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

Aysun Akar; Ahmet Aygün

doi:10.2478/fhort-2026-0002

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

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

Folia Horticulturae

AHEAD OF PRINT

By: Aysun Akar and Ahmet Aygün

Open Access

|May 2026

Figures & Tables

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.

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

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

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

Limit values of nutrients in hazelnut growing media (Duyar and Özenç, 2013)_

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

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

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

Nutrient content of peat_

N	Ca	Mg	P	K	Fe	Mn	Zn	Cu	B	Salinity	pH
(%)	(ppm)									(dS · m⁻¹)
0.93	5201	1004	3.79	885.7	618.6	29.28	7.73	24.05	12.80	1.08	6.17

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

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

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:

Zoology,

Ecology,

Life sciences, other

© 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.

AHEAD OF PRINT

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

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

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

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

Limit values of nutrients in hazelnut growing media (Duyar and Özenç, 2013)_

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

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

Nutrient content of peat_

Limit values of plant nutrient elements in hazelnut leaves (Jones et al_, 1991)_

Paradigm

My account