Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The effect of application of effluent water on sage (Salvia officinalis L.) yield and quality in lysimeters Cover

The effect of application of effluent water on sage (Salvia officinalis L.) yield and quality in lysimeters

Open Access
|Jun 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

The meteorological data of growing seasons in 2020 and 2021. (A) Sum of monthly precipitation (mm), and (B) the average temperature (°C). The average of 30 years is shown as a reference line.
The meteorological data of growing seasons in 2020 and 2021. (A) Sum of monthly precipitation (mm), and (B) the average temperature (°C). The average of 30 years is shown as a reference line.

Figure 2.

The yield results (biomass and fresh and dry leaves’ weight [g · plant−1]) of sage in 2020–2021.
The yield results (biomass and fresh and dry leaves’ weight [g · plant−1]) of sage in 2020–2021.

Figure 3.

The essential oil content (mL · 100 g−1 d.m.) of sage from the September harvest under different irrigation treatments in 2020 and 2021.
The essential oil content (mL · 100 g−1 d.m.) of sage from the September harvest under different irrigation treatments in 2020 and 2021.

Figure 4.

PCAs with two extracted factors. (A) shows the difference between years, where the first component explained 55.56% of the total variance, and the second one 44.44%. (B) represents the difference among treatments, where the first component explained 50.29% of the total variance, and the second one 31.15%. PCAs, principal component analyses.
PCAs with two extracted factors. (A) shows the difference between years, where the first component explained 55.56% of the total variance, and the second one 44.44%. (B) represents the difference among treatments, where the first component explained 50.29% of the total variance, and the second one 31.15%. PCAs, principal component analyses.

Soil properties (corresponding to samples drawn from soil depths of 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm) (Szarvas, 2020)_

Soil depth (cm)pH (KCl)Sludge (%)All water soluble salts (m · m%−1)Total carbonate content (m · m%−1)Humus (m · m%−1)Nitrite + Nitrate-N (KCl)P2O5 (AL) (ppm)K2O (AL) (ppm)Na (AL) (ppm)
0–306.8670–800.08<0.501.879.62706.75405.67277.17
30–606.36800.08<0.501.958.38394.17350.75280.00

The components of the essential oil of sage from the September harvest in 2021_

Components of essential oil (%)Irr1Irr2Irr3
Hydrocarbon monoterpenes
α-Pinene2.44 ± 0.62 a2.87 ± 1.12 a4.04 ± 0.96 a
Camphene*2.94 ± 0.87 a3.54 ± 1.01 ab5.45 ± 1.31 b
Sabinene0.10 ± 0.04 a0.10 ± 0.03 a0.09 ± 0.04 a
β-Pinene1.26 ± 0.46 a1.53 ± 0.411.80 ± 0.36 a
β-Myrcene0.65 ± 0.13 a0.70 ± 0.07 a0.72 ± 0.07 a
α-Terpinene0.05 ± 0.10 a0.06 ± 0.07 a0.15 ± 0.04 a
Limonene1.48 ± 0.20 a1.54 ± 0.10 a1.80 ± 0.17 a
γ-Terpinene0.30 ± 0.06a0.33 ± 0.06 a0.33 ± 0.08 a
α-Thujene0.10 ± 0.05 a0.13 ± 0.04 a0.15 ± 0.05 a
α-Terpinolene0.22 ± 0.14 a0.21 ± 0.06 a0.28 ± 0.13 a
p-Cymene0.29 ± 0.07 a0.27 ± 0.06 a0.27 ± 0.03 a
Oxygenated monoterpenes
Trans-sabinene hydrate0.17 ± 0.05 a0.15 ± 0.05 a0.14 ± 0.04 a
Cis-sabinene hydrate0.16 ± 0.05 a0.13 ± 0.03 a0.12 ± 0.03 a
1,8-Cineol7.72 ± 1.06 a9.78 ± 0.86 a8.58 ± 1.65 a
Linalool0.28 ± 0.06 a0.27 ± 0.09 a0.30 ± 0.07 a
α-Thujone30.37 ± 2.95 a29.92 ± 3.96 a26.13 ± 4.95 a
β-Thujone10.93 ± 1.17 a8.01 ± 4.52 a7.94 ± 5.56 a
Iso-3-thujanol0.16 ± 0.07 a0.09 ± 0.06 a0.07 ± 0.07 a
Trans-sabinol*0.17 ± 0.02 b0.08 ± 0.06 a0.10 ± 0.03 ab
Camphor21.90 ± 3.61 a23.16 ± 2.17 a24.03 ± 4.36 a
Isoborneol2.22 ± 0.15 a2.14 ± 0.46 a2.20 ± 0.62 a
Terpinene-4-ol0.3 ± 0.06 a0.27 ± 0.08 a0.26 ± 0.02 a
α-Terpineol0.15 ± 0.07 a0.17 ± 0.07 a0.13 ± 0.01 a
Isobornil-acetate1.42 ± 0.33 a1.39 ± 0.26 a1.97 ± 0.96 a
Trans-sabinil-acetate0.23 ± 0.09 a0.18 ± 0.03 a0.19 ± 0.02 a
Hydrocarbon sesquiterpenes
β-Caryophyllene1.82 ± 0.41 a2.16 ± 0.73 a0.14 ± 0.48 a
α-Humulene3.53 ± 1.63 a3.37 ± 0.38 a2.80 ± 0.84 a
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes
Ledol6.61 ± 2.04 a5.83 ± 1.14 a6.77 ± 1.36 a
Caryophyllene-oxide*0.66 ± 0.24 b0.25 ± 0.17 a0.28 ± 0.14 a
Humulene-oxide II0.51 ± 0.36 a0.64 ± 0.62 a1.02 ± 1.20 a

The nutrient content (N, P, K and Na content, mg · kg−1) of sage leaf from the September harvest in 2020_

TreatmentN (mg · kg−1)P (mg · kg−1)K (mg · kg−1)Na (mg · kg−1)
Irr12.55 ± 0.16 b2,950.00 ± 340.49 a30,357.50 ± 1431.40 a499.75 ± 42.79 c
Irr22.53 ± 0.37 b2,970.00 ± 677.00 a28,527.50 ± 1,133.94 a352.50 ± 42.30 b
Irr31.90 ± 0.18 a2,165.81 ± 596.52 a29,525.00 ± 1,648.22 a199.00 ± 8.52 a

Yield (biomass and fresh and dry leaves’ weight) results of sage (g · m−2) in 2020–2021_

Irr1Irr2Irr3
2020Biomass(g · m−2)2,146.84 ± 477.371,619.6 ± 525.971,467.6 ± 330.84
Fresh leaves’ weight(g · m−2)1,518.52 ± 326.181,199.48 ± 380.231,055.88 ± 248.94
Dry leaves’ weight(g · m−2)399.04 ± 72.44316.4 ± 119.14292.96 ± 61.68
2021Biomass(g · m−2)1,413.00 ± 653.511,771.24 ± 596.571,688.76 ± 217.99
Fresh leaves’ weight(g · m−2)1,131.04 ± 487.731,324.72 ± 396.481,223.75 ± 150.30
Dry leaves’ weight(g · m−2)337.72 ± 132.49343.28 ± 92.34357.84 ± 42.82

The results of Pearson’s correlation: the correlation of the total nitrogen content of irrigation water with the plant diameter, shoot length, SPAD value, yield, macronutrient, Na concentration and essential oil content in 2020 and 2021_

Pearson’s correlationPlant diameterShoot lengthSPAD valueBiomassFresh leaves’ weightDry leaves’ weight
Total Nitrogen of irrigation water20200.170.140.280.58**0.55**0.50**
20210.33*0.35*0.270.43**0.48**0.40**
Average of 2020–20210.170.070.27**0.25*0.27**0.32**
N content of leavesPhosphorus content of leavesPotassium content of leavesNa content of leavesEssential oil content
Total Nitrogen of irrigation water20200.62*−0.170.320.95**−0.23
20210.45−0.71**−0.420.36−0.71
Average of 2020–20210.51*−0.48*−0.780.28−0.33

The results of ANOVA of different traits, showing the SS, df, MS, F test and the level of significance of 16 replications, three treatments and 2 years_

SSdfMSFSig.
PHTreatmentHypothesis136.902.0068.454.550.01
Error1,384.2092.0015.046
YearHypothesis2,847.081.002,847.08189.230.00
Error1,384.2092.0015.046
Plant diameterTreatmentHypothesis142.322.0071.162.260.11
Error2,898.9792.0031.511
YearHypothesis1,402.861.001,402.8644.520.00
Error2,898.9792.0031.511
SPADTreatmentHypothesis87.212.0043.607.560.00
Error525.1491.005.771
YearHypothesis12.091.0012.092.100.15
Error525.1491.005.771
BiomassTreatmentHypothesis41,055.812.0020,527.911.150.32
Error1,637,675.0092.0017,800.815
YearHypothesis21,723.181.0021,723.181.220.27
Error1,637,675.0092.0017,800.815
Fresh leaves’ weightTreatmentHypothesis35,391.142.0017,695.572.090.13
Error780,460.3992.008,483.265
YearHypothesis1,483.501.001,483.500.170.68
Error780,460.3992.008,483.265
Dry leaves’ weightTreatmentHypothesis2,234.232.001,117.121.970.15
Error52,152.6292.00566.876
YearHypothesis154.281.00154.280.270.60
Error52,152.6292.00566.876
Essential oil contentTreatmentHypothesis0.352.000.173.960.04
Error0.8720.000.044
YearHypothesis1.651.001.6537.700.00
Error0.8720.000.044

The nutrient content (N, P, K and Na content, mg × kg−1) of sage leaf from the September harvest in 2021_

TreatmentN (mg · kg−1)P (mg · kg−1)K (mg · kg−1)Na (mg · kg−1)
Irr12.36 ± 0.36 a2,750.00 ± 454.83 a235,02.57 ± 1678.22 a430.50 ± 29.29 a
Irr22.24 ± 0.32 a3,327.50 ± 334.60 ab24,905.00 ± 1,103.86 a397.00 ± 112.42 a
Irr32.03 ± 0.09 a3,650.00 ± 465.47 b24,695.00 ± 1,278.27 a374.80 ± 21.31 a

The effects of different water qualities on plant properties of sage in 2020–2021_

TreatmentPH (cm)Plant diameter (cm)SPAD value
202020212020202120202021
Irr138.66 ± 4.06 b23.83 ± 3.60 a54.25 ± 4.17 a43.29 ± 7.47 a38.46 ± 1.96 b37.99 ± 2.77 b
Irr233.47 ± 4.38 a25.64 ± 3.20 ab49.08 ± 4.38 a43.59 ± 5.34 a36.98 ± 2.30 ab32.47 ± 4.55 a
Irr337.47 ± 3.75 b27.46 ± 2.38 b51.56 ± 2.70 a47.18 ± 3.73 a36.31 ± 3.01 a35.77 ± 1.63 ab

Characteristic properties of irrigation water (2020–2021)_

Characteristics of irrigation water20202021
Effluent waterKörös-oxbow waterEffluent waterKörös-oxbow water
Temperature of water (in laboratory) (°C)28.0024.6020.0016.60
pH (in laboratory)8.187.677.887.67
Specific electric conductivity (20 °C) (μS · cm−1)1,370.00412.001,380.00329.00
Total alkalinity (p-alkalinity) (mmol · L−1)<0.10<0.10<0.10<0.10
Total alkalinity (m-alkalinity) (mmol · L−1)16.503.6416.702.79
Carbonate (mg · L −1)<6.00<6.00<6.00<6.00
Bicarbonate (mg · L −1)1,004.00222.001,016.00170.00
Ammonium ion (mg · L −1)38.101.3336.100.45
Ammonium-N (mg · L −1)29.601.0428.000.35
Nitrite ion (mg · L −1)0.330.090.260.10
Nitrite-N (mg · L −1)0.100.030.080.03
Nitrate ion (mg · L −1)<0.443.88<0.442.80
Nitrate-N (mg · L −1)<0.100.88<0.100.63
Total N (mg · L −1)35.302.3440.601.69
Orthophosphate ion (mg · L −1)0.440.454.880.17
Orthophosphate-P (mg · L −1)1.450.151.590.06
Total P (mg · L −1)2.540.213.680.07
Chloride (mg · L −1)33.7026.8033.5020.90
Sulphate (mg · L −1)57.9027.4062.4033.50
Total floating matter (mg · L −1)72.003.0080.006.00
Sodium (mg · L −1)282.0042.60276.0022.60
Potassium (mg · L −1)6.723.096.513.00
Calcium (mg · L −1)14.8034.5018.8047.10
Magnesium (mg · L −1)7.538.158.308.57
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2023-0013 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Language: English
Page range: 163 - 177
Submitted on: Jul 4, 2022
Accepted on: Mar 20, 2023
Published on: Jun 26, 2023
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2023 Noémi J. Valkovszki, Mihály Jancsó, Árpád Székely, Tímea Szalóki, Ildikó Kolozsvári, Szilvia Tavaszi-Sárosi, Ágnes Kun, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.