Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on leaf nutrient status and chlorophyll of cutting-propagated hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.)

Nutrient element	Unit	Very low	Low	Adequate	High	Very high
N	(%)	<0.09	0.10–0.20	0.21–0.35	0.36–0.50	>0.51
P	(ppm)	<39.9	40.0–79.9	80.0–119.9	120.0–149.9	>150.0
K		<85	86.0–320.0	321.0–750.0	751.0–1750.0	>1751.0
Ca		<500	501–1199	1200–3400	3401–4500	>4501
Mg		<49	50–200	201–420	421–1000	>1001
Fe		<45	46–75	76–110	11–250	>251
Mn		<5.0	5.1–15.0	15.1–25.0	25.1–40.0	>40.1
Zn		<1.00	1.01–2.50	2.51–6.00	6.01–10.00	>10.10
Cu		<0.99	1.00–2.00	2.01–4.50	4.51–6.50	>6.51
B		<0.35	0.36–1.25	1.26–5.00	5.01–8.00	>8.01

Table 3.

Soil salinity limit values (Richards, 1954; Ülgen and Yurtsever, 1995).

Salt class	EC (ds · m⁻¹)	Total salt (%)
Free salt	0–4	0.00–0.15
Low salt	4–8	0.15–0.35
Medium salt	8–15	0.35–0.65
Salty	>15	>0.65

Basic fertilization (A); Bacteria inoculation (B); Mycorrhiza inoculation (C).

Effect of treatment × cultivar × cutting type interaction on the macro elements and microelements content of leaves. (A–J) represent individual parameters (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B). Data are presented as mean values ± SE. Bars sharing different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences according to Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05). SE, standard error.

Effect of treatment x cultivar x cutting type interaction on the chlorophyll content of leaves. Data are presented as mean values ± SE. Bars sharing different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences according to Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05). SE, standard error.

Effects of cultivar (A), cutting type (B) and treatment (C) on chlorophyll content. Bars represent mean values ± SE. Different uppercase letters above the bars indicate statistically significant differences among groups according to Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05). SE, standard error.

Table 4.

Limit values of plant nutrient elements in hazelnut leaves (Jones et al., 1991).

Macroelements (%)	Little	Adequate	Much
Nitrogen	2.00–2.29	2.30–2.60	>2.60
Phosphorus	0.09–15.00	0.16–0.40	>0.40
Potassium	0.40–0.69	0.70–2.40	>2.40
Calcium	0.50–0.99	1.00–2.50	>2.50
Magnesium	0.15–0.25	0.25–0.50	>0.50
Microelements (ppm)
Boron	25–30	31–75	>75.00
Copper	2.0–3.0	4.0–50.0	>50.00
Iron	40–49	50–350	>350.00
Manganese	20–24	25–500	>500.00
Zinc	12–14	15–80	>80.00

Table 5.

Effect of treatment × cultivar and treatment × cutting type interactions the macro element content of leaves (%).

	Treatment	Cultivar			Cutting type
	Treatment	Tombul	Çakıldak	Okay 28	Hardwood cutting	Softwood cutting	Treatment mean
N	BF	1.11 ± 0.09 ns	1.35 ± 0.09 ns	1.15 ± 0.09 ns	1.41 ± 0.07 a	0.10 ± 0.07 b	1.20 ± 0.05 B
	BF + B	1.25 ± 0.09 ns	1.18 ± 0.09 ns	1.20 ± 0.09 ns	1.39 ± 0.07 a	1.03 ± 0.07 b	1.21 ± 0.05 B
	BF + M	1.58 ± 0.09 ns	1.56 ± 0.09 ns	1.56 ± 0.09 ns	1.55 ± 0.07 a	1.57 ± 0.07 a	1.56 ± 0.05 A
	Mean	1.31 ± 0.05 ns	1.36 ± 0.05 ns	1.3 ± 0.05 ns	1.45 ± 0.04 A	1.2 ± 0.04 B
P	BF	0.16 ± 0.03 ns	0.27 ± 0.03 ns	0.2 ± 0.03 ns	0.18 ± 0.03 ns	0.23 ± 0.03 ns	0.21 ± 0.02 B
	BF + B	0.16 ± 0.03 ns	0.26 ± 0.03 ns	0.24 ± 0.03 ns	0.21 ± 0.03 ns	0.23 ± 0.03 ns	0.22 ± 0.02 B
	BF + M	0.24 ± 0.03	0.30 ± 0.03 ns	0.32 ± 0.03 ns	0.23 ± 0.03 ns	0.34 ± 0.03 ns	0.29 ± 0.02 A
	Mean	0.19 ± 0.02 B	0.27 ± 0.02 A	0.26 ± 0.02 A	0.21 ± 0.02 B	0.27 ± 0.02 A
K	BF	0.58 ± 0.09 d	0.95 ± 0.09 bcd	0.67 ± 0.09 d	0.82 ± 0.07 c	0.65 ± 0.07 c	0.73 ± 0.07 B
	BF + B	0.88 ± 0.09 bcd	0.76 ± 0.09 cd	0.63 ± 0.09 d	0.85 ± 0.07 bc	0.67 ± 0.07 c	0.75 ± 00.07 B
	BF + M	1.44 ± 0.09 a	1.22 ± 0.09 ab	1.13 ± 0.09 abc	1.14 ± 0.07 ab	1.38 ± 0.07 a	1.26 ± 0.07 A
	Mean	0.97 ± 0.05 ns	0.98 ± 0.05 ns	0.81.05 ns	0.93 ± 0.04 ns	0.90 ± 0.04 ns
Ca	BF	2.01 ± 0.09 ns	2.56 ± 0.09 ns	2.64 ± 0.09 ns	2.34 ± 0.07 ns	2.46 ± 0.07 ns	2.15 ± 0.05 B
	BF + B	2.22 ± 0.09 ns	2.54 ± 0.09 ns	2.84 ± 0.09 ns	2.57 ± 0.07 ns	2.49 ± 0.07 ns	2.53 ± 0.05 AB
	BF + M	2.24 ± 0.09 ns	2.79 ± 0.09 ns	3.05 ± 0.09 ns	2.78 ± 0.07 ns	2.61 ± 0.07 ns	2.69 ± 0.05 A
	Mean	2.16 ± 0.05 C	2.63 ± 0.05 B	2.84 ± 0.05 A	2.56 ± 0.04 ns	2.52 ± 0.04 ns
Mg	BF	0.6 ± 0.02 c	0.77 ± 0.02 a	0.71 ± 0.02 ab	0.68 ± 0.01 ns	0.71 ± 0.01 ns	0.69 ± 0.01 ns
	BF + B	0.67 ± 0.02 bc	0.76 ± 0.02 a	0.67 ± 0.02 bc	0.69 ± 0.01 ns	0.71 ± 0.01 ns	0.70 ± 0.01 ns
	BF + M	0.66 ± 0.02 bc	0.7 ± 0.02 ab	0.73 ± 0.02 ab	0.70 ± 0.01 ns	0.69 ± 0.01 ns	0.69 ± 0.01 ns
	Mean	0.64 ± 0.01 C	0.75 ± 0.01 A	0.70 ± 0.01 B	0.69 ± 0.01 ns	0.70 ± 0.01 ns

1 The table includes treatment × cultivar and treatment × cutting type interactions, as well as treatment, cultivar and cutting type means. Values are given as mean ± SE, and different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. Differences among cultivars and cutting types within rows, and among treatments within columns, are indicated by uppercase letters, whereas interaction effects are indicated by lowercase letters. BF, basic fertilisation; SE, standard error.

Rooted hazelnut cuttings: (A) softwood cutting; (B) hardwood cutting.

Table 6.

Effect of treatment × cultivar and treatment × cutting type interactions on the microelement content of leaves (ppm).

	Treatment	Cultivar			Cutting type		Treatment mean
	Treatment	Tonibul	Çakildak	Okay 28	Hardwood cutting	Softwood cutting	Treatment mean
Fe	BF	90.18 ±8.10 ns	92.66 ±8.10 ns	71.91 ±8.10 ns	94.02 ± 6.61 b	75.82 ± 6.61 b	84.92 ± 4.68 ns
	BF + B	83.10 ±8.10 ns	93.01 ± 8.10 ns	92.02 ±8.10 ns	94.09 ±6.61 b	84.67 ±6.61 b	89.38 ± 4.68 ns
	BF + M	87.05 ±8.10 ns	112.38 ±8.10 ns	100.68 ±8.10 ns	124.14 ±6.61 a	75.93 ±6.61 b	100.04 ± 4.68 ns
	Mean	86.78 ± 4.68 ns	99.35 ±4.68 ns	88.20 ± 4.68 ns	104.08 ±3.82 A	78.8 ± 3.82 B
Mn	BF	62.67 ±6.50 ns	51.47 ±6.50 ns	49.06 ± 6.50 ns	66.51 ±5.30 ns	42.29 ±5.30 ns	54.40 ± 3.75 ns
	BF + B	43.78 ±6.50 ns	43.40 ± 6.50 ns	39.82 ±6.50 ns	49.62 ± 5.30 ns	35.04 ±5.30 ns	42.33 ± 3.75 ns
	BF + M	58.06 ±6.50 ns	45.58 ±6.50 ns	42.26 ±6.50 ns	57.03 ± 5.30 ns	40.23 ± 5.30 ns	48.63 ± 3.75 ns
	Mean	54.84 ± 3.75 ns	46.81 ± 3.75 ns	43.71 ± 3.75 ns	57.72 ± 3.06 A	39.19 ± 3.06 B
Zn	BF	13.66 ± 3.06 ns	17.05 ± 3.06 ns	14.65 ± 3.06 ns	17.85 ± 2.50 ab	12.38 ± 2.50 b	15.11 ± 1.76 ns
	BF + B	15.79 ± 3.06 ns	15.71 ± 3.06 ns	30.18 ±3.06 ns	16.58 ± 2.50 ab	24.54 ±2.50 a	20.55 ±1.76 ns
	BF + M	15.89 ± 3.06 ns	17.34 ± 3.06 ns	21.27 ±3.06 ns	20.67 ± 2.50 ab	15.66 ± 2.50 ab	18.17 ± 1.76 ns
	Mean	15.11 ± 1.80 B	16.70 ± 1.80 AB	22.03 ± 1.80 A	18.37 ± 1.44 ns	17.53 ± 1.44 ns
Cu	BF	7.17 ± 1.19 ns	7.70 ± 1.19 ns	8.92 ± 1.19 ns	10.04 ± 0.97 ns	5.82 ± 0.97 ns	7.93 ± 0.68 ns
	BF + B	6.28 ± 1.19 ns	7.74 ± 1.19 ns	13.00 ± 1.19 ns	9.75 ± 0.97 ns	8.27 ± 0.97 ns	9.01 ± 0.68 ns
	BF + M	7.00 ± 1.19 ns	6.44 ± 1.19 ns	12.64 ± 1.19 ns	9.09 ± 0.97 ns	8.30 ±0.97 ns	8.69 ± 0.68 ns
	Mean	6.82 ± 0.70 B	7.30 ± 0.70 B	11.52 ±0.70 A	9.62 ±0.56 A	7.46 ± 0.56 B
B	BF	48.43 ± 3.25	63.21 ±3.25	38.17 ±3.25	58.98 ± 2.66 ab	40.90 ±2.66 cd	49.94 ± 1.88 B
	BF + B	41.20 ±3.25	52.38 ±3.25	30.93 ±3.25	48.71 ±2.66 be	34.29 ± 2.66 d	41.5 ± 1.88 C
	BF + M	67.67 ± 3.25	69.62 ± 3.25	53.67 ±3.25	61.68 ±2.66 a	65.62 ±2.66 a	63.65 ±1.88 A
	Mean	52.43 ± 1.88 B	61.74 ± 1.88 A	40.93 ± 1.88 C	56.46 ± 1.53 A	46.94 ± 1.53 B

1 The table includes treatment × cultivar and treatment × cutting type interactions as well as treatment cultivar and cutting type means. Values are given as mean ± SE, and different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. Differences among cultivars and cutting types within rows and among treatments within columns are indicated by uppercase letters whereas interaction effects are indicated by lowercase letters. BF, basic fertilisation; SE, standard error.

Table 7.

Effect of treatment × cultivar and treatment × cutting type interactions on the chlorophyll content of leaves.

Treatment	Cultivar			Cutting type		Treatment mean
	Tombul	Çakıldak	Okay 28	Hardwood cutting	Softwood cutting
BF	149.00 ± 12.07 ns	172.50 ± 12.07 ns	174.83 ± 12.07 ns	186.44 ± 9.86 ns	144.44 ± 9.86 ns	165.44 ± 6.97 B
BF + B	163.17 ± 12.07 ns	204.83 ± 12.07 ns	161.00 ± 12.07 ns	208.56 ± 9.86 ns	144.11 ± 9.86 ns	176.33 ± 6.97 B
BF + M	198.17 ± 12.07 ns	250.17 ± 12.07 ns	177.00 ± 12.07 ns	250.89 ± 9.86 ns	166.00 ± 9.86 ns	208.44 ± 6.97 A
Mean	170.11 ± 6.97 B	209.17 ± 6.97 A	170.94 ± 6.97 B	215.30 ± 5.69 A	151.52 ± 5.69 B

1 The table includes treatment × cultivar and treatment × cutting type interactions as well as treatment cultivar and cutting type means. Values are given as mean ± SE, and different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. Differences among cultivars and cutting types within rows and among treatments within columns are indicated by uppercase letters. whereas interaction effects are indicated by lowercase letters. BF, basic fertilisation; SE, standard error.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2026-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 15 - 27

Submitted on: Nov 3, 2025

Accepted on: Feb 20, 2026

Published on: May 14, 2026

Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

Keywords:

AMF,

PGPR,

Related subjects:

© 2026 Aysun Akar, Ahmet Aygün, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 38 (2026): Issue 1 (August 2026)

Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on leaf nutrient status and chlorophyll of cutting-propagated hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.)

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Figure 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Paradigm

My account