Table 1.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–30 | 6.86 | 70–80 | 0.08 | <0.50 | 1.87 | 9.62 | 706.75 | 405.67 | 277.17 |
| 30–60 | 6.36 | 80 | 0.08 | <0.50 | 1.95 | 8.38 | 394.17 | 350.75 | 280.00 |
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.
Table 2.
Characteristic properties of irrigation water (2020–2021).
| Characteristics of irrigation water | 2020 | 2021 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effluent water | Körös-oxbow water | Effluent water | Körös-oxbow water | |
| Temperature of water (in laboratory) (°C) | 28.00 | 24.60 | 20.00 | 16.60 |
| pH (in laboratory) | 8.18 | 7.67 | 7.88 | 7.67 |
| Specific electric conductivity (20 °C) (μS · cm−1) | 1,370.00 | 412.00 | 1,380.00 | 329.00 |
| Total alkalinity (p-alkalinity) (mmol · L−1) | <0.10 | <0.10 | <0.10 | <0.10 |
| Total alkalinity (m-alkalinity) (mmol · L−1) | 16.50 | 3.64 | 16.70 | 2.79 |
| Carbonate (mg · L −1) | <6.00 | <6.00 | <6.00 | <6.00 |
| Bicarbonate (mg · L −1) | 1,004.00 | 222.00 | 1,016.00 | 170.00 |
| Ammonium ion (mg · L −1) | 38.10 | 1.33 | 36.10 | 0.45 |
| Ammonium-N (mg · L −1) | 29.60 | 1.04 | 28.00 | 0.35 |
| Nitrite ion (mg · L −1) | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.10 |
| Nitrite-N (mg · L −1) | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Nitrate ion (mg · L −1) | <0.44 | 3.88 | <0.44 | 2.80 |
| Nitrate-N (mg · L −1) | <0.10 | 0.88 | <0.10 | 0.63 |
| Total N (mg · L −1) | 35.30 | 2.34 | 40.60 | 1.69 |
| Orthophosphate ion (mg · L −1) | 0.44 | 0.45 | 4.88 | 0.17 |
| Orthophosphate-P (mg · L −1) | 1.45 | 0.15 | 1.59 | 0.06 |
| Total P (mg · L −1) | 2.54 | 0.21 | 3.68 | 0.07 |
| Chloride (mg · L −1) | 33.70 | 26.80 | 33.50 | 20.90 |
| Sulphate (mg · L −1) | 57.90 | 27.40 | 62.40 | 33.50 |
| Total floating matter (mg · L −1) | 72.00 | 3.00 | 80.00 | 6.00 |
| Sodium (mg · L −1) | 282.00 | 42.60 | 276.00 | 22.60 |
| Potassium (mg · L −1) | 6.72 | 3.09 | 6.51 | 3.00 |
| Calcium (mg · L −1) | 14.80 | 34.50 | 18.80 | 47.10 |
| Magnesium (mg · L −1) | 7.53 | 8.15 | 8.30 | 8.57 |
Table 3.
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.
| SS | df | MS | F | Sig. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH | Treatment | Hypothesis | 136.90 | 2.00 | 68.45 | 4.55 | 0.01 |
| Error | 1,384.20 | 92.00 | 15.046 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 2,847.08 | 1.00 | 2,847.08 | 189.23 | 0.00 | |
| Error | 1,384.20 | 92.00 | 15.046 | ||||
| Plant diameter | Treatment | Hypothesis | 142.32 | 2.00 | 71.16 | 2.26 | 0.11 |
| Error | 2,898.97 | 92.00 | 31.511 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 1,402.86 | 1.00 | 1,402.86 | 44.52 | 0.00 | |
| Error | 2,898.97 | 92.00 | 31.511 | ||||
| SPAD | Treatment | Hypothesis | 87.21 | 2.00 | 43.60 | 7.56 | 0.00 |
| Error | 525.14 | 91.00 | 5.771 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 12.09 | 1.00 | 12.09 | 2.10 | 0.15 | |
| Error | 525.14 | 91.00 | 5.771 | ||||
| Biomass | Treatment | Hypothesis | 41,055.81 | 2.00 | 20,527.91 | 1.15 | 0.32 |
| Error | 1,637,675.00 | 92.00 | 17,800.815 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 21,723.18 | 1.00 | 21,723.18 | 1.22 | 0.27 | |
| Error | 1,637,675.00 | 92.00 | 17,800.815 | ||||
| Fresh leaves’ weight | Treatment | Hypothesis | 35,391.14 | 2.00 | 17,695.57 | 2.09 | 0.13 |
| Error | 780,460.39 | 92.00 | 8,483.265 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 1,483.50 | 1.00 | 1,483.50 | 0.17 | 0.68 | |
| Error | 780,460.39 | 92.00 | 8,483.265 | ||||
| Dry leaves’ weight | Treatment | Hypothesis | 2,234.23 | 2.00 | 1,117.12 | 1.97 | 0.15 |
| Error | 52,152.62 | 92.00 | 566.876 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 154.28 | 1.00 | 154.28 | 0.27 | 0.60 | |
| Error | 52,152.62 | 92.00 | 566.876 | ||||
| Essential oil content | Treatment | Hypothesis | 0.35 | 2.00 | 0.17 | 3.96 | 0.04 |
| Error | 0.87 | 20.00 | 0.044 | ||||
| Year | Hypothesis | 1.65 | 1.00 | 1.65 | 37.70 | 0.00 | |
| Error | 0.87 | 20.00 | 0.044 |
Table 4.
The effects of different water qualities on plant properties of sage in 2020–2021.
| Treatment | PH (cm) | Plant diameter (cm) | SPAD value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 2021 | 2020 | 2021 | 2020 | 2021 | |
| Irr1 | 38.66 ± 4.06 b | 23.83 ± 3.60 a | 54.25 ± 4.17 a | 43.29 ± 7.47 a | 38.46 ± 1.96 b | 37.99 ± 2.77 b |
| Irr2 | 33.47 ± 4.38 a | 25.64 ± 3.20 ab | 49.08 ± 4.38 a | 43.59 ± 5.34 a | 36.98 ± 2.30 ab | 32.47 ± 4.55 a |
| Irr3 | 37.47 ± 3.75 b | 27.46 ± 2.38 b | 51.56 ± 2.70 a | 47.18 ± 3.73 a | 36.31 ± 3.01 a | 35.77 ± 1.63 ab |
Figure 2.
The yield results (biomass and fresh and dry leaves’ weight [g · plant−1]) of sage in 2020–2021.
Table 5.
Yield (biomass and fresh and dry leaves’ weight) results of sage (g · m−2) in 2020–2021.
| Irr1 | Irr2 | Irr3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Biomass (g · m−2) | 2,146.84 ± 477.37 | 1,619.6 ± 525.97 | 1,467.6 ± 330.84 |
| Fresh leaves’ weight (g · m−2) | 1,518.52 ± 326.18 | 1,199.48 ± 380.23 | 1,055.88 ± 248.94 | |
| Dry leaves’ weight (g · m−2) | 399.04 ± 72.44 | 316.4 ± 119.14 | 292.96 ± 61.68 | |
| 2021 | Biomass (g · m−2) | 1,413.00 ± 653.51 | 1,771.24 ± 596.57 | 1,688.76 ± 217.99 |
| Fresh leaves’ weight (g · m−2) | 1,131.04 ± 487.73 | 1,324.72 ± 396.48 | 1,223.75 ± 150.30 | |
| Dry leaves’ weight (g · m−2) | 337.72 ± 132.49 | 343.28 ± 92.34 | 357.84 ± 42.82 |
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.
Table 6.
The components of the essential oil of sage from the September harvest in 2021.
| Components of essential oil (%) | Irr1 | Irr2 | Irr3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrocarbon monoterpenes | |||
| α-Pinene | 2.44 ± 0.62 a | 2.87 ± 1.12 a | 4.04 ± 0.96 a |
| Camphene* | 2.94 ± 0.87 a | 3.54 ± 1.01 ab | 5.45 ± 1.31 b |
| Sabinene | 0.10 ± 0.04 a | 0.10 ± 0.03 a | 0.09 ± 0.04 a |
| β-Pinene | 1.26 ± 0.46 a | 1.53 ± 0.41 | 1.80 ± 0.36 a |
| β-Myrcene | 0.65 ± 0.13 a | 0.70 ± 0.07 a | 0.72 ± 0.07 a |
| α-Terpinene | 0.05 ± 0.10 a | 0.06 ± 0.07 a | 0.15 ± 0.04 a |
| Limonene | 1.48 ± 0.20 a | 1.54 ± 0.10 a | 1.80 ± 0.17 a |
| γ-Terpinene | 0.30 ± 0.06a | 0.33 ± 0.06 a | 0.33 ± 0.08 a |
| α-Thujene | 0.10 ± 0.05 a | 0.13 ± 0.04 a | 0.15 ± 0.05 a |
| α-Terpinolene | 0.22 ± 0.14 a | 0.21 ± 0.06 a | 0.28 ± 0.13 a |
| p-Cymene | 0.29 ± 0.07 a | 0.27 ± 0.06 a | 0.27 ± 0.03 a |
| Oxygenated monoterpenes | |||
| Trans-sabinene hydrate | 0.17 ± 0.05 a | 0.15 ± 0.05 a | 0.14 ± 0.04 a |
| Cis-sabinene hydrate | 0.16 ± 0.05 a | 0.13 ± 0.03 a | 0.12 ± 0.03 a |
| 1,8-Cineol | 7.72 ± 1.06 a | 9.78 ± 0.86 a | 8.58 ± 1.65 a |
| Linalool | 0.28 ± 0.06 a | 0.27 ± 0.09 a | 0.30 ± 0.07 a |
| α-Thujone | 30.37 ± 2.95 a | 29.92 ± 3.96 a | 26.13 ± 4.95 a |
| β-Thujone | 10.93 ± 1.17 a | 8.01 ± 4.52 a | 7.94 ± 5.56 a |
| Iso-3-thujanol | 0.16 ± 0.07 a | 0.09 ± 0.06 a | 0.07 ± 0.07 a |
| Trans-sabinol* | 0.17 ± 0.02 b | 0.08 ± 0.06 a | 0.10 ± 0.03 ab |
| Camphor | 21.90 ± 3.61 a | 23.16 ± 2.17 a | 24.03 ± 4.36 a |
| Isoborneol | 2.22 ± 0.15 a | 2.14 ± 0.46 a | 2.20 ± 0.62 a |
| Terpinene-4-ol | 0.3 ± 0.06 a | 0.27 ± 0.08 a | 0.26 ± 0.02 a |
| α-Terpineol | 0.15 ± 0.07 a | 0.17 ± 0.07 a | 0.13 ± 0.01 a |
| Isobornil-acetate | 1.42 ± 0.33 a | 1.39 ± 0.26 a | 1.97 ± 0.96 a |
| Trans-sabinil-acetate | 0.23 ± 0.09 a | 0.18 ± 0.03 a | 0.19 ± 0.02 a |
| Hydrocarbon sesquiterpenes | |||
| β-Caryophyllene | 1.82 ± 0.41 a | 2.16 ± 0.73 a | 0.14 ± 0.48 a |
| α-Humulene | 3.53 ± 1.63 a | 3.37 ± 0.38 a | 2.80 ± 0.84 a |
| Oxygenated sesquiterpenes | |||
| Ledol | 6.61 ± 2.04 a | 5.83 ± 1.14 a | 6.77 ± 1.36 a |
| Caryophyllene-oxide* | 0.66 ± 0.24 b | 0.25 ± 0.17 a | 0.28 ± 0.14 a |
| Humulene-oxide II | 0.51 ± 0.36 a | 0.64 ± 0.62 a | 1.02 ± 1.20 a |
Table 7.
The nutrient content (N, P, K and Na content, mg · kg−1) of sage leaf from the September harvest in 2020.
| Treatment | N (mg · kg−1) | P (mg · kg−1) | K (mg · kg−1) | Na (mg · kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irr1 | 2.55 ± 0.16 b | 2,950.00 ± 340.49 a | 30,357.50 ± 1431.40 a | 499.75 ± 42.79 c |
| Irr2 | 2.53 ± 0.37 b | 2,970.00 ± 677.00 a | 28,527.50 ± 1,133.94 a | 352.50 ± 42.30 b |
| Irr3 | 1.90 ± 0.18 a | 2,165.81 ± 596.52 a | 29,525.00 ± 1,648.22 a | 199.00 ± 8.52 a |
Table 8.
The nutrient content (N, P, K and Na content, mg × kg−1) of sage leaf from the September harvest in 2021.
| Treatment | N (mg · kg−1) | P (mg · kg−1) | K (mg · kg−1) | Na (mg · kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irr1 | 2.36 ± 0.36 a | 2,750.00 ± 454.83 a | 235,02.57 ± 1678.22 a | 430.50 ± 29.29 a |
| Irr2 | 2.24 ± 0.32 a | 3,327.50 ± 334.60 ab | 24,905.00 ± 1,103.86 a | 397.00 ± 112.42 a |
| Irr3 | 2.03 ± 0.09 a | 3,650.00 ± 465.47 b | 24,695.00 ± 1,278.27 a | 374.80 ± 21.31 a |
Table 9.
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 correlation | Plant diameter | Shoot length | SPAD value | Biomass | Fresh leaves’ weight | Dry leaves’ weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Nitrogen of irrigation water | 2020 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.58** | 0.55** | 0.50** |
| 2021 | 0.33* | 0.35* | 0.27 | 0.43** | 0.48** | 0.40** | |
| Average of 2020–2021 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.27** | 0.25* | 0.27** | 0.32** | |
| N content of leaves | Phosphorus content of leaves | Potassium content of leaves | Na content of leaves | Essential oil content | |||
| Total Nitrogen of irrigation water | 2020 | 0.62* | −0.17 | 0.32 | 0.95** | −0.23 | |
| 2021 | 0.45 | −0.71** | −0.42 | 0.36 | −0.71 | ||
| Average of 2020–2021 | 0.51* | −0.48* | −0.78 | 0.28 | −0.33 | ||
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.