During plant development, plant roots exude organic acids, amino acids, and other simple carbohydrates, which reduce the pH [43].
(2) The pH decreased with the addition of nB3 and nB6 as a result of an increase in soil organic matter by 47.62 and 51.29% of the soil (Table 2), respectively, as compared to the control, improving the physical and hydraulic properties and thus the leaching of sodium from the soil complex [15].
In this study, the number of nematode eggs, root galling, and nematodes in pots treated with green nanobiochar were reduced due to the presence of nutrients and some phytochemical components such as micronutrients, ammonia, organic acids, and fatty acids present in the compost tea [13]. A number of nematode eggs, root galling, and nematodes were suppressed in the pots treated with vermicompost tea [44]. Izuogu and Oyedunmade [8] found that the application of poultry compost tea showed good promise in suppressing nematode numbers. El-Mougy et al. [45] and Tolba et al. [46] found that humic acid compounds are effective against plant-parasitic nematodes. Micronutrients play a pivotal role in plant nematode resistance in regulating auxin levels in plant tissues by activating the auxin oxidase system, resulting in an increase in total phenols, calcium content, and catechol oxidase activity [13]. Similarly, compost tea contains micronutrients and other phenolic substances, providing positive results, with nanobiochar in reducing nematodes. In this study, the reduction in the number of nematodes per 250 cm3 soil was associated with pH (R2 = 0.928), OM (R2 = 0.889), and MBC (R2 = 0.926). Moreover, this finding was similar to that of Ibrahim et al. [47], who found high pH reduced the number of nematodes. Wang et al. [48] confirmed that the application of OM improved soil quality and reduced soil nematodes. Ansari et al. [49] found in a pot experiment that adding 3% of rice husk biochar reduced the number of galls, egg masses, and females of the M. incognita by 3.1, 77.5, and 62.1%, respectively. Ahmed [50] found that egg masses and gall numbers in eggplant roots were reduced at 50 and 90 DAT, respectively, with the addition of rice straw and peanut residue biochars. Magnetic iron as a soil fertilizer revolutionized agriculture [12]. The nematicidal effect of magnetic nanobiochar can be attributed to its high content of functional groups that interfere with the enzyme protein structure of nematode cells. It also contains some oxygenated compounds that have lipophilic properties that enable them to dissolve the cytoplasmic membrane of nematode cells. The magnetic biochar nanoparticles are characterized by the small size of the particles, the high surface area, and magnetic nature, and their field helps them to pass the elements useful to agriculture and eliminate nematodes on plant roots [51]. Thoden et al. [52] found a decrease in root knot nematodes and an increase in crop yield with the addition of compost. Strong magnetic capabilities, durability, biocompatibility, and low toxicity are all characteristics of magnetic nanoparticles [53,54]. It is promising in eliminating pollutants, killing infections, etc., due to its magnetic nature and properties. The addition of Fe2O3 NPs increased the shoot and root length of tomato plants, as well as increasing stem and root growth of peanut plants [55,56].
The dry weight of tomato plants increased by more than 75.0% and 97.8% when amended with nB and GnB, respectively. Likewise, in another study by Ali [57], the author found that fertilization with nB increased the dry weight of canola plants by more than 62.5%. Nanobiochar is distinguished by its elevated surface area, its surface functional groups, and its elevated adsorption capacity, and thus it is crucial in minimizing the loss of nutrients, enhancing the efficiency of fertilizer use, and increasing the yield [58]. The increase in tomato growth with the application of the investigated nanomaterials is due to its content of organic matter and nutrients, and adding it to the soil improves the health of the soil and reduces the number of nematodes (Table 3). According to Sharma and Sharma [59], infection with root-knot nematode in tomato leads to reduced growth. The results indicated a significant enhancement in the fresh and dry weight of tomato plants, with a rise in the level of adding nB and GnB amendments. Likewise, Ali [57] and Yang et al. [60] found that the maize yield and dry weight of canola increased with the application of nano-biochar. Ali 53] and Elsawy et al. [61] found a strong correlation between the dry weights of canola plants with MBC (R2 = 0.80), CEC (R2 = 0.72), and OM (R2 = 0.83). In this study, the decrease in the number of nematode/250 cm3 soil was associated with pH (R2 = 0.928), OM (R2 = 0.889), and MBC (R2 = 0.926).

5. Conclusions

The investigated nanomaterials are characterized by their elevated surface area and contain functional groups and minerals. Its addition improved soil MBC, pH, and OM and reduced root nodule nematodes, which had a significant effect in increasing tomato growth. The application of GnB6 provided a much more significant decrease in the numbers of root galls, as well as egg mass and nematodes per 250 cm3 soil, compared to other treatments. Our study showed a strong correlation between the decrease in the number of nematodes per 250 cm3 soil with pH (R2 = 0.928), OM (R2 = 0.889), and MBC (R2 = 0.926). The application of GnB at a rate of 6 mg kg−1 gave the best growth and yield of tomato plants. The results recommended the use of 6 mg kg−1 of GnB to achieve the best growth of tomato plants, reduce root-knot nematodes, and enhance soil health in sandy loam soils.

Author Contributions

E.M., H.E., M.I. and A.K., designed the study and wrote the main body of the manuscript; M.I., F.A., E.S. and N.A.E.-K., conception of the study and final approval of the version to be published; E.S., A.S. and A.K., data collection and analysis; H.E. and N.A.E.-K., revised the manuscript and figures; E.M. and M.I., acquired the funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (grant no. 2602) and Tanta University, Egypt.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Soil, Water and Plant Laboratory (ISO/IEC 17025:2017), Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Egypt. Moreover, the authors acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, for financial support under the Annual Funding track (grant no. 2602).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Khandel, P.; Shahi, S.K. Microbes mediated synthesis of metal nanoparticles: Current status and future prospects. Int. J. Nanomater. Biostruct 2016, 6, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  2. Veeramanikandan, V.; Madhu, G.; Pavithra, V.; Jaianand, K.; Balaji, P. Green synthesis, characterization of iron oxide nanoparticles using Leucas aspera leaf extract and evaluation of antibacterial and antioxidant studies. Int. J. Agri. Innov. Res. 2017, 6, 242–250. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahrulolum, H.; Nooraei, S.; Javanshir, N.; Tarrahimofrad, H.; Mirbagheri, V.S.; Easton, A.J.; Ahmadian, G. Green synthesis of metal nanoparticles using microorganisms and their application in the agrifood sector. J. Nanobiotech. 2021, 19, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kamran, U.; Bhatti, H.N.; Iqbal, M.; Nazir, A. Green synthesis of metal nanoparticles and their applications in different fields: A review. Z. Für Phys. Chemie. 2019, 233, 1325–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elmer, W.; Ma, C.; White, J. Nanoparticles for plant disease management. Sci Direct Curr Opin Env. Sci Health. 2018, 66, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gkanatsiou, C.; Ntalli, N.; Dendrinou-Samara, U.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, C. Essential Metal-Based Nanoparticles (Copper/Iron NPs) as potent nematicidal agents against Meloidogyne spp. J. Nanotechnol. Res. 2019, 1, 44–58. [Google Scholar]
  7. Osei, K.; Addico, R.; Nafeo, A.; Edu-Kwarteng, A.; Agyemang, A.; Danso, Y.; Sackey-Asante, J. Effect of some organic waste extracts on hatching of Meloidogyne incognita eggs. Afr. J. Agri. Res. 2011, 6, 2255–2259. [Google Scholar]
  8. Izuogu, N.; Oyedunmade, E. Pathogenicity and Control of the Root-Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita on Fluted Pumpkin, Telfairia occidentalis. J. Agri. Res. Develo. 2009, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Annon. Annual progress report: All India Network Program on Gastrointestinal Parasites. CSWRI Avikanagar. 2004, 45, 473–483. [Google Scholar]
  10. Poswal, M.; Akpa, A. Current trends in the use of traditional and organic methods for the control of crop pests and diseases in Nigeria. Int. J. Pest Manage. 1991, 37, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pakeerathun, K.; Mikutan, G.; Tharsshan, N. Effects of different animal manure on Meloidogyne incognita on tomato IDOSI publication. World J. Agri. Sci. 2009, 5, 432–435. [Google Scholar]
  12. El-Sherif, A.; Gad, S.; Saadoon, S. Eco-friendly management of Meloidogyne incognita infecting eggplant under greenhouse conditions. Asian J. Nematol. 2014, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Arshad, U.; Naveed, M.; Javed, N.; Gogi, M.D.; Ali, M.A. Biochar application from different feedstocks enhances plant growth and resistance against Meloidogyne incognita in tomato. Intern J Agri Biol. 2020, 24, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, T.; Mao, P.; Shi, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; He, X.; Tao, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, L.; Shao, Y. Contrasting effects of nitrogen deposition and increased precipitation on soil nematode communities in a temperate forest. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 148, 107869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hafeez, A.; Pan, T.; Tian, J.; Cai, K. Modified Biochars and Their Effects on Soil Quality: A Review. Environments 2022, 9, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Anyanwu, I.N.; Alo, M.N.; Onyekwere, A.M.; Crosse, J.D.; Nworie, O.; Chamba, E.B. Influence of biochar aged in acidic soil on ecosystem engineers and two tropical agricultural plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 153, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Joseph, S.; Kammann, C.I.; Shepherd, J.G.; Conte, P.; Schmidt, H.-P.; Hagemann, N.; Rich, A.M.; Marjo, C.E.; Allen, J.; Munroe, P. Microstructural and associated chemical changes during the composting of a high temperature biochar: Mechanisms for nitrate, phosphate and other nutrient retention and release. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 1210–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Perez, N.D.; Kassim, Y.; Ringler, C.; Thomas, T.S.; ElDidi, H. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Egypt’s Agricultural Sector: A ‘Suite of Technologies’ Approach; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Volume 18.
  19. Fao, G.D.; Jiang, J.-C. Theoretical investigation of CO2 conversion on corrugated g-C3N4 Surface decorated by single-atom of Fe, Co, and Pd. Mol. Catal. 2022, 526, 112402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Anwar, R.; Fatima, T.; Mattoo, A.K. Tomatoes: A model crop of solanaceous plants. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abu El Enain, S.M.; El-Rasoul, A.; Shaban, M.; Mohamed, M. Soil taxonomy and evaluation of some newly reclaimed areas adjacent to the Nile Delta Rims, EGYPT. Fayoum. J. Agri. Res. Devel. 2010, 24, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Frolova, L.; Kharytonov, M. Synthesis of magnetic biochar for efficient removal of Cr (III) cations from the aqueous medium. Advn. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 2019, 2187132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elbadri, G.; Lee, D.W.; Park, J.C.; Choo, H.Y. Nematicidal efficacy of herbal powders on Meloidogyne incognita (Tylenchida: Meloidogynidae) on potted watermelon. J. Asia-Pac. Entom. 2009, 12, 37–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, B.; Chen, X.; Henry, L. The Effect of nano-biochar on soil, water, and nutrient loss of a sloping land with different vegetation covers on Loess plateau of China. App. Ecol. Envirn. Res. 2020, 18, 2845–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Graber, E.R.; Meller Harel, Y.; Kolton, M.; Cytryn, E.; Silber, A.; Rav David, D.; Tsechansky, L.; Borenshtein, M.; Elad, Y. Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media. Plant Soil. 2010, 337, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Page, A.L.; Miller, R.; Keeney, D.R. Methods of Soil Analysis: Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Amen Society Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nelson, D.a.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods Soil Anal. Part 2 Chem. Microbiol. Prop. 1983, 9, 539–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Graber, E.R.; Singh, B.; Hanley, K.; Lehmann, J. Determination of cation exchange capacity in biochar. Biochar: A Guide Anal. Methods 2017, 11, 74–84. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mandal, D.; Bolander, M.E.; Mukhopadhyay, D.; Sarkar, G.; Mukherjee, P. The use of microorganisms for the formation of metal nanoparticles and their application. App. Microbio. Biotech. 2006, 69, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bridge, J.; Page, S. Estimation of root-knot nematode infestation levels on roots using a rating chart. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1980, 26, 296–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Taylor, A.; Sasser, J. Biology, Identification and Control of Root-Knot Nematodes; North Carolina State University Graphics: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1978; Volume 111. [Google Scholar]
  32. Southey, J.F. Laboratory Methods for Work with Plant and Soil Nematodes; HMSO: London, UK, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kasim, N.; Mustari, K.; Iswari, I.; Padjung, R.; Widiayani, N. Effect of the application of chicken manure compost tea on the growth of certified cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) seedlings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 807, 042050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nakamoto, K. Infrared and Raman Spectra of Inorganic and Coordination Compounds, Part B: Applications in Coordination, Organometallic, and Bioinorganic Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  35. Socrates, G. Infrared and Raman Characteristic Group Frequencies: Tables and Charts; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aisida, S.O.; Madubuonu, N.; Alnasir, M.H.; Ahmad, I.; Botha, S.; Maaza, M.; Ezema, F.I. Biogenic synthesis of iron oxide nanorods using Moringa oleifera leaf extract for antibacterial applications. App. Nanosci. 2020, 10, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mahdavi, M.; Ahmad, M.B.; Haron, M.J.; Gharayebi, Y.; Shameli, K.; Nadi, B. Fabrication and characterization of SiO2/(3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane-coated magnetite nanoparticles for lead (II) removal from aqueous solution. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 2013, 23, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Caldwell, B.A. Enzyme activities as a component of soil biodiversity: A review. Pedobiologia 2005, 49, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mahmoud, E.; Ibrahim, M.; Khader, A. Phosphorus fertilisation and biochar impacts on soil fertility and wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity under semiarid conditions. Crop Pasture Sci. 2021, 74, CP21095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Brendecke, J.W.; Axelson, R.D.; Pepper, I.L. Soil microbial activity as an indicator of soil fertility: Long-term effects of municipal sewage sludge on an arid soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1993, 25, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Heinze, S.; Hemkemeyer, M.; Schwalb, S.A.; Khan, K.S.; Joergensen, R.G.; Wichern, F. Microbial Biomass Sulphur—An Important Yet Understudied Pool in Soil. Agron. 2021, 11, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mahmoud, E.; El-Beshbeshy, T.; El-Kader, N.A.; El Shal, R.; Khalafallah, N. Impacts of biochar application on soil fertility, plant nutrients uptake and maize (Zea mays L.) yield in saline sodic soil. Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ling, W.; Ren, L.; Gao, Y.; Zhu, X.; Sun, B. Impact of low-molecular-weight organic acids on the availability of phenanthrene and pyrene in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 2187–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Edwards, C.A.; Arancon, N.Q.; Emerson, E.; Pulliam, R. Suppressing plant parasitic nematodes and arthropod pests with vermicompost teas. Biocy 2007, 48, 38–39. [Google Scholar]
  45. El-Mougy, N.S.; Abdel-Kader, M.; Lashin, S.; AA, M. Fungicides alternatives as plant resistance inducers against foliar diseases incidence of some vegetables grown under plastic houses conditions. Environment 2013, 3, 71–81. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tolba, H.I.; Morsy, E.M.; El-Badawy, E. Impact of microbial inoculation on maize (Zea mays) productivity under different levels of potassium fertilization. Egypt J. Biotech. 2010, 35, 172–184. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ibrahim, F.; Quainoo, A.K.; Kankam, F. Effect of shea nut shell biochar on root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2019, 30, 1–7. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2391 (accessed on 10 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Sun, J. Biochar application promotes growth parameters of soybean and reduces the growth difference. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Analy. 2016, 47, 1493–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ansari, M.I.; Masood, F.; Malik, A. Bacterial biosorption: A technique for remediation of heavy metals. Microbes Microb. Technol. 2011, 283–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahmed, N. Rice Straw and Peanut Residues Biochars as Eco-Friendly Approaches for Controlling Root-Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita Infecting Eggplant. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. F. Toxicol. Pest Control 2021, 13, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Knobloch, K.; Pauli, A.; Iberl, B.; Weigand, H.; Weis, N. Antibacterial and antifungal properties of essential oil components. J Essent. OilRes. 1989, 1, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thoden, T.C.; Korthals, G.W.; Termorshuizen, A.J. Organic amendments and their influences on plant-parasitic and free-living nematodes: A promising method for nematode management? Nematology 2011, 13, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marimón-Bolívar, W.; Tejeda-Benítez, L.; Herrera, A.P. Removal of mercury (II) from water using magnetic nanoparticles coated with amino organic ligands and yam peel biomass. Env. Nanotechn Monit Manage. 2018, 10, 486–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mohammed, L.; Gomaa, H.G.; Ragab, D.; Zhu, J. Magnetic nanoparticles for environmental and biomedical applications: A review. Particuology 2017, 30, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. He, S.; Feng, Y.; Ren, H.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, N.; Lin, X. The impact of iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles on the soil bacterial community. J. Soils Sed. 2011, 11, 1408–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rui, M.; Ma, C.; Hao, Y.; Guo, J.; Rui, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Fan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Hou, T. Iron oxide nanoparticles as a potential iron fertilizer for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Front Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Ali, H. The Effect of Biochar and Compost Application in Remediating the Contaminated Soil with Some Heavy Metals and on Canola Plant Growth; Tanta University: Tanta, Egypt, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Achari, G.A.; Kowshik, M. Recent developments on nanotechnology in agriculture: Plant mineral nutrition, health, and interactions with soil microflora. J. Agri Food Chemi. 2018, 66, 8647–8661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sharma, I.P.; Sharma, A. Root–knot nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita) suppression through pre-colonized arbuscular mycorrhiza (Glomus intraradices) in tomato-PT3. Sci. Agri. 2015, 12, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yang, X.; Liu, J.; McGrouther, K.; Huang, H.; Lu, K.; Guo, X.; He, L.; Lin, X.; Che, L.; Ye, Z. Effect of biochar on the extractability of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn) and enzyme activity in soil. Env. Sci. Poll Res. 2016, 23, 974–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Elsawy, H.; El-shahawy, A.; Ibrahim, M.; El-Halim, A.E.-H.A.; Talha, N.; Sedky, A.; Alfwuaires, M.; Alabbad, H.; Almeri, N.; Mahmoud, E. Properties of Recycled Nanomaterials and Their Effect on Biological Activity and Yield of Canola in Degraded Soils. Agri. 2022, 12, 2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 00366 g001 550
Figure 1. Tomato plant growth during the experiment.
Figure 1. Tomato plant growth during the experiment.
Agriculture 13 00366 g001
Agriculture 13 00366 g002 550
Figure 2. SEM of nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB).
Figure 2. SEM of nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB).
Agriculture 13 00366 g002
Agriculture 13 00366 g003 550
Figure 3. FTIR of nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB).
Figure 3. FTIR of nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB).
Agriculture 13 00366 g003
Agriculture 13 00366 g004 550
Figure 4. XRD of nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB).
Figure 4. XRD of nanobiochar (nB), green nanobiochar (GnB), and magnetic nanobiochar (MnB).
Agriculture 13 00366 g004
Agriculture 13 00366 g005a 550Agriculture 13 00366 g005b 550
Figure 5. Correlation between number of nematodes/250 cm3 soil pH, OM, and MBC.
Figure 5. Correlation between number of nematodes/250 cm3 soil pH, OM, and MBC.
Agriculture 13 00366 g005aAgriculture 13 00366 g005b
Table
Table 1. Properties of soil and nanomaterials.
Table 1. Properties of soil and nanomaterials.
AmendmentspHEC, dSm−1OC, %N, %P, %K, %CEC, cmolc kg−1
Soil7.791.650.62305.8936829.03
CT8.014.0824.600.420.360.49-
nB8.45 a2.45 a56.90 a2.70 c3.51 b5.01 b31.30 b
GnB7.58 b2.29 b46.62 b4.02 a4.61 a5.74 a32.41 a
MnB6.69 c2.24 c45.70 c3.08 c3.47 c5.03 b29.60 c
nB: nanobiochar; CT: compost tea; GnB: green nanobiochar; MnB: magnetic nanobiochar. Different lowercase letters represent row materials, nB (only biochar), GnB (nanobiochar + compost tea) and MnB (nanobiochar + iron sulphate).
Table
Table 2. Impact of nano-amendments on soil pH, OM, and MBC in soil inoculated with root-knot nematodes.
Table 2. Impact of nano-amendments on soil pH, OM, and MBC in soil inoculated with root-knot nematodes.
TreatmentspHOM
%		MBC
mg kg−1
C7.79 a1.05 g165 f
nB37.51 c1.55 d271 b
nB67.52 c1.62 c272 b
GnB37.60 b1.88 b261 c
GnB67.57 b1.94 a283 a
MnB37.45 d1.44 f229 e
MnB67.44 d1.55 e240 d
F-test******
LSD (0.01)5.483.0211.51
LSD (0.05)3.952.188.29
Control (C): soil without amendments; nB3: nanobiochar level of 3 mg kg−1 soil; nB6: nanobiochar level of 6 mg kg−1 soil; GnB3: green nanobiochar level of 3 mg kg−1 soil; GnB6: green nanobiochar level of 6 mg kg−1 soil; MnB3: magnetic nanobiochar level of 3 mg kg−1 soil; MnB6: magnetic nanobiochar level of 6 mg kg−1 soil. Different lowercase letters represent row materials, nB (only biochar), GnB (nanobiochar + compost tea) and MnB (nanobiochar + iron sulphate). ** represent significant effect between studied materials.
Table
Table 3. Effect of nano-amendments on soil in soil root-knot nematodes.
Table 3. Effect of nano-amendments on soil in soil root-knot nematodes.
TreatmentsRoot GallEgg MassNumber of Nematodes per 250 cm3 Soil
C71.67 a79.33 a2036 a
nB324.67 c18.57 c852.31 c
nB623.00 c17.61 c806 c
GnB318.00 d11.00 d571 d
GnB616.00 d9.00 d520 d
MnB333.34 b28.76 b1023 b
MnB635.67 b27.00 b1044 b
F-test******
LSD (0.01)2.415.3955.62
LSD (0.05)3.507.4877.20
Different lowercase letters represent row materials, nB (only biochar), GnB (nanobiochar + compost tea) and MnB (nanobiochar + iron sulphate). ** represent significant effect between studied materials.
Table
Table 4. Effect of nano-amendments on tomato growth.
Table 4. Effect of nano-amendments on tomato growth.
Treatments
Root Length, cmNumber of LeavesNumber of FlowersNumber of LateralsPlant Height, cmFresh Weight, g Dry Weight, g
C19.35 a6 d2 f12 f28.3 d60.23d12.40 d
nB326.07 b11 b7 c46.20 c54.04b83.52b19.28 c
nB626.08 b11 b7 c46.00 c52.61b87.81 a21.70 bc
GnB326.45 a11 b8.53 b49.43 b56.36a81.25 b21.84 b
GnB626.64 a12 a10 a57.13 a60.03 a88.82 a24.65 a
MnB325.63 d9 c4 e31.00 e46.07c70.91c13.25d
MnB625.31 c9 c5 d34.00 d44.37c70.93c13.60 d
F-test**************
LSD (0.05)0.270.380.501.871.202.542.56
LSD (0.01)0.370.500.752.591.673.553.54
Different lowercase letters represent row materials, nB (only biochar), GnB (nanobiochar + compost tea) and MnB (nanobiochar + iron sulphate). ** represent significant effect between studied materials.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khader, A.; Ibrahim, M.; Alkhathami, F.; Elsawy, H.; El-Kader, N.A.; Shaker, E.; Sedky, A.; Mahmoud, E. Properties of Nano-Amendments and Their Effect on Some Soil Properties and Root-Knot Nematode and Yield Attributes of Tomato Plant. Agriculture 2023, 13, 366. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020366

AMA Style

Khader A, Ibrahim M, Alkhathami F, Elsawy H, El-Kader NA, Shaker E, Sedky A, Mahmoud E. Properties of Nano-Amendments and Their Effect on Some Soil Properties and Root-Knot Nematode and Yield Attributes of Tomato Plant. Agriculture. 2023; 13(2):366. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020366

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khader, Asmaa, Mahmoud Ibrahim, Fahad Alkhathami, Hany Elsawy, Nasser Abd El-Kader, Eman Shaker, Azza Sedky, and Esawy Mahmoud. 2023. "Properties of Nano-Amendments and Their Effect on Some Soil Properties and Root-Knot Nematode and Yield Attributes of Tomato Plant" Agriculture 13, no. 2: 366. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020366

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