Integrated biostimulant applications improve growth, physiological performance and soil properties of pistachio (Pistacia vera L.)

No.	Treatment group	Description
1.	Control	P. vera trees without any treatment
2.	Th	P. vera trees treated only with T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2
3.	Bc (1%)	P. vera trees treated only with 1% Bc
4.	Bc (3%)	P. vera trees treated only with 3% Bc
5.	ERS	P. vera trees treated only with commercial AMF formulation
6.	Th + Bc (1%)	P. vera trees treated with both T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2 and 1% Bc
7.	Th + Bc (3%)	P. vera trees treated with both T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2 and 3% Bc
8.	Bc (1%) + ERS	P. vera trees treated with both 1% Bc and commercial AMF formulation
9.	Bc (3%) + ERS	P. vera trees treated with both 3% Bc and commercial AMF formulation
10.	Th + ERS	P. vera trees treated with both T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2 and commercial AMF formulation

1 Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF formulation; Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2.

Table 2.

Early-stage (May) shoot length (cm), stem diameter (mm), number of branches (number) and number of vegetative buds (number) measurements in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	Shoot length (cm)	Stem diameter (mm)	Number of branches (number)	Number of vegetative buds (number)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	142.67 ± 2.91 b	25.74 ± 1.06 d	10.67 ± 0.88 e	25.33 ± 1.20 f
Th	173.33 ± 2.91 ab	29.77 ± 0.97 cd	15.67 ± 2.60 de	33.66 ± 2.84 ef
Bc (1%)	143.33 ± 3.53 b	29.58 ± 1.88 cd	26.67 ± 1.20 c	53.66 ± 5.36 cd
Bc (3%)	144.00 ± 14.15 b	32.96 ± 1.63 abc	42.67 ± 3.76 b	57.66 ± 8.41 c
ERS	182.33 ± 8.11 a	32.75 ± 3.32 abc	21.67 ± 0.33 cd	42.66 ± 3.75 cde
Th + Bc (1%)	198.33 ± 17.70 a	35.93 ± 0.62 a	57.67 ± 3.18 a	79.66 ± 9.93 b
Th + Bc (3%)	176.67 ± 8.01 ab	30.60 ± 1.57 bcd	24.33 ± 4.06 c	52.00 ± 3.05 cd
Bc (1%) + ERS	191.33 ± 19.03 a	26.75 ± 0.93 d	28.67 ± 3.18 c	58.00 ± 2.64 c
Bc (3%) + ERS	202.67 ± 14.99 a	35.65 ± 1.28 ab	41.67 ± 1.45 b	96.66 ± 2.72 a
Th + ERS	167.67 ± 8.45 ab	26.22 ± 1.07 d	13.67 ± 0.33 e	37.33 ± 4.91 def

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); SE, standard error; Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2. Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 3.

Early-stage (May) PEI% and (r) and chlorophyll (SPAD) measurements in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	PEI%	Photosynthetic efficiency index (r)	Chlorophyll (SPAD)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	49.33 ± 2.33 e	9.67 ± 0.88 b	50.30 ± 7.09 c
Th	71.95 ± 1.80 abc	13.67 ± 0.33 a	43.53 ± 0.97 abc
Bc (1%)	69.57 ± 0.32 bc	12.67 ± 1.45 ab	34.77 ± 4.44 c
Bc (3%)	71.37 ± 6.21 abc	11.33 ± 1.20 ab	42.30 ± 0.36 abc
ERS	64.98 ± 1.34 c	13.67 ± 0.33 a	42.03 ± 1.80 abc
Th + Bc (1%)	67.63 ± 2.33 cb	12.33 ± 1.20 ab	34.43 ± 0.70 c
Th + Bc (3%)	79.27 ± 2.25 a	10.33 ± 0.33 ab	45.57 ± 0.98 ab
Bc (1%) + ERS	69.93 ± 1.26 bc	11.33 ± 0.67 ab	39.13 ± 0.49 ab
Bc (3%) + ERS	73.97 ± 0.64 ba	11.33 ± 0.67 ab	40.50 ± 1.16 ab
Th + ERS	53.10 ± 0.46 e	13.67 ± 2.03 a	48.03 ± 0.44 ab

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); Pn (%), photosynthetic efficiency index rate; Pn (r), relative photosynthetic efficiency index measurement; PEI%, photosynthetic efficiency index (%); SE, standard error; Spad, chlorophyll content measurement (using Spad device); Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2. Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4.

AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications on early-stage (May) leaf colour parameters (L, a, b) in P. vera L.

Treatments	L	a	B
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	42.20 ± 1.44 a	–2.00 ± 0.16 a	7.58 ± 0.97 b
Th	42.61 ± 0.73 a	–3.90 ± 0.37 abc	8.05 ± 0.09 ab
Bc (1%)	45.22 ± 2.47 a	–5.10 ± 0.41 c	13.27 ± 2.06 a
Bc (3%)	43.22 ± 2.68 a	–4.30 ± 1.75 abc	12.92 ± 2.69 ab
ERS	47.11 ± 3.20 a	–3.50 ± 0.88 abc	11.52 ± 2.12 ab
Th + Bc (1%)	43.62 ± 0.19 a	–2.80 ± 0.46 abc	9.90 ± 1.06 ab
Th + Bc (3%)	44.17 ± 4.87 a	–4.70 ± 1.01 bc	12.44 ± 1.90 ab
Bc (1%) + ERS	46.67 ± 0.17 a	–2.30 ± 0.43 ab	11.63 ± 0.67 ab
Bc (3%) + ERS	47.60 ± 3.13 a	–2.30 ± 0.30 ab	8.96 ± 1.41 ab
Th + ERS	44.71 ± 3.07 a	–3.00 ± 0.53 abc	9.30 ± 1.23 ab

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); SE, standard error; Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL–AG2. Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 5.

Early-stage (May) leaf macro-nutrient elements (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca)) in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	N (%)	P (%)	K (%)	Mg (%)	Ca (%)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	2.23 ± 0.01 a	0.30 ± 0.01 a	0.53 ± 0.02 c	0.57 ± 0.01 e	2.70 ± 0.01 b
Th	0.86 ± 0.02 cd	0.12 ± 0.01 e	0.58 ± 0.01 b	1.56 ± 0.02 c	2.20 ± 0.02 gğ
Bc (1%)	1.07 ± 0.02 b	0.15 ± 0.01 de	0.59 ± 0.01 b	1.61 ± 0.02 b	2.33 ± 0.01 de
Bc (3%)	0.65 ± 0.04 f	0.17 ± 0.01 bcd	0.61 ± 0.01 b	1.51 ± 0.02 cd	2.24 ± 0.03 fg
ERS	0.79 ± 0.03 de	0.20 ± 0.01 b	0.50 ± 0.02 cd	1.52 ± 0.01 cd	2.37 ± 0.01 d
Th + Bc (1%)	0.76 ± 0.02 e	0.17 ± 0.01 bcd	0.82 ± 0.01 a	1.91 ± 0.01 a	2.94 ± 0.02 a
Th + Bc (3%)	0.79 ± 0.03 de	0.19 ± 0.01 bc	0.46 ± 0.02 d	1.48 ± 0.01 d	2.12 ± 0.02 h
Bc (1%) + ERS	0.33 ± 0.02 g	0.15 ± 0.01 de	0.58 ± 0.01 b	1.52 ± 0.01 cd	2.55 ± 0.02 c
Bc (3%) + ERS	0.89 ± 0.05 c	0.16 ± 0.01 cde	0.46 ± 0.01 d	1.50 ± 0.01 cd	2.29 ± 0.02 ef
Th + ERS	0.60 ± 0.02 f	0.17 ± 0.01 bcd	0.47 ± 0.01 d	1.52 ± 0.02 cd	2.18 ± 0.01 ğh

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); SE, standard error; Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2. Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 6.

Early-stage (May) foliar micronutrients (iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn)) in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	Fe (mg · kg⁻¹)	Cu (mg · kg⁻¹)	Mn (mg · kg⁻¹)	Zn (mg · kg⁻¹)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	1.34 ± 0.02 g	0.20 ± 0.01 d	0.39 ± 0.01 e	0.11 ± 0.01 a
Th	1.60 ± 0.01 e	0.23 ± 0.01 cd	0.46 ± 0.02 d	0.09 ± 0.01 ab
Bc (1%)	1.66 ± 0.02 d	0.24 ± 0.01 bc	0.60 ± 0.01 c	0.08 ± 0.01 b
Bc (3%)	2.01 ± 0.04 a	0.22 ± 0.01 cd	0.70 ± 0.01 a	0.11 ± 0.01 a
ERS	1.83 ± 0.02 c	0.25 ± 0.01 abc	0.66 ± 0.02 ab	0.10 ± 0.01 ab
Th + Bc (1%)	1.91 ± 0.01 b	0.24 ± 0.01 bc	0.63 ± 0.01 bc	0.10 ± 0.01 ab
Th + Bc (3%)	1.53 ± 0.01 f	0.28 ± 0.01 a	0.59 ± 0.02 c	0.08 ± 0.01 b
Bc (1%) + ERS	1.88 ± 0.02 de	0.28 ± 0.01 ab	0.63 ± 0.01 bc	0.10 ± 0.01 ab
Bc (3%) + ERS	1.61 ± 0.01 de	0.24 ± 0.01 bc	0.62 ± 0.02 bc	0.11 ± 0.01 a
Th + ERS	1.59 ± 0.02 e	0.28 ± 0.01 ab	0.58 ± 0.01 c	0.09 ± 0.01 ab

Table 7.

Early-stage (May) soil pH, soil EC and AMF soil spore density in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	Soil pH (mS · cm⁻¹)	Soil EC (dS · m⁻¹)	AMF soil spore density (number)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	7.25 ± 0.03 bc	2.55 ± 0.01 a	3.67 ± 0.05 d
Th	7.32 ± 0.03 b	1.54 ± 0.01 b	NA
Bc (1%)	7.32 ± 0.03 b	1.02 ± 0.01 c	NA
Bc (3%)	7.33 ± 0.03 b	1.03 ± 0.01 c	NA
ERS	7.21 ± 0.03 bc	1.84 ± 0.01 ab	8.33 ± 0.05 b
Th + Bc (1%)	7.38 ± 0.03 ab	1.01 ± 0.01 c	NA
Th + Bc (3%)	7.39 ± 0.03 ab	1.03 ± 0.01 c	NA
Bc (1%) + ERS	7.39 ± 0.03 ab	1.92 ± 0.01 ab	9.00 ± 0.05 ab
Bc (3%) + ERS	7.41 ± 0.03 a	1.93 ± 0.01 ab	10.00 ± 0.05 a
Th + ERS	6.92 ± 0.03 c	1.45 ± 0.01 b	7.67 ± 0.05 c

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; EC, electrical conductivity; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); NA, not assessed; SE, standard error; Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2. Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 8.

Late-stage (September) (May) shoot length (cm), stem diameter (mm), number of branches (number) and number of vegetative buds (number) measurements in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	Shoot length (cm)	Stem diameter (mm)	Number of branches (number)	Number of vegetative buds (number)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	145.33 ± 3.18 c	27.55 ± 0.84 c	12.67 ± 0.88 g	27.67 ± 2.03 f
Th	178.00 ± 1.73 abc	31.85 ± 1.14 bc	18.67 ± 2.60 fg	38.00 ± 4.04 ef
Bc (1%)	146.67 ± 3.18 c	30.44 ± 1.75 bc	30.33 ± 1.76 ce	57.67 ± 3.71 cd
Bc (3%)	149.00 ± 14.73 c	34.36 ± 1.63 ab	48.67 ± 4.91 b	62.67 ± 7.45 c
ERS	191.00 ± 9.29 ab	34.02 ± 3.49 ab	28.33 ± 1.20 e	47.00 ± 3.46 cde
Th + Bc (1%)	205.00 ± 16.77 ab	37.38 ± 0.88 a	60.67 ± 3.76 a	85.00 ± 10.02 b
Th + Bc (3%)	181.67 ± 7.86 abc	32.42 ± 1.48 abc	31.00 ± 3.46 ce	57.67 ± 4.10 cd
Bc (1%) + ERS	195.67 ± 18.52 ab	28.47 ± 1.03 c	37.67 ± 0.88 c	62.33 ± 2.03 c
Bc (3%) + ERS	212.33 ± 15.34 a	37.16 ± 1.05 a	47.33 ± 1.20 b	100.67 ± 2.73 a
Th + ERS	172.00 ± 7.57 bc	27.90 ± 0.73 c	25.67 ± 0.88e f	42.67 ± 5.24 def

Table 9.

Late-stage (September) PEI% and (r) and chlorophyll (SPAD) measurements in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma, and Bc applications.

Treatments	Photosynt (%)	Photosynt (r)	Chlorophyll (SPAD)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	71.50 ± 0.76 ab	11.67 ± 0.33 c	52.47 ± 6.67 a
Th	76.88 ± 0.42 ab	16.67 ± 0.88 ab	45.07 ± 0.58 abc
Bc (1%)	72.37 ± 0.69 ab	16.67 ± 0.33 ab	37.53 ± 3.67 cd
Bc (3%)	74.48 ± 6.10 ab	16.00 ± 0.58 ab	43.43 ± 0.59 bcd
ERS	67.63 ± 1.04 b	17.67 ± 0.88 a	43.61 ± 1.71 bcd
Th + Bc (1%)	69.93 ± 2.50 b	14.67 ± 1.45 b	36.01 ± 0.37 d
Th + Bc (3%)	80.90 ± 1.76 a	14.67 ± 0.33 b	46.90 ± 0.81 ab
Bc (1%) + ERS	71.13 ± 1.27 b	15.33 ± 0.67 ab	41.47 ± 0.66 bcd
Bc (3%) + ERS	77.07 ± 0.35 ab	15.67 ± 0.88 ab	41.47 ± 1.07 bcd
Th + ERS	67.97 ± 5.66 b	17.67 ± 0.67 a	49.33 ± 0.67 ab

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); Pn (%), photosynthetic efficiency index rate; Pn (r), relative photosynthetic efficiency index measurement; PEI%, photosynthetic efficiency index (%); SE, standard error; Spad, chlorophyll content measurement (using Spad device); Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2. Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 10.

AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications on late-stage (September) leaf colour parameters (L, a, b) in P. vera L.

Treatments	L	a	b
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	44.14 ± 1.22 a	–2.21 ± 0.12 a	8.18 ± 1.09 c
Th	44.22 ± 0.65 a	–4.32 ± 0.45 abc	8.70 ± 0.25 bc
Bc (1%)	47.11 ± 3.02 a	–5.70 ± 0.35 c	14.22 ± 2.14 a
Bc (3%)	45.00 ± 2.45 a	–4.42 ± 1.72 abc	14.07 ± 2.18 a
ERS	48.51 ± 3.32 a	–4.15 ± 0.93 abc	13.05 ± 1.59 ab
Th + Bc (1%)	45.42 ± 0.40 a	–3.19 ± 0.53 abc	10.78 ± 1.08 abc
Th + Bc (3%)	45.70 ± 4.37 a	–5.04 ± 1.00 bc	13.24 ± 1.96 ab
Bc (1%) + ERS	48.19 ± 0.51 a	–2.51 ± 0.35 ab	12.40 ± 0.53 abc
Bc (3%) + ERS	48.38 ± 3.20 a	–2.73 ± 0.34 ab	9.95 ± 1.27 abc
Th + ERS	45.70 ± 3.02 a	–3.49 ± 0.62 abc	9.87 ± 1.13 abc

Table 11.

Late-stage (September) leaf macro-nutrient elements (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca)) in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	N (%)	P (%)	K (%)	Mg (%)	Ca (%)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	0.93 ± 0.68 ab	0.32 ± 0.01 a	0.58 ± 0.02 c	0.60 ± 0.01 e	2.72 ± 0.01 b
Th	0.92 ± 0.01 ab	0.15 ± 0.01 f	0.61 ± 0.01 bc	1.58 ± 0.02 c	2.23 ± 0.02 g
Bc (1%)	1.11 ± 0.01 a	0.19 ± 0.01 cde	0.61 ± 0.01 bc	1.63 ± 0.02 b	2.37 ± 0.01 de
Bc (3%)	0.71 ± 0.02 ab	0.19 ± 0.01 cde	0.64 ± 0.01 b	1.55 ± 0.02 cd	2.31 ± 0.03 f
ERS	0.84 ± 0.02 ab	0.22 ± 0.01 b	0.52 ± 0.02 d	1.55 ± 0.01 cd	2.40 ± 0.01 d
Th + Bc (1%)	0.81 ± 0.01 ab	0.20 ± 0.01 cd	0.85 ± 0.01 a	1.94 ± 0.01 a	2.97 ± 0.01 a
Th + Bc (3%)	0.83 ± 0.02 ab	0.21 ± 0.01 bc	0.49 ± 0.01 d	1.52 ± 0.01 d	2.17 ± 0.01 ğ
Bc (1%) + ERS	0.37 ± 0.02 b	0.17 ± 0.01 ef	0.62 ± 0.02 b	1.57 ± 0.02 cd	2.61 ± 0.02 c
Bc (3%) + ERS	0.94 ± 0.04 ab	0.19 ± 0.01 de	0.48 ± 0.01 d	1.54 ± 0.02 cd	2.33 ± 0.02 ef
Th + ERS	0.64 ± 0.02 ab	0.20 ± 0.01 bcd	0.50 ± 0.01 d	1.55 ± 0.02 cd	2.22 ± 0.01 g

Table 12.

Late-stage (September) foliar micronutrients (iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn)) in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	Fe (mg · kg⁻¹)	Cu (mg · kg⁻¹)	Mn (mg · kg⁻¹)	Zn (mg · kg⁻¹)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	1.37 ± 0.02 g	0.23 ± 0.01 d	0.42 ± 0.01 e	0.14 ± 0.01 a
Th	1.62 ± 0.01 ef	0.25 ± 0.01 cd	0.50 ± 0.01 d	0.11 ± 0.01 ab
Bc (1%)	1.70 ± 0.01 d	0.27 ± 0.00 c	0.64 ± 0.01 bc	0.10 ± 0.01 b
Bc (3%)	2.05 ± 0.03 a	0.25 ± 0.01 cd	0.73 ± 0.01 a	0.12 ± 0.01 ab
ERS	1.87 ± 0.01 c	0.28 ± 0.01 bc	0.70 ± 0.01 a	0.12 ± 0.01 ab
Th + Bc (1%)	1.95 ± 0.01 b	0.26 ± 0.01 c	0.66 ± 0.02 b	0.11 ± 0.01 ab
Th + Bc (3%)	1.58 ± 0.01 f	0.31 ± 0.00 a	0.62 ± 0.02 bc	0.10 ± 0.01 b
Bc (1%) + ERS	1.91 ± 0.01 bc	0.31 ± 0.01 a	0.65 ± 0.01 b	0.10 ± 0.01 b
Bc (3%) + ERS	1.63 ± 0.01 e	0.26 ± 0.01 c	0.64 ± 0.01 bc	0.12 ± 0.01 ab
Th + ERS	1.62 ± 0.01 ef	0.30 ± 0.01 ab	0.61 ± 0.01 c	0.10 ± 0.01 b

1 AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Bc, biochar; ERS, commercial AMF (endo roots soluble); SE, standard error; Th, T. harzianum Rifai KRL-AG2.Application averages were grouped at a 5% significance level according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test. There is no statistically significant difference between averages indicated by the same letter (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 13.

Late-stage (September) soil pH, soil EC and AMF soil spore density in P. vera L. under AMF, Trichoderma and Bc applications.

Treatments	Soil pH (mS · cm⁻¹)	Soil EC (dS · m⁻¹)	AMF soil spore density (number)
Treatments	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$	$\bar{x} \pm SE$
Control	7.28 ± 0.03 bc	2.56 ± 0.01 a	3.67 ± 0.05 c
Th	7.30 ± 0.03 b	1.55 ± 0.01 b	NA
Bc (1%)	7.32 ± 0.03 b	1.03 ± 0.01 c	NA
Bc (3%)	7.33 ± 0.03 b	1.04 ± 0.01 c	NA
ERS	7.22 ± 0.03 bc	1.86 ± 0.01 ab	17.00 ± 0.05 a
Th + Bc (1%)	7.38 ± 0.03 ab	1.02 ± 0.01 c	NA
Th + Bc (3%)	7.39 ± 0.03 ab	1.04 ± 0.01 c	NA
Bc (1%) + ERS	7.40 ± 0.03 ab	1.93 ± 0.01 ab	16.67 ± 0.05 ab
Bc (3%) + ERS	7.41 ± 0.03 a	1.94 ± 0.01 ab	17.00 ± 0.05 a
Th + ERS	6.92 ± 0.03 c	1.46 ± 0.01 b	13.67 ± 0.05 b

Land images reflecting the general view of the study area.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2026-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Submitted on: Mar 20, 2026

Accepted on: Jun 24, 2026

Published on: Jul 31, 2026

Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

Keywords:

biochar,

Pistacia vera L.,

plant biostimulants,

soil biological activity,

sustainable agriculture

Related subjects:

Life sciences,

Plant science

© 2026 Mehmet Yılmaz, Ayhan Polat, Hasret Güneş, 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