Printer Friendly

Effect of water irrigation intervals, compost and dry yeast on growth, yield and oil content of Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant.

INTRODUCTION

Rosemary is an aromatic evergreen shrub that its abundant branches are soft and fluffy when young and leaves are thin and mutual. Rosemary, Rosmarinus officinalis L, is a member of mint family Lamiaceae. It is endemic to the Mediterranean regions and commonly grown in many parts of the world. Application of plants and herbs are a conventional remedy for treating diseases in large parts of the world, especially in advanced countries. Medicinal plants can compensate the coimnon disadvantages of using antibiotics. The essence of plants including Rosemary is reported to have anti-microbial properties (Bakkali et al., 2008; Tiwari et al., 2006). Rosemary is also anti-emphysema, lias disinfectant properties and increases the secretion of digestive juices and bile and also blood circulation. Rosemary is recoimnended for flatulence, heartburn and as a digestive. It improves food absorption by stimulating digestion. It is also used to inhibit kidney and bladder-stone formation. Studies on rosemary conducted in Paraguay showed that it almost completely inhibits the enzyme urease which contributes to kidney stone formation. It makes an antiseptic gargle for sore throats, gum problems and canker sores. Researchers speculate that rosemarinic acid might even be a good treatment for septic shock. In addition, it inhibited, although didn't destroy, 87% of the cancer cells tested in a laboratory study. It also works for treating rheumatism and migraine. Essential oils include cineole, boreal, camphene, camphor, linalool, verbenol; flavonoids (diosmin, apigenin, diosmctin. luteolin), rosemarinic acids, tannins, diterpenes (picrosalvin), rosmaricine, bomylacetat, dipenten, eucalyptol, D-a-pinen, camphor, L-a-thujon.

Water stress is the most influential factor affecting crop yield particularly in irrigated agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions, it is necessary to get maximum yield in agriculture by using available water in order to get maximum profit from per unit area because existing agricultural land and irrigation water are rapidly diminishing due to rapid industrialization and urban development. Optimizing irrigation management due to water scarcity together with appropriate crops for cultivation is highly in demand; the cost of irrigation pumping and inadequate irrigation scheme capacity as well as limited water sources is among the reasons that force many countries to reduce irrigation applications. Potential of water stress tolerance and the economic value of medicinal and aromatic plants, make them suitable alternative crops in dry lands (Ghanbari et at., 2007).

Several strategies have been proposed to alleviate the degree of cellular damage caused by abiotic stress and to improve crop tolerance. Among them, the applications of organic manure such as compost (Woodbury, 1992). The potential of the compost to supply nutrient and support beneficial microbes has being recognized recently. Compost has all characteristic to use it as the most valuable organic manure. Compost also produced plant hormones; mineralize plant available nutrients, fixes nitrogen and providing useful microorganisms that colonize leaf surfaces. Many investigators reported similar promotion effect for compost fertilizer on different plants, Edris et al.,( 2003) on origanum majorana, El-Sherbeny et at., (2007) on Ruta graveotensand Hendawy (2008) on Ptantago arenaria.

In the present agricultural practices there are number of microbial inoculants that used as bio-fertilizers; Bio-fertilizers are capable of mobilizing nutritive elements from no usable form to usable form through biological processes (Tiwari et at., 2006). Active dry yeast has been given much attention as they are beneficial to plant growth and yield of crops under field inoculation. Active dry yeast is a natural safety bio fertilizers causes various promoted effect on plants. It is considered as a natural source of cytokines which simulates cell division and enlargement as well as the synthesis of protein, nucleic acid and B-vitamin (Amer, 2004). It also releases CO2 which reflected in improving net photosynthesis (Kurtzman and Fell, 2005). Heikal (Heikal, 2005) reported that active dry yeast as foliar fertilizer enhanced growth, plant nutritional and essential oil yield of thyme plants. Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa) plants sprayed with dry yeast at a rate of 2g/L, showed the highest yield of calyxes as revealed by Ahmed et at., (1998). Khedr and Farid (2000) demonstrated that the effect of dry yeast is due to its capability in induction of endogenous hormones like GA3 and IAA. Moreover, several investigators studied the response of other plants to application of dry yeast i.e. El-Sayed et at. (2002) on coriander, Naguib and Khalil (2002) on black cumin and Wahba (1962) on Oenothera plants. Recently, dry yeast is used as an alternative source of growth substances in bio/organic fertilization system.

The main aim of this work is to study the effect of compost and active dry yeast on growth, yield, oil % and yield, oil composition and NPK content of rosemary plants under different irrigations intervals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatments:

Irrigation intervats:

The following three irrigation intervals were applied throughout the entire growth period of the crop:

IR1 = Irrigation every 5 days, the soil moisture content depleted from 100 % to 75 %.

IR2 = Irrigation every 10 days, the soil moisture content depleted from 100 % to 55%.

IR3 = Irrigation every 15 days, the soil moisture content depleted from 100 % to 25%.

These irrigation intervals were applied 30 days after transplanting. All pots were weighted on a beam balance before and during the irrigation, and the calculating amount of water was added. The general principal stated by Boutraa and Sanders (2001) was used for the water treatments application.

Fertitization treatments:

Organic fertitizer treatment:

The following compost treatments were used during the experiment:

C0 = 0 kg/pot

C1 = 0.25kg/pot

C2 = 0.5kg/pot

The physical and chemical characters of compost were (PH 8.2, total nitrogen 1.2%, ammonium nitrogen 263 mg/kg, organic substance 47.76%,organic carbon 18.89%, ash 39.56%,C:N ratio 15.2:1, total phosphorus 0.471% and total potassium 0.802%). Compost treatments were added during the preparation of soil.

Bio-fertilizer treatment:

The following active dry yeast (Candida tropicalis) treatments were used during the experiment:

Y0 = 0g/L

Y1 = 8g/L

Y2 = 12g/L

Yeast solution was prepared according to method described by according to Morsi et al. (2008). Yeast activation done overnight by sucrose before treatment. The plants were treated by yeast two times during the plant life, the first application was after 45 days from transplanting and the second was two weeks later. The plants were treated with yeast as soil application.

Design of the Experiments:

This experiment included 27 treatments which included all combinations between three irrigations intervals (IR1, IR2, and IR3), three compost rates (C0,C1 and C2) and three active dry yeast treatments (Y0 ,Y1 and Y2) which were arranged in factorial (6 x 4) experiment and split-split plot design with three replicates was used. The different irrigation intervals were assigned at random in the main plots, while subplots were devoted to the different compost rates applied, and different yeast concentrations were allotted in the sub-sub plots. However, the statistical analysis of the experiment was done as described in the randomized complete plot design.

Planting and growth conditions:

A pot experiment was conducted at the green house of National Research Centre, Dokki, Egypt, during 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 growing seasons. Uniform transplants (thirty days old) of Rosmarinous officinalis L. about 10 to 12 cm length bearing 10 to 12 leaves, provided from Medicinal and Aromatic plants Department, Horticultural Research Institute. Which were planted on 15th of October and were sown in earthenware pots (40 cm in diameter) containing 15 kg of sandy loam soil. Physico-chemical properties of the soil used in the experiment were evaluated according to Jackson (1973). The soil type was sandy loam in texture with water holding capacity 29.0 %, pH 7.8, O.M 0.35% and E.C. 1.15 [dSm.sup.-1]. The soil analysis, 0.55% containing CaCO3, available 4.46, 23.46, 169 and 32.2 mg 100[g.sup.-1] soil of P, K, Mg and Na, respectively and also available 7.2, 9.4, 2.80 and 4.82 ppm of Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn, respectively. All pots received a recommended dose of NPK fertilizers, namely 2 g calcium super phosphate (15.5% P2O5), 1.5 g potassium sulphate (48% K2O), which was added immediately after transplanting, and 2 g ammonium nitrate (33.5% N), which was divided into two equal portions: the first immediately after transplanting and the second 2 weeks later.

Sampling:

Two cuts were harvested, the first in April and the second three months later. The plant herbage was harvested by cutting 5 cm above the soil surface and plant growth parameter for the two cuts were recorded as plant height, number of branches per plant, fresh and dry weights of herb. Representative fresh samples were taken from each treatment for determination of essential oil content, Relative water content and water fractions. The dynamic characteristic of the tissue water exchange was performed by Gusev (1960). The method is based on the use of sucrose solution and the concentration is measured refractometrically. The leaves segments were immersed in the sucrose solutions for 3 hours to reach the equilibrium of water concentration between solutions and the tissue. The amount of the water, which was detracted from the leaves to the sucrose solutions, was referred as to "free" water and it was calculated as X = (A - B).T/B, where A is the primary concentration of sucrose solution (%); B is the end concentration of sucrose solution (%); T is the primary weight of 2 ml of the sucrose solution. The total water content in the plant tissue was measured after a total drying of the leaves at 105oC for 6 h. The difference between the total water content and the "free" water was referred as to "bound" water. The amounts of the "free" water and the "bound" water were calculated as a percent from the total water content in the leaves. The amount of "free" water, calculated in the different sucrose solutions, plotted against the total water amount in the leaves was referred to dynamic characteristic of the water exchange. The relative water content percent was measured also on fresh leaves according to Weatherly (1962) where the leaves petioles were removed and the fresh weight (FW) were determined before submerging them in water under light. After 4 h, the submerged leaves were patted dry with a paper towel and the saturated weight (SW) of the leaves was determined. The dry weights of saturated leaves (DW) were measured as described by Singh et al., (2005). The RWC was calculated as (FW-DW)/ (SW-DW) X100.Samples of dry leaves were collected and dried for 48 h at 70[degrees]C for constant weight to determine nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which were analyzed according to methods described by Horneck and Miller (1998), Olsen and Sommers (1982), Horneck and Hanson (1998) respectively.

Quantitative determination of essential oil obtained from different treatments was achieved by hydro distillation of the second cut. Distillation of 100 g fresh herb was continued for 2.5-3.0 h after water boiling till no further increase in the oil was observed. The oil was permitted to stand undisturbed and the amount of oil obtained from plant material was calculated Oil (%) = observed volume of oil (ml)/weight of sample (g) x 100. Essential oil yield per plant was calculated by multiplying the average fresh weight of plant by the average oil percentage. Oil yield/plant = plant fresh weigh (g) x oil %. Essential oils from the second cut were separated and analyzed qualitatively by GC/MS in National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt. The GC analysis was carried out using Varian 3400 GC, equipped with a DB-5 fused silica capillary column. Mass spectrometer was a Varian-Finnigan SSQ 7000. GC-MS systems. The

column temperature was computed to start at 60[degrees]C, increasing to 200[degrees]C at 3[degrees]C/min. The carrier gas at 1 ml/min was nitrogen for GC and helium for GC-MS. In addition, the oil was recovered at regular time intervals and analyzed by GC in order to follow yield and oil composition (Boutekedjiret et al., 1998).

Statistical analysis:

The data of the two seasons were summed together and means were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis of variance using the normal (F) test; the means were evaluated by using Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level according to the procedure of Snedecor and Cochran (1980).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Herb growth and yield:

The data presented in Table 2 indicated the effect of different irrigation intervals in addition to different compost treatments and/or yeast applications on plant height (cm), number of branches/plant, fresh and dry weights (g), oil percent and oil content of Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant. It was clear from the data that growth patterns and yield components of both cuts during the two seasons were significantly affected. By increasing the severity and duration of drought from 5 to 15 days the growth and yield parameters of treated plants were correspondingly declined. Increasing irrigation interval from 5 to 15 days led to decrease both fresh and dry weights of Rosmarinu sofficinalis L. herb during both seasons (Table 2). The maximum mean values of vegetative and yield parameters were obtained as a result of IR1 treatment compared with the other water treatments. In the contrary, irrigation every 10 days (IR2) gave the maximum mean values of essential oil% (0.73) followed by gradual decrease with further increasing in water stress (0.66 under IR3 treatment). The reduction in essential oil content may be due to disturbance in photosynthesis and carbohydrate production under water stress condition and suppression of the plant growth (Flexas and Medrano, 2002). Reduction in oil content and compositional alterations in the essential oil as a consequence of drought has also been described in mints (Charles et al., 1990); sweet basil (Simon et al., 1992) and dragon head (SaidAl Ahl et al. 2009). Moreover, Shabih et al. (1999) reported that the production of secondary metabolites such as essential oil is even stimulated by limited stressful environments. The improvement in vegetative growth and yield under the shortest irrigation interval (IR1) may be due to proper balance of moisture in plants, which creates favorable conditions for nutrients uptake, photosynthesis and metabolites translocation. Other possibility was increasing available water and nutrients uptake which ultimately accelerated the rate of vegetative growth. These results agree with Norwood (2000), Abdrabbo et al, (2007), Khalil and El-Noemani (2015) who found that proper water quantity led to increase in plant growth and yield in comparison with low water quantity. Doorenbos and Pruitt (1979) mentioned that shortening irrigation interval had a positive effect on chemical constituents of the plant, which resulted in promotion of growth parameters; also the absorption of nutrient elements could be increased. The metabolic processes can also be promoted. However, water stress reduced photosynthesis rate (Pascale et al., 2001). In addition, water stress leads to more loss in photosynthetic area in the plant (Taiz and Zeiger, 2002) which in turn reduced yield and caused deficiency in nutrients rather than water (Silber et al., 2003). Increasing plant yield by decreasing irrigation period could be explained through the effect of frequent irrigation on stimulating the vegetative growth. These results support other results obtained by Singh and Rao (1994) on cumin and Tomar et al. (1994), Osman and El-Faeky (2005), Kumar et al. (2008), Hassan et al. (2012) on coriander (Coriandrum stivum) plants and Khalil and El-Noemani (2015) on oregano.

Data presented in Table 2 indicated also that the two used rates of compost treatment increased all growth and yield parameters of Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant significantly in both cuts of the two seasons compared to control treatment, since the highest increments of these parameters were obtained by addition of 0.5kg compost/pot (C2) compared with the other treatments. The significant positive effect of compost fertilizer on vegetable growth and yield characters may be due to the improvement in soil physical and biological properties, and may be activates many species of living organisms which release phytohormones and may stimulate the plant growth and absorption of nutrients, in addition to water use efficiency by different plants (Abd El-Moez et al., 1999; Ghallab and El-Gahadban, 2004).

As for bio-fertilizer treatment of Yeast or Candida tropicalis at the rates of (8g/L and12g/L), the data indicated that there were significant increases in growth and yield parameters of Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant compared with control one. Where, the highest significant means were obtained under 12 g/L (Y2) treatment in both seasons. Stimulating vegetative growth and yield by using dry yeast may be due to its influence on the nutritional signal transduction producing growth regulators and suppressing pathogen (El Ghadban et al., 2003). It is also a natural source of cytokinins that stimulates cell proliferation and differentiation, controlling shoot and root morphogenesis and chloroplast maturation (Amer, 2004). El-Tohamy and El-Greadly (2007) revealed that dry yeast treatments (5 and 10 g/L.) result in improving pods quality of snap beans plants (Phaseouls vulgaris) in terms of chlorophyll, protein, carbohydrates and decreased fiber content.

Regarding the effect of bi-interaction (Table 2), the data of interaction between different irrigation intervals and different compost rates showed that IR1XC2 treatment proved to be the most effective interaction in increasing growth and yield parameters of Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant compared with the other treatments and with significant differences and IR2XC2 treatment for oil% compared with the other treatments. Furthermore, the data of interaction between different irrigation intervals and different yeast concentrations illustrated that IR1XY2 for growth, yield and oil content and IR2XY2 for oil% overcame the other interactions significantly in the two cuts of both seasons. Taking into consideration the effect of compost and yeast, results showed that the interaction treatments between compost and active dry yeast had augmented growth and yield parameters compared with control. The maximum significant mean values of all characters under study have been recorded with applying of 0.5kg/pot of compost+12g/L dry yeast (C2XY2) in both cuts and seasons. This might be related to the improvement of physical of soil provided energy for microorganism's activity and increase the availability and uptake of N, P and K, which was reflected on growth and yield. Results agreed with these obtained by Ali et al. (2001) on garlic, ELGhadban et al. (2003) on marjoram and Mazrou (2008) on Cymbopogon citratus.

The tri-interaction between the three studied factors proved that plants grown under the shortest irrigation interval (IR1) and treated with 0.5kg/pot compost (C2) as well as 12 g/L active dry yeast (Y2), i.e. IR1XC2XY2 revealed significantly greater plant height, number of branches/plant, aerial fresh and dry weights and oil content than the other plants. For oil% the highest significant means observed under IR2XC2XY2 treatment compared with the other means.

Water relations:

I- Relative water content (RWC %):

The obtained data illustrated in Table (3) indicated that during the two growing seasons for both cuts the relative water content % of Rosemary leaves was attained their highest mean values under the shortest irrigation interval (IR1) (62.1% and 53.55% respectively) which decreased to (37.10 and 33.96 respectively) under the longest irrigation interval IR3. One of the first signs of water shortage was the decrease in turgor which causes a decrease in both growth and cell development, especially in the stem and leaves. In the case of long irrigation interval, plants have mechanisms for preventing turgor loss under drought conditions such as stomata closure and osmotic adjustment accompanied by decreases in elasticity and increase in ABA (A' Ivarez et al, 2009). It has been reported that high relative water content is a mechanism of drought resistance rather than drought escape and it is believed that high relative water content is the result of higher osmotic regulation of tissue with lower elasticity (Ritchie et al, 1990). These results were in agreement with Khalil and Ismail (2010), Sepehri and Golparvar (2011), Kourosh et al. (2012), and Hooman et al., (2014). The decline in RWC% with decrease in soil moisture level may be due to that stress causes modifications in plants metabolic pathway thus declining their osmotic and water potentials with concomitant preliminary decrease in their RWC % (Abdalla and El-Khoshiban, 2007).

Analysis of variances showed also that RWC% was significantly affected by the compost treatments (Table 3). However, increasing compost dosage resulted in significant and progressive increase in RWC% in both cuts, where the maximum records for RWC% (57.12 and 49.04 for both cuts respectively) were recorded under C2 treatment (0.5 kg/pot compost), and this might be due to better growth and development of plant as the organic nutrient sources become readily available to the plants after application. Use of compost, had led to an increase in macronutrient's content. This increase might be related to the positive effect of compost in increasing water use efficiency. These suggestions are supported by the study of Siddiquia et al., (2011) and Lamo et al. (2012).

Furthermore, treated plants with active dry yeast caused significant increase in RWC% compared with control treatments in both cuts and seasons. The highest records for RWC% (56.6 and 49.93 for both cuts respectively) were obtained in plants treated with 12g/L (Y2 treatment), while the lowest record obtained in control plants. Our results were in line with that obtained by Khalil and Ismael (2010) and Abolfazl et al., (2015). Bio-fertilizer plays a significant role in the process of photosynthesis and producing green levels and increasing relative water content by increasing nitrogen uptake and increasing its efficiency, followed by vigor growth and flowering (Han and Lee, 2006).

From the data of bi-interaction between different irrigation intervals and different compost doses which presented in (Tables 3), it seems that the lowest irrigation interval IR1 and the highest compost treatment C2 had the highest effect on the RWC% (IR1XC2) compared with the other treatments. This result may be due to that water facilities the solubility and uptake of different nutrients which causes osmotic adjustments and increase the plant turgidity (Khalil and Ismael, 2010). In addition, the obtained data of interaction between different irrigation intervals and different yeast treatments revealed that pronounced results were obtained by IR1XY2 treatment compared with the others and with significant difference. It is obvious also form Table 3 also that both compost and active dry yeast treatments had a significantly increments in RWC% as compared to control. Where, the highest significant means were observed under C2XY2 treatment. This increase might be related to the positive effect of compost and microorganisms on increasing the root surface area per unit of soil volume, increased water use efficiency and photosynthetic activity, thus affected physiological processes directly. These suggestions are supported by Siddiquia et al., (2011) and Lamo et al. (2012).

Concerning the effect of tri- interaction between the three studied factors on RWC%, the obtained data indicated that the application of different compost doses and different active dry yeast concentrations caused significant increases in RWC% under different irrigation intervals compared with their controls. However, the highest increment in RWC% obtained under the combined effect of IR1XC2XY2 compared with the other treatments (Table 3).

II- Water fractions:

Data concerning the effect of different irrigation intervals, different compost treatments, as well as yeast applications and their interactions on water fractions (free, bounded and total water contents) are presented in Table 3.The data showed in both cuts that the mean values of water fractions were significantly affected by different irrigation intervals. The percentages of free and total water were decreased with increasing the severity and duration of drought from IR1 to IR3, and recorded higher means under the shortest irrigation interval IR1. In contrast to free and total water, bounded water % values in leaves of Rosmarinus officinalis plants increased significantly in response to water stress application, where the maximum records were observed under IR3 treatment as compared to the other water treatments (Table 3). Confirmed results were obtained by Hammad (1991), Nour (1999), Ismail (2004) and Alvarez et al., (2009), who reported reduction in both free and total water and increase in bounded water as response to water stress.

The bound water in living tissue is more likely to play a major role in tolerance to abiotic stresses (El-Saidi et al., 1975 and Rascio et al., 1998) by maintaining the structural integrity and/or cell wall extensibility of the leaves, whilst the decreased amount of free water might be able to enhance solute accumulation, leading to better osmotic adjustment and tolerance to water stress, and maintenance of the volumes of sub-cellular compartments. Studying the free and bound water contents in the cells of growing tissues may therefore be a valuable indicator of the true status of water in expanding cells of tissues growing under drying conditions (Misik 2000). Moreover, the reduction in total water content was associated with current measures of plant water status in relation to decrease in soil moisture level.

Data on hand, illustrated also that both compost rates caused significant increases in all water fractions of Rosmarinus officinalis leaves, the more pronounced effect on these water fractions were obtained under the highest compost dose C2 compared with control treatment and with significant difference. This increments in water fraction as response to compost treatments may be due to the improvement in nutrients content which led to more bound water to maintain their structural integrity and cell wall properties as compared with low-nutrient plants. Likewise, we proposed that leaves of high-nutrients plants may also have greater accumulation of free water and solutes as compared with low-nutrient plants for expansive leaf growth in a drying soil (Vijaya et al., 2005).

The obtained values of plant water fraction of both seasons showed also significant and progressive increase in water fraction due to treatment with different yeast applications compared with control treatment. Furthermore, the highest significant means of water fraction were obtained under the highest yeast treatment Y2compared with untreated plants. In agreement with our results those reported by Abo El-Khashab (2002) and Khalil and Ismail (2010). The positive effect of yeast applications could be due to the capability of these organisms to produce growth regulators such as auxins, cytokinies and gibberllins which affect production of root biomass and nutrients uptake (Abo El-Khashab, 2002).

Concerning the effect of bi- interaction between the different irrigation intervals and compost treatments, the data on hand showed that the highest free and total water percent obtained under the effect of IR1XC2 treatment, while the highest records for bounded water obtained under the effect of IR3XC2 treatment, compared with the other treatments in both cuts and seasons. In addition, the data of interaction between different irrigation intervals and different yeast treatments pointed out that IR1XY2 showed the highest significant increases in Rosmarinus officinalis free and total water and IR3XY2for bounded water compared with the other treatments in both cuts. Furthermore, the interaction between the different compost treatment and different yeast applications illustrated out that C2XY2 revealed the highest records for leaves water fraction of rosemary as compared with the other treatments.

The effect of tri-interaction between the three interacted factors illustrated that treating plants with both organic and bio-fertilizers under different irrigation intervals showed significant increases in water fraction% compared with their controls. IR1XC2XY2 treatment revealed significant increases in free and total water % content compared with the others. While, IR3XC2XY2 revealed the highest means for bounded water % as compared with the other treatments.

N, P and K Percentages:

Based on our experimental data, the percentage of N, P and K in leaves were decreased by increasing the irrigation interval from 5 to 15 days in both seasons. The highest values in this respect were recorded by applying the shortest irrigation interval (IR1 treatment), however the longest irrigation interval (IR3) gave the lowest N, P and K percentages (Table 4).The decreased levels of each of N, P and K % in response to stress in both seasons were ascertained by the work of each of Bie et al. (2004), Wu and Xia (2006) and Khalil et al. (2012). Such reductions in their contents in different tissues were attributed primarily to soil water deficiency which markedly reduces the flow rates of elements in soil, their absorption by stressed root cells and also its ability to translocate through the different organs and tissues within the plant (Sawhney and Singh, 2002). Also, Metin et al. (2006) and Hassan et al. (2013) recorded stimulatory effect of water on the absorbing efficiency of ions and their movement.

The data evidently showed that there was gradual significant increase in N, P and K percentage of Rosemary leaves with different compost doses compared with control treatments. Where the highest significant means obtained under C2 treatment compared to control treatment. Increasing N, P and K concentrations by compost fertilization might be due to the increase in root surface per unit of soil volume as well as the high capacity of the plants supplied with compost fertilizer in building metabolites, which in turn contribute much to the increase of nutrient uptake. In this respect Abd El-Moez et al. (1999) on fennel and coriander plants, Ghallab and El-Gahadban (2004) and Abdel Wahab et al. (2013) on marjoram plants, found that the macro-nutrients uptake by roots plant increased significantly by the addition of organic composts to prepared soil. They attributed results to the effect of organic fertilizer in improving not only the soil's physical and biological properties but also chemical characteristics resulting in more release of available nutrient elements to be absorbed by plant roots and the water efficiency by different plants.

It can be obviously noticed also from the data in Table 4 that bio-fertilizer treatment (active dry yeast application) led to significant increases in N, P and K % as compared to control, where the highest significant increment in its content obtained with Y2 treatment. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Omar et al., (1991), Harridy et al., (2001), Abdel Wahab et al., (2013) and Khalil and ElNoemani (2015). On the ground of this the promotion effects of the bio- fertilizer on macronutrients accumulation could be attributed to the inoculation of Rosemary plants resulted in a furtherance effect on root development and consequently their function in the uptake of both water and nutrients by enhancing osmotic adjustment and root initiation (Khalil et al., 2012).

It was revealed from the data of bi-interaction in Table 4, that the interaction between different irrigation intervals and different compost treatments showed that the highest significant increase in NPK% obtained under IR1XC2 treatment compared to the others. As for the interaction between different irrigation intervals and different yeast concentrations IR1X Y2 induced a marked significant increase in NPK% compared with the others. Furthermore, the data of interaction between different compost treatments and different yeast concentrations visualized that the highest NPK% obtained under C2XY2 treatment compared with the others.

The effect of tri-interaction between the three interacted factors illustrated that, treatment Rosemary plant with both organic and bio fertilizers under different irrigation intervals showed significant increases in minerals % compared with their controls. Moreover, IR1XC2XY2 treatment revealed the highest significant increases in ions% compared with the others.

Volatile oil composition:

There were 36 constituents identified for the Rosemary essential oil (Table 5). The main components of volatile oil were 1, 8 Cineol (ranging from 52.0 to 53%), Camphor (ranging from 12.1 to 13%), [alpha]-Pinene (ranging from 5 to 5.5%), [beta]-Pinene (ranging from 5.5 to 6%) and [beta]-Caryophyllene (ranging from 4.2 to 4.5%).Other constituents such as [gamma]-Terpinene,Sabinene hydrate, Terpinolene, Terpinene-4-ol,[alpha]-Copaene [alpha]-Humulene, Germacrene D, [alpha]-Mumolene, [alpha]-Famesene, [gamma]-Cadinene, [delta]-Cadinene, Calacorene, Caryophyllene oxide I, Caryophyllene oxide II and Palmitic acid were present in amount less the 1%. While other constituents were present in traces (< 0.05%) such as [beta]-PhellandreneThymol, Carvacrol, Eugenol, Calamenene, [alpha]-Cadinene, Humuladienol, Humulene oxide and Miristic acid.

Data presented in Table 5 indicate also that the volatile oil composition of Rosemary was affected by irrigation intervals. Long irrigation interval increased 1, 8 Cineol, Camphor, [alpha]-Pinene, Sabinen hydrate, and [alpha]-Humulene; which reached their maximum records under IR3 treatment. On the other hand, Camphene, [gamma]-Terpinene, Borneoland [alpha]-Caryophyllene were decreased by increasing the length of irrigation interval, and recorded their maximum values under IR1 treatment compared with the other treatments. The changes in essential oil composition occurring at different irrigation intervals are likely due to the changes of the activity of the related biosynthesis enzymes in response to drought (Sangwan et al., 1994).

The formation of monoterpenes is catalyzed by terpene synthesis whose activity is mediated by developmental and stress- related programs (Tholl and Curr. 2006). Increasing volatile oil ratio with water deficit may be also due to the increment in total carbohydrates since volatile oils are formed as secondary metabolites. Not only oil ratio but also oil composition was affected since some components were increased and other components were decreased. Khalid (2006) and Ekren et al., (2012) found that the essential oil content and composition were affected by different water treatments. Santoyo et al. (2005) identified 33 compounds of the Rosemary plant essential oil. The main components of these fractions were alpha-pinene, 1-8-cineole, camphor, verbenone and borneol constituting 80% of the total oil. Also, Rao et al. (1999), deduced that early distillate fractions contained most of the alpha-thujene, alpha-pinene, camphene, betapinene and 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol), while later fractions contained most of the camphor and bornyl acetate.

Alpha pinene, [beta]-Pinene, Camphene,Myrcene, 1, 8-Cineol, Camphor, p-Cymene and Caryophyleene recorded a positive increased under compost and bio fertilizer treatments. Application of compost increased oil content in plants grown under water stress this may be attributed to the effect of compost in increasing the radical scavenging activity, the rosmarinic and carnosic acids were found to be the best Rosmary scavengers (Luis and Johnson et al., 2005). The highest percentage of some oil composition obtained by bacteria inoculation may be due to the effect of microorganisms which produce growth promoting substances resulting in more efficient absorption of nutrients, which main components of photosynthetic pigments and consequently the carbohydrate was increased and this may reflected on increasing the main constituents of Rosemary oil. These results were in accordance with the findings of Reynders and Vlassak (1982), Abdel-Kader (1999), Khater (2001), Edris et al. (2003) and El-Hady (2005). Other components listed in Table 5 were not affected by compost nor biofertilizer use under different irrigation intervals as Terpinolene, Linalool, Terpinene-4-ol, Bomyl acetate, a-Copaene, Caryophyllene oxide I, Caryophyllene oxide II and Palmitic acid.

REFERENCES

A' Ivarez, S., A. Navarro, S. Banon, M. Sa' nchez-Blanco, 2009. Regulated deficit irrigation in potted Dianthus plants: Effects of severe and moderate water stress on growth and physiological responses. Scientia Horticulturae, 122: 579-585.

Abd El-Moez, M.R., A.L. Sh, A.H. Wanas, 1999. Influences of some organic composts on yield, nutrients uptake and consumptive use of fennel and coriander plants and some soil properties. J. Agric., 24(10): 6237-6253.

Abdalla, M.M. and N.H. El-Khoshiban, 2007. The influence of water stress on growth, relative water content, photosynthetic pigments, some metabolic and hormonal contents of two Triticiumae stivum cultuivars. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(12): 2062-2074.

Abdel Wahab, M., M. Mahmoud and A.Z.A. Hassan, 2013. Response of fennel plants to organic bio fertilizer in replacement of chemical fertilization. Top class Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(3): 29-35.

Abdel-Kader, A.A., 1999. Nitrogen nutrition of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare, Mill) and anise (Pimpinella anisum, L.) and their effects on growth and essential oil contents. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Assiut Univ. Egypt.

Abdrabbo, M.A.A. M.K. Hassanein and M.A. Medany, 2007. Effect of irrigation regime and compost level on potato production in northern data. Proceeding of the 7th African Potato Association Conference /Exhibition, Alexandria, Egypt, pp: 185-197.

Abolfazl K.N., Y. Mehrdad, H.L. Mohammad, M. Bahram and R. Farhad, 2015. The response of drought stressed Lemon Balm (Melissa officinalis L.) to Vermi compost and PGPR Biological Forum. An International Journal, 7(1): 1336-1344.

Abou El-Khashab, A.M., 2002. Growth and chemical constituents of some olive cultivars as affected by bio fertilizers and different water regime. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., NRC. 1: 243-265.

Ahmed, S.K., E.O. Ghawas and A.F. Aly, 1998. Effect of active dry yeast and organic manure on Roselle plant. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 76(3): 1115-1143.

Ali, A.F., E. Osman and M.R. Khater, 2001. Effect of Phosphorine and potassium sulphate on guar,Cyamopsis tetragonoloba, L. Taub. Egypt. J. Appl Sci., 16: 217-228.

Amer, S.S.A., 2004. Growth, green pods yield and seeds yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) as affected by active dry yeast, salicylic acid and their interaction. J. Agric Sci. Mansoura univ., 29(3): 1407-1422.

Bakkali, F., S. Averbeck, D. Averbeck and M. Idaomar, 2008. Biological effects of essential oils-A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46: 446-475.

Bie, Z., T. Ito and Y. Shinohara, 2004. Effects of sodium sulphate and sodium bicarbonate on the growth, gas exchange and mineral composition of lettuce. Scientia Horticulturae, 99: 215-224.

Boutekedjiret, C., F. Bentahar, R. Belabbes, JM. Bessiere, 1998. The essential oil from Rosmarinus officinalis L. in Algeria. J. Essent. Oil Res., 10: 680-682.

Boutraa, A. and F.E., Sanders, 2001. Influence of water stress on grain yield and vegetative growth of two cultivars of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 186: 229-237.

Charles D.J., R.J. Joly and J.E. Simon, 1990. Effect of osmotic stress on the essential oil content and composition of peppermint. Phytochem., 29: 2837-2840.

Doorenbos, J. and W.D. Pruitt, 1979. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. F.A.O. Irrigation and Drainage paper. 24FAO, Rome, Italy.

Edris, A.E., A. Shalaby, H.M. Fadel, 2003. Effect of organic agriculture practices on the volatile aroma components of some essential oil plants growing in Egypt. 11: sweet marjoram (Origanum marijorana L.) essential oil. Flavour and Fragr. J., 18: 345-351.

Ekren, S., C. Sonmez, , E.Ozcakal, Y.S.K Kurttas, E. Bayram, H.Gurgulu, 2012.The effect of different irrigation water levels on yield and quality characteristics of purple basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Agricultural Water Management, 109: 155-161.

El-Ghadban, E.A.E., S.A. Kulb and M.I. Eid, 2003. Effect of foliar spraying with active dry yeast andcomplete fertilizer (sengral) on growth, yield and fixed oil of (Ricinus communis). Egypt. Pharm. J., 5566.

El-Hady, S., 2005. Enhancement of chemical composition and the yield of anise seed (Pimpinella anisum L.) oils and fruits by growth regulators. Annals of Agricultural Science. Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo, 50(1): 15-29.

El-Saidi, M.T., A.I. Gabr, , M. El-Kadi, H.A. El-Zeiny, 1975. The effect of certain pre-sowing treatments and early phosphorus supplement on cell sap concentration and water fractions in leaves of maize (Zea mays L.) plants grown under soil moisture stress conditions. Biol. Plant, 17: 281-291.

El-Sayed, A.A., M.K. Aly and M.H. Abd El-Gawad, 2002. Response of coriander plants to some phosphorus, zinc and yeast treatments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Horticulture Science, Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ. Egypt, 434-446.

El-Sherbeny, S.E., M.Y. Khalil, M.S. Hussein, M.S. Aly, 2007. Effect of sowing date and application of foliar fertilizers on the yield and chemical composition of rue (Ruta graveolens L.) herb. Herba-Polonica, 54(1): 47-56.

El-Tohamy, W.A., N.H.M. El-Greadly, 2007. Physiological responses, growth, yield and quality of snap beans in response to foliar application of yeast, vitamin E and zinc under sandy conditions. Aust. J. or Basic & Appl. Sci., 1(3): 294-299.

Flexas, J. and H. Medrano, 2002. Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Ann Bot., 89(2): 183-9.

Ghallab, A.M. and E.A.E. El-Gahadban, 2004. Physiological response of marjoram plants to bio fertilizer and organic fertilization. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 29(4): 1743-1759.

Ghanbari, F.N., S. Shabahang and A. Ghanbari, 2007. Effects of irrigation regimes and row arrangement on yield, yield components and seed quality of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) .Asian J. Plant Sci., 6: 1072-1079.

Gusev, N.A., 1960. "Some Methods for Studying Plant Water Relations". Akad. Nauke SSSR, Leningard.

Hammad, S., 1991. Physiological response of snap bean to water supply. M. Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Menofiya Univ. Egypt.

Hammam, K.A., 1996. Effect of nitrogenous fertilization and irrigation on growth, yield and active constituents of anise plants (Pimpinella anisum L.). M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agic., Cairo Univ., Egypt.

Han, H.S. and K.D. Lee, 2006. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria effect on antioxidant status, photosynthesis, mineral uptake and growth of lettuce under soil salinity. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 1: 210-215.

Harridy, I.M.A., S.G.I. Soliman, A. Mervat and T. Amera, 2001. Physiological chemical and biological studies on lemongrass " Cymbopogan citralus" (DC) staphf in Response to diazotrophic bacteria.Fayoum. J. Agric. Res., 15(1): 95-107.

Hassan, F., H.M. Ellaban and F. Elsayed, 2012. Response of Coriandrum sativum, L. plant to different irrigation treatments in sandy soil. International Conference for Agriculture and Irrigation in the Nile Basin Countries, El-Minia, Egypt, 26 1 h - 2 9 1 h 2: 313-320.

Hassan, F.A.S., S. Bazaid, E.F Ali., 2013. Effect of deficit irrigation on growth, yield and volatile oil content on Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant. Journal of Medicinal Plants Studies, 1(3): 13-21.

Heikal, A.E., 2005. Effect of organic and bio fertilization on growth production and composition of (Thymus vulgaris L.) plants. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ.

Hendawy, S.F., 2008. Comparative study of organic and mineral fertilization on Plantago arenaria plant. J. of Appl. Sci. Res., 4: 500-506.

Hooman, R., Z.J. Hawa, R.H. Mohd, E. M.W. Puteri and R. Omid, 2014. Impact of different water levels on growth, plant water relations and leaf characteristics in seedling of Tong Kat (Eurycomalongifola Jack). Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST), 1(4): 197-210.

Horneck, D.A. and D. Hanson, 1998. Determination of K and Na by flame emission spectrophotometery. In Handbook of Ref. Meth. of Plant Analysis, Kalra, Y.P. (ed.), pp: 153-155.

Horneck, D.A. and R.O. Miller, 1998. Determination of total N in plant tissue. In Handbook of Ref. Meth. of Plant Analysis, Kalra, Y.P. (ed.), pp: 73-83.

Ismail, T.B.A., 2004. Effect of drip irrigation rates, organic fertilization rates and plant density on yield and quality of snap bean. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Suez Canal Univ., Egypt.

Jackson, M.L., 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. New Delhi, India.

Khalid, K.A., 2006. Influence of water stress on growth, essential oil and chemical composition of herbs (Ocimum sp.). Int. Agrophys., 20(4): 289-296.

Khalil A.M., S.E. Khalil and T.B. Ali, 2012. Effect of water stress, antioxidants and humic acid on Capsicum annuum, L. growth, yield and active ingredient under sandy soil conditions. Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 27(1): 35-56.

Khalil, S.E. and A.S.A. El-Noemani, 2015. Effect of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield, water relations, photosynthetic pigments and carbohydrates contents of OriganumvulgareL. plants grown under water stress conditions. American- Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 9(4): 60-73.

Khalil, S.E. and G.E.Ismael, 2010. Growth, yield and seed quality of Lupinustermisas affected by different soil moisture levels and different ways of yeast application. Journal of American Science, 6(8): 141-153.

Khater, R.M., 2001. Effect of some fertilizers treatments on the growth and volatile oil yield on Carumcarvi, L. plants. M. Sci. Thesis, Fac. of Agric. Zagazig Univ.

Khedr, Z.M.,and S. Farid, 2000. Response of naturally virus infected plants to yeast extract and phosphoric acid application. Ann. Sci. Moshtohor, Egypt, 38: 927-939.

Kourosh, E. Z., H. S. R. Amir, N.Masoumeh, M. A. Amin and T. Tofigh, 2012. Effects of Zeolite and Selenium application on some physiological traits and oil yield of medicinal pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) under drought stress. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 4(4): 462-470.

Kumar, A., R. Singh and R.K. Chhillar, 2008. Influence of omitting irrigation and nitrogen levels on growth, yield and water use efficiency of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 56(1): 69-74.

Kurtzman, C.P. and J.W. Fell, 2005. Biodiversity and Eco- physiology of Yeasts (In: The Yeast Handbook, Gabor P, de la Rosa CL, eds) Berlin, Springer, pp: 11-30.

Lamo, K.B., N. Korla, Y.R. Ahukla, 2012. Effect of different organic and inorganic nutrient sources on seed production of radish (Raphanus sativus cv. chinese pink). Leaf Sciences, 2: 38-44.

Luis, J.C. and C.B. Johnson, 2005. Seasonal variations of rosmarinic and carnosic acid in rosemary extracts. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 3: 106-112.

Mazrou, R.M., 2008. Biotechnological studies ofCymobopogon citratus stapf. (Lemongrass). Ph.D. Thesis, Genetic engineering and biotechnology Institute, Minufiya Univ., Egypt.

Metin S.S., Y. Attila and E. Salim, 2006. Effect of drip irrigation regimes on yield and quality of field grown bell pepper. Agricultural Water Management, 81: 115-131.

Misik, S., 2000. Bound water in vine cane studied by microwave method. Acta. Hort., 526: 177-182.

Morsi, M.K., B. El-Magoli, N.T. Saleh, E.M. El-Hadidy and H.A. Barakat, 2008. Study of antioxidants and anticancer activity licorice Glycyrrhizaglabra extracts. Egyptian J. Nutr. And Feeds, 2(33): 177-203.

Naguib, N.Y. and M.Y. Khalil, 2002. Studied on the effect of dry yeast, thiamine and biotin on the growth and chemical constituents of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Arab. Univ. J. Agric. Sci. Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, pp: 919-937.

Norwood, C.A., 2000. Water use and yield of limited-irrigated and dry land corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64: 365-370.

Nour, S.M.T., 1999. Effect of some agriculture treatments on pea under sandy soil conditions. M. Sc. Thesis, Agric., Zagazig Univ., Egypt.

Olsen, S.R. and L.E. Sommers, 1982. Phosphorus. In: Page, A. L., R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, W. I., USA., pp: 403-430.

Omar, M.N.A., M.H. Heagazy, R.A. Abd El-Aziz, M.S.M. Abo-Soliman, M.M. Sobh,1991. Effect of inoculation with rhizobacteria on yield of wheat under graded level of nitrogen fertilization. Ann. Agric. Sci. Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, 36(1): 99-104.

Osman, A.M. and Y.S. El-Fiky, 2005. Effect of applied irrigation water amounts and plant densities on coriander (Coriandrum sativum, L.) production in sandy soils. Annual Conference of The Misr Society of Agr. Eng., 22(4): 758-770.

Pascale, S.D., R. Paradiso and G. Barbieri, 2001. Recovery of physiological parameters in Gladiolus under water stress. Colture Protette., 30(7): 65-69.

Rao-Evsp, C.T., Gopinath and R.S. Rao, 1999. Agronomic and distillation studies on rosemary in a semi-arid tropical environmental. Journal of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants, 6: 25-30.

Rascio, A., M. Russo, C. Platani, N.D. Fonzo, 1998. Drought intensity effects on genotypic differences in tissue affinity for strongly bound water. Plant Sci., 132: 121-126.

Reynders, L. and K. Vlassak, 1982. Use of Azospirillum brasilenseas bio fertilizer in intensive wheat cropping. Plant and Soil, 66: 217.

Ritchie, S.W., H.T. Nguyan and A.S. Holaday, 1990. Leaf water content and gas exchange parameters of two wheat genotypes differing in drought resistance. Crop Sci., 30: 105-111.

Said-Al Ahl, H.A.H., E.A. Omer, and N.Y. Naguib, 2009. Effect of water stress and nitrogen fertilizer on herb and essential oil of oregano. Int. Agrophysics., 23: 269-275.

Sangwan, N.S., A. H.A. Farooqi and R.S., Sangwan, 1994. Effect of drought on growth and essential oil metabolism in lemongrass species. New Phytol., 128: 173-179.

Santoyo, S., S. Cavero and E. Ibanez, 2005.Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil obtained via supercritical fluid extraction. Journal of FoodProtection, 68: 790-795.

Sawhney, V. and D.P. Singh, 2002. Effect of chemical desiccation at the post-anthesis stage on some physiological and biochemical changes in the flag leaf of contrasting wheat genotypes Field Crops Research, 77: 1-6.

Sepehri, A. and A.R. Golparvar, 2011. The Effect of drought stress on water relations, chlorophyll content and leaf area in canola cultivars (Brassica napus L.). Elect. J. Biol., 7(3): 49-53.

Shabih F., A.H.A. Farooqi, S.R. Ansari and S.Sharma, 1999. The influence of water stress on plant height, herbal and essential oil yield and composition in Satureja. J. Essen. Oil Res., 11: 491-6

Siddiquia, Y., M.I. Tajul, N. Yuvarani, M. Sariah, 2011. The conjunctive use of compost tea and inorganic fertilizer on the growth, yield and terpenoid content of Centella asiatica L. Scientia Horticulturae, 130: 289-295.

Silber, A., G. Xu and R. Wallach, 2003. High irrigation frequency: the effect on plant growth and on uptake of water and nutrients. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 627: 89-96.

Simon, J.E., D. Reiss-Buhenheinra, R.J. Joly and D.J. Charles, 1992. Effect of salinity and drought stresses on growth parameters and essential oil content of Matricaria chamomile. J. Essen. Oil Res., 4: 71-5.

Singh, S.D. and J.S. Rao, 1994. Yield-water nitrogen response analysis in cumin. Annals of Arid zone, 33(1): 29-34.

Singh, V., C.K. Pallaghy and D.K.Singh, 2005. Phosphorus nutrition and tolerance of cotton to water stress. I. Seed cotton yield and leaf morphology. Field Crops Res., doi:10.1016/j.fcr. 06.009.3.

Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1980. "Statistical Methods" 7th ed. Iowa State Univ., Iowa, USA.

Taiz, L. and E. Zeiger, 2002. Plant Physiology, Third Ed. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Chapter., 10: 33-46.

Tholl, D. and O. Curr. 2006.Terpene synthases and the regulation, diversity and biological roles of terpene metabolism. Plant Biol., 9: 297-304.

Tien, T.N., N.H. Gaskins, D.H. Hubbell, 1979. Plant growth substances produced by Azospillum brasilense and their effect on growth of pearl Millet (Pennisetum americanum L.). Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 37: 1016-1024.

Tiwari, R.P., S.K.B. Kaur, R. Dikshit and G.S. Hoondal, 2006. Synergistic antimicrobial activity of tea and antibiotics; Indian J. Med. Res., 122: 180-186.

Tomar, K.P., M.A. Gupta and K.B. Nigam, 1994. Effect of irrigation and fertility levels on growth and yield of coriander (Coriandrum stivum). Indian J. Agron., 39(3): 442-447.

Vijaya, S., K. P. Charles, and S. Dhananjay, 2005. Phosphorus nutrition and tolerance of cotton to water stress II. Water relations, free and bound water and leaf expansion rate. Field Crops Research, 5(2): 1-7.

Wahba, H.E., 2002. Growth, yield and chemical composition of Oenothera biennisas affected by yeast, biotin and riboflavin foliar application. Arab. Univ. J. Agric. Sci. Ain Shams Univ. Cairo, 10: 977-1017.

Weatherly, P.E., 1962. Examination of the moisture stress on carbohydrate development and growth in plants. Am. J. Bot., 41: 136-320.

Woodbury, I.L., 1992. Applying composts to crops. Bio Cycle, 32: 70-72.

Wu, Q. and R. Xia, 2006. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence growth, osmotic adjustment and photosynthesis of citrus under well-watered and water stress conditions. Journal of Plant Physiology, 163: 417-425.

(1) Soha E. Khalil and (2) Ashraf M. Khalil

(1) Water Relations & field Irrigation Dept., National Research Centre. S3 El-Tahrir St.. Dokki. 12622 Giza. Egypt.

(2) Department of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. Horticulture Research Institute. Agriculture Research Center. Cairo. Egypt.

Received 12 June 2015; Accepted August28 2015; Available online 22 September 2015

Address For Correspondence:

Prof. Ass. Dr. Soha E Khalil, National Research Centre, Water Relations and Field Irrigation Department, Agricultural & Biological Research Division, 33 El-Tahrir St., Dokki, Cairo, Egypt.

E-mail: soha klialil2012@yahoo.com
Table 1: Chemical analysis of yeast extract.

Amino acids
mg/100g dry             Mineral mg /100g      Vitamins
weight                  dry weight            mg /100g dry weight

Arginine         1.99   Total N       7.23    Vit. [B.sub.1]    2.23
Histidine        2.63   [P.sub.2]     51.68   Vit. [B.sub.2]    1.33
                          [O.sub.5]
Isoleucine       2.31   [K.sub.2]O    34.39   Vit. [B.sub.5]    19.56
leucine          3.09   MgO           5.76    Vit. [B.sub.6])   1.25
Lysine           2.95   CaO           3.05    Vit. [B.sub.7]    0.09
Methionine       0.72   Si[O.sub.2]   1.55    Vit. [B.sub.8]    0.26
Phenyl alanine   2.01   S[O.sub.2]    0.49    Vit. [B.sub.9]    4.36
Threonine        2.09   NaCl          0.30    Vit [B.sub.12]    0.15
Tryptophan       0.45   Fe            0.92    Nicotinic acid    39.88
Valine           2.19   Ba            157.5   Pamino benzoic    9.23
                                                acid
Glutamic acid    2.00   Co            67.8    Carbohydrates     23.2
Serine           1.59   Pd            438.6   Glucose           13.33
Aspartic acid    1.33   Mn            81.3
Cystine          0.23   Zn            335.6
Proline          1.53
Tyrosine         1.49

Table 2: Influence of different irrigation intervals,
different compost rates as well as active dry yeast
treatments and their interactions on Rosmarinus
officinalis L. growth and yield in both growing
seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015.

                 Plant height         No. of branches
                 (cm)
Charact.
treatments       1st cut    2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

                       Water stress

IR1              48.89      55.56     15.89     15.56
IR2              40.67      46.22     13.00     13.00
IR3              34.78      40.22     9.22      9.89
[LSD.sub.0.05]   3.09       2.78      1.11      1.00

                       Compost rates

C0               34.44      42.56     10.67     10.56
C1               42.11      46.67     12.11     13.00
C2               47.78      52.78     15.33     14.89
[LSD.sub.0.05]   2.76       3.12      3.01      1.04

                     Yeast treatments

Y0               33.44      42.88     10.66     10.77
Y1               41.22      46.77     13.00     12.00
Y2               49.66      52.33     14.44     15.66
[LSD.sub.0.05]   3.21       1.93      0.94      0.67

                 Fresh weight               Dry
                 (g)                        weight (g)
Charact.
treatments       1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

                       Water stress

IR1              66.89     82.44     33.33     32.13
IR2              44.67     71.33     23.00     22.23
IR3              33.56     52.67     20.44     21.42
[LSD.sub.0.05]   4.89      5.09      2.11      1.19

                      Compost rates

C0               43.67     61.44     22.77     23.84
C1               47.22     61.89     24.55     24.58
C2               54.22     83.11     29.44     27.35
[LSD.sub.0.05]   3.93      2.87      1.94      1.33

                    Yeast treatments

Y0               43.22     53.78     22.00     20.45
Y1               48.44     71.33     26.22     25.40
Y2               53.44     81.33     28.55     29.93
[LSD.sub.0.05]   4.01      3.68      0.94      1.07

                 Oil%    Oil
                         content
Charact.
treatments               (ml/plant)

           Water stress

IR1              0.67    0.22
IR2              0.73    0.17
IR3              0.66    0.13
[LSD.sub.0.05]   0.03    0.02

          Compost rates

C0               0.65    0.14
C1               0.69    0.17
C2               0.71    0.21
[LSD.sub.0.05]   0.04    0.01

         Yeast treatments

Y0               0.67    0.14
Y1               0.69    0.18
Y2               0.70    0.20
[LSD.sub.0.05]   0.01    0.04i

                      Plant height        No. of branches
                      (cm)

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

Water stress X Compost rates

                 C0   42.66     52.33     12.33     13.00
IR1              C1   46.33     53.66     15.66     15.66
                 C2   57.66     60.66     19.66     18.00
IR2              C0   33.00     41.33     10.33     11.33
                 C1   41.00     45.00     13.00     14.33
                 C2   48.00     52.33     15.66     13.33
IR3              C0   27.66     34.00     9.33      7.33
                 C1   39.00     41.33     7.66      9.00
                 C2   37.66     45.33     10.66     13.3
[LSD.sub.0.05]        4.76      I 5.79    1.95      2.07

Water stress X yeast treatments

IR1              Y0   39.66     51.66     13.33     14.66
                 Y1   48.00     53.66     16.66     14.00
                 Y2   59.00     61.33     17.66     18.00
IR2              Y0   32.00     43.33     11.33     10.33
                 Y1   41.66     44.33     13.00     12.66
                 Y2   48.33     51.00     14.66     16.00
IR3              Y0   28.66     33.66     7.33      7.33
                 Y1   34.00     42.33     9.33      9.33
                 Y2   41.66     44.66     11.00     13.00
[LSD.sub.0.05]        3.18      4.71      2.90      3.01

                      Fresh weight        Dry
                      (g)                 weight (g)

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

Water stress X Compost rates

                 C0   62.00     72.00     31.00     26.73
IR1              C1   63.67     71.00     30.33     30.86
                 C2   75.00     104.33    38.66     38.80
IR2              C0   36.33     66.33     19.33     21.46
                 C1   45.67     65.67     23.00     23.63
                 C2   52.00     82.00     26.66     21.60
IR3              C0   32.67     46.00     18.00     23.33
                 C1   32.33     49.00     20.33     19.26
                 C2   35.67     63.00     23.00     21.66
[LSD.sub.0.05]        4.97      5.11      3.39      2.78

Water stress X yeast treatments

IR1              Y0   60.33     56.33     27.00     26.26
                 Y1   68.33     85.00     36.33     33.20
                 Y2   72.00     106.00    36.66     36.93
IR2              Y0   43.33     56.66     21.00     17.13
                 Y1   42.33     76.33     22.33     23.53
                 Y2   48.33     81.00     25.66     26.03
IR3              Y0   26.00     48.33     18.00     17.96
                 Y1   34.67     52.66     20.00     19.46
                 Y2   40.00     57.00     23.33     26.83
[LSD.sub.0.05]        5.12      4.23      4.01      3.67

                      Oil%   Oil
                             content

                             (ml/plant)

   Water stress X Compost rates

                 C0   0.62   0.19
IR1              C1   0.67   0.20
                 C2   0.72   0.27
IR2              C0   0.71   0.13
                 C1   0.74   0.17
                 C2   0.75   0.20
IR3              C0   0.63   0.11
                 C1   0.66   0.13
                 C2   0.68   0.15
[LSD.sub.0.05]        0.02   0.03

  Water stress X yeast treatments

IR1              Y0   0.66   0.17
                 Y1   0.67   0.24
                 Y2   0.68   0.2
IR2              Y0   0.72   0.15
                 Y1   0.73   0.16
                 Y2   0.74   0.19
IR3              Y0   0.64   0.11
                 Y1   0.66   0.13
                 Y2   0.66   0.15
[LSD.sub.0.05]        0.05   0.01

                      Plant height        No. of branches
                      (cm)

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

               Compost rates X Yeast treatments

C0               Y0   28.00     38.67     8.33      7.33
                 Y1   34.33     41.33     11.66     10.33
                 Y2   41.00     47.67     12.00     14.00
C1               Y0   32.33     41.67     9.33      11.66
                 Y1   41.67     47.00     13.66     12.66
                 Y2   52.33     51.33     13.33     14.66
C2               Y0   40.00     48.33     14.33     13.33
                 Y1   47.67     52.00     13.66     13.00
                 Y2   55.67     58.00     18.00     18.33
[LSD.sub.0.05]        5.34      6.01      1.95      2.01

                      Fresh weight        Dry
                      (g)                 weight (g)

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

               Compost rates X Yeast treatments

C0               Y0   41.66     51.66     21.33     17.86
                 Y1   39.66     61.33     22.00     23.33
                 Y2   49.66     71.33     25.00     30.33
C1               Y0   44.00     44.66     20.33     19.76
                 Y1   47.66     64.66     25.33     25.86
                 Y2   50.00     76.33     28.00     28.13
C2               Y0   44.00     65.00     24.33     23.73
                 Y1   58.00     88.00     31.33     27.00
                 Y2   60.66     96.33     32.66     31.33
[LSD.sub.0.05]        4.90      5.65      3.19      4.04

                      Oil%   Oil
                             content

                             (ml/plant)

   Compost rates X Yeast treatments

C0               Y0   0.64   0.13
                 Y1   0.66   0.14
                 Y2   0.67   0.16
C1               Y0   0.68   0.13
                 Y1   0.69   0.17
                 Y2   0.70   0.19
C2               Y0   0.70   0.17
                 Y1   0.72   0.22
                 Y2   0.74   0.25
[LSD.sub.0.05]        0.05   0.04

                           Plant height        No. of branches
                           (cm)

                           1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

       Water stress X Compost rates X Yeast treatments

IR1              C0   Y0   32        49        10.00     10.00
                      Y1   42        49        13.00     12.00
                      Y2   54        59        14.00     17.00
                 C1   Y0   35        49        13.00     16.00
                      Y1   44        52        17.00     15.000
                      Y2   60        60        17.00     16.000
                 C2   Y0   52        57.0      17.00     18.000
                      Y1   58        60.0      20.00     15.000
                      Y2   63        65.0      22.00     21.000
IR2              C0   Y0   28        37        7.00      7.000
                      Y1   32        40        13.00     11.000
                      Y2   39        47        11.00     16.000
                 C1   Y0   32        41        10.00     12.00
                      Y1   40        46        15.00     14.00
                      Y2   51        48        14.00     17.00
                 C2   Y0   36        52        17.00     12.00
                      Y1   53        47        11.00     13.00
                      Y2   55        58        19.00     15.00
IR3              C0   Y0   24        30        8.00      5.00
                      Y1   29        35        9.00      8.00
                      Y2   30        37        11.0      9.00
                 C1   Y0   30        35        5.00      7.00
                      Y1   41        43        9.00      9.00
                      Y2   46        46        9.00      11.0
                 C2   Y0   32        36        9.00      10.00
                      Y1   32        49        10.0      11.00
                      Y2   49        51        13.0      19.00
[LSD.sub.0.05]             6.21      4.12      2.33      3.02

                           Fresh weight        Dry
                           (g)                 weight (g)

                           1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

          Water stress X Compost rates X Yeast treatments

IR1              C0   Y0   58.00     63.00     28.00     20.20
                      Y1   61.00     69.00     32.00     30.00
                      Y2   67.00     84.00     33.00     30.00
                 C1   Y0   62.0      40.00     23.00     25.40
                      Y1   64.0      72.00     34.00     31.40
                      Y2   65.0      101.0     34.00     35.80
                 C2   Y0   61.00     66.00     30.00     33.20
                      Y1   80.00     114.00    43.00     38.20
                      Y2   84.00     133.00    43.00     45.00
IR2              C0   Y0   38.00     52.00     20.00     17.00
                      Y1   30.00     71.00     17.00     22.80
                      Y2   41.00     76.00     21.00     24.60
                 C1   Y0   44.00     44.0      20.00     15.40
                      Y1   45.00     74.0      22.00     27.00
                      Y2   48.00     79.0      27.00     28.50
                 C2   Y0   48.00     74.00     23.00     19.00
                      Y1   52.00     84.00     28.00     20.80
                      Y2   56.00     88.00     29.00     25.00
IR3              C0   Y0   29.00     40.0      16.00     16.40
                      Y1   28.00     44.0      17.00     17.20
                      Y2   41.00     54.0      21.00     36.40
                 C1   Y0   26.00     50.00     18.00     18.5o
                      Y1   34.00     48.00     20.00     19.20
                      Y2   37.00     49.00     23.00     20.10
                 C2   Y0   23.00     55.00     20.00     19.00
                      Y1   42.00     66.00     23.00     22.00
                      Y2   42.00     68.00     26.00     24.00
[LSD.sub.0.05]             5.80      4.31      5.27      4.94

                           Oil%   Oil
                                  content

                                  (ml/plant)

     Water stress X Compost rates X
            Yeast treatments

IR1              C0   Y0   0.61   0.17
                      Y1   0.63   0.20
                      Y2   0.64   0.21
                 C1   Y0   0.66   0.15
                      Y1   0.68   0.23
                      Y2   0.69   0.23
                 C2   Y0   0.71   0.21
                      Y1   0.72   0.31
                      Y2   0.73   0.31
IR2              C0   Y0   0.69   0.21
                      Y1   0.71   0.31
                      Y2   0.73   0.31
                 C1   Y0   0.73   0.13
                      Y1   0.74   0.12
                      Y2   0.75   0.15
                 C2   Y0   0.74   0.14
                      Y1   0.76   0.16
                      Y2   0.76   0.20
IR3              C0   Y0   0.62   0.17
                      Y1   0.64   0.21
                      Y2   0.64   0.22
                 C1   Y0   0.65   0.09
                      Y1   0.67   0.10
                      Y2   0.67   0.13
                 C2   Y0   0.67   0.13
                      Y1   0.69   0.15
                      Y2   0.69   0.17
[LSD.sub.0.05]             0.03   0.01

IR1 = irrigation every 5 days IR2 = irrigation every 10 days
IR3 = irrigation every 15 days.

C0 = zero compost C1 = 0.25 kg/pot C2 = 0.5kg/pot.

Y0 = zero yeast Y1 = 4g/L yeast Y2 = 8g/L yeast.

Table 3: Influence of different irrigation intervals,
different compost rates as well as active dry yeast
treatments and their interactions on water relations
of Rosmarinus officinalis L. leaves in both growing
seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015.

                 RWC%                Free water %
Charact.
treatments       1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

                        Water stress

IR1              62.10     53.55     27.97     27.57
IR2              58.97     49.50     21.45     22.43
IR3              37.10     33.96     6.12      11.02
[LSD.sub.0.05]   4.03      5.23      6.30      4.44

                       Compost rates

C0               49.85     43.01     17.96     18.89
C1               51.20     44.96     18.90     20.12
C2               57.12     49.04     18.68     22.02
[LSD.sub.0.05]   2.88      1.01      0.32      2.05

                      Yeast treatments

Y0               49.19     42.07     17.80     19.19
Y1               52.37     45.01     18.47     20.34
Y2               56.60     49.93     19.27     21.50
[LSD.sub.0.05]   3.06      1.74      1.11      1.03

                 Bound water%        Total water %
Charact.
treatments       1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

                         Water stress

IR1              35.16     31.94     63.13     59.52
IR2              39.71     36.34     61.01     58.67
IR3              43.96     40.64     50.09     50.77
[LSD.sub.0.05]   2.94      4.11      3.95      4.09

                         Compost rates

C0               36.23     35.67     54.91     53.98
C1               39.37     36.09     58.28     55.91
C2               43.23     37.15     61.04     59.07
[LSD.sub.0.05]   3.29      1.96      1.77      2.06

                      Yeast treatments

Y0               36.17     35.87     55.44     55.06
Y1               40.37     35.67     58.69     56.03
Y2               42.29     37.37     60.10     57.87
[LSD.sub.0.05]   2.26      0.92      1.56      2.04

                      RWC%                Free water %

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

                Water stress X Compost rates

IR1              C0   59.15     51.70     24.08     26.50
                 C1   60.24     51.78     29.02     27.20
                 C2   66.90     57.18     30.82     29.03
IR2              C0   56.61     50.54     21.09     21.13
                 C1   57.58     47.30     20.38     22.53
                 C2   62.72     50.66     22.86     23.63
IR3              C0   33.80     26.79     4.13      9.03
                 C1   35.78     35.80     6.94      10.63
                 C2   41.73     39.29     7.31      13.40
[LSD.sub.0.05]        3.74      4.75      6.36      5.11

               Compost rates X Y east treatments

IR1              Y0   57.33     48.62     25.92     26.60
                 Y1   61.43     52.86     28.28     27.46
                 Y2   67.54     59.18     29.72     28.66
IR2              Y0   56.16     47.60     21.69     21.73
                 Y1   57.52     48.67     21.01     22.36
                 Y2   63.23     52.23     21.64     23.20
IR3              Y0   34.10     29.99     6.40      9.23
                 Y1   38.16     33.51     6.13      11.20
                 Y2   39.04     38.38     5.85      12.63
[LSD.sub.0.05]        3.90      4.29      6.31      5.54

                      Bound water%        Total water %

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

               Water stress X Compost rates

IR1              C0   31.37     32.00     62.20     58.50
                 C1   33.76     31.90     62.76     59.10
                 C2   40.35     31.93     64.44     61.93
IR2              C0   38.58     35.33     59.68     56.46
                 C1   39.96     35.10     60.35     57.63
                 C2   40.60     38.60     63.01     60.96
IR3              C0   38.74     40.96     42.86     47.00
                 C1   44.40     40.03     51.72     51.00
                 C2   48.74     40.93     55.68     54.33
[LSD.sub.0.05]        3.91      4.31      2.77      3.33

             Compost rates X Y east treatments

IR1              Y0   31.19     31.86     60.89     58.46
                 Y1   35.56     31.63     63.84     59.10
                 Y2   38.75     32.33     64.67     61.00
IR2              Y0   38.50     35.66     60.20     57.40
                 Y1   40.11     36.26     60.65     58.33
                 Y2   40.53     37.10     62.18     60.30
IR3              Y0   38.83     40.09     45.23     49.33
                 Y1   45.46     39.13     51.58     50.66
                 Y2   47.60     42.70     53.45     52.33
[LSD.sub.0.05]        2.59      3.57      4.28      4.01

                      RWC%                Free water %

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

                 Compost rates X Yeast rates

C0               Y0   47.37     39.07     18.40     17.97
                 Y1   49.16     44.15     18.42     18.70
                 Y2   53.02     45.81     19.22     20.00
C1               Y0   47.86     42.91     18.49     19.10
                 Y1   50.75     44.67     18.83     20.10
                 Y2   55.00     47.28     19.39     21.16
C2               Y0   52.36     44.23     16.17     20.50
                 Y1   57.20     46.22     18.52     22.23
                 Y2   61.79     56.69     19.40     23.33
[LSD.sub.0.05]        3.87      4.29      1.02      0.89

                      Bound water%        Total water %

                      1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

               Compost rates X Yeast rates

C0               Y0   34.15     34.83     53.38     52.80
                 Y1   37.01     35.13     55.40     53.83
                 Y2   37.53     37.30     55.95     55.33
C1               Y0   35.56     35.70     54.93     54.80
                 Y1   42.00     34.83     59.06     55.26
                 Y2   40.57     36.50     60.83     57.66
C2               Y0   38.81     37.10     58.01     57.60
                 Y1   43.55     37.06     61.60     59.00
                 Y2   47.34     38.33     63.52     60.63
[LSD.sub.0.05]        4.03      2.85      2.22      3.31

                           RWC%                Free water %

                           1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

       Water stress X Compost rates X Yeast treatments

IR1              C0   Y0   56.66     48.32     28.56     25.50
                      Y1   57.33     52.80     25.47     26.00
                      Y2   63.47     54.00     18.23     28.00
                 C1   Y0   56.98     48.55     29.66     26.00
                      Y1   57.05     52.13     28.59     27.60
                      Y2   66.71     54.66     28.81     28.00
                 C2   Y0   58.36     48.99     30.74     28.30
                      Y1   69.91     53.66     30.78     28.80
                      Y2   72.44     68.98     30.96     30.00
IR2              C0   Y0   53.96     48.00     22.41     20.40
                      Y1   55.87     50.23     20.35     20.90
                      Y2   60.01     53.39     20.52     22.10
                 C1   Y0   55.90     46.20     20.52     21.80
                      Y1   57.10     46.90     20.02     22.30
                      Y2   59.75     48.80     20.60     23.50
                 C2   Y0   58.63     48.60     22.14     23.00
                      Y1   59.61     48.90     22.66     23.90
                      Y2   69.94     54.50     23.80     24.00
IR3              C0   Y0   31.50     20.89     4.30      8.01
                      Y1   34.30     29.43     4.09      9.20
                      Y2   35.60     30.06     4.00      9.90
                 C1   Y0   30.70     34.00     8.01      9.50
                      Y1   38.10     35.00     6.86      10.40
                      Y2   38.54     38.40     7.07      12.00
                 C2   Y0   40.10     35.10     6.90      10.20
                      Y1   42.10     36.11     7.43      14.00
                      Y2   42.99     46.68     6.49      16.00
[LSD.sub.0.05]             3.77      4.99      2.08      2.22

                           Bound water%        Total water %

                           1st cut   2nd cut   1st cut   2nd cut

        Water stress X Compost rates X Yeast treatments

IR1              C0   Y0   29.63     32.50     60.59     58.00
                      Y1   31.85     32.50     62.63     58.50
                      Y2   32.65     31.00     63.39     59.00
                 C1   Y0   31.30     32.50     60.90     58.50
                      Y1   34.71     31.20     63.30     58.80
                      Y2   35.29     32.00     64.10     60.00
                 C2   Y0   32.64     30.60     61.200    58.90
                      Y1   40.12     31.20     65.50     60.00
                      Y2   48.31     34.00     66.54     64.00
IR2              C0   Y0   37.132    35.00     59.55     55.40
                      Y1   39.30     35.10     59.65     56.00
                      Y2   39.32     35.90     59.84     58.00
                 C1   Y0   39.43     34.10     59.95     55.90
                      Y1   40.07     34.70     60.10     57.00
                      Y2   40.39     36.50     61.00     60.00
                 C2   Y0   38.96     37.90     61.11     60.90
                      Y1   40.96     39.00     62.22     62.00
                      Y2   41.90     38.90     65.70     62.90
IR3              C0   Y0   35.69     36.99     40.00     45.00
                      Y1   39.90     37.80     43.96     47.00
                      Y2   40.63     42.80     44.63     49.00
                 C1   Y0   35.95     40.5      43.96     50.00
                      Y1   46.93     38.60     53.80     50.00
                      Y2   50.34     41.00     57.41     53.00
                 C2   Y0   44.84     39.00     51.74     53.00
                      Y1   49.57     41.00     57.00     55.00
                      Y2   51.83     48.10     58.32     55.00
[LSD.sub.0.05]             5.37      4.22      5.00      3.76

IR1 = irrigation every 5 days IR2 = irrigation every 10 days
IR3 = irrigation every 15 days.

C0 = zero compost C1= 0.25 kg/pot C2 = 0.5kg/pot.

Y0 = zero yeast Y1 = 4g/L yeast Y2 = 8g/L yeast.

Table 4: Influence of different irrigation intervals,
different compost rates as well as active dry yeast
applications and their interactions on minerals % N,
P and K of Rosmarinus officinalis L. leaves in both
growing seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015.

Charact.
treatments       N %    P %    K %

            Water stress

IR1              1.98   0.61   1.13
IR2              1.79   0.55   1.02
IR3              1.61   0.47   0.87
[LSD.sub.0.05]   0.03   0.05   0.03

             Compost rates

C0               1.73   0.51   0.95
C1               1.79   0.55   1.00
C2               1.85   0.58   1.07
[LSD.sub.0.05]   0.02   0.03   0.01

           Yeast treatments

Y0               1.77   0.52   0.98
Y1               1.79   0.54   1.01
Y2               1.82   0.57   1.03
[LSD.sub.0.05]   0.04   0.02   0.03

                      N %    P %    K %

     Water stress X Compost rates

IR1              C0   1.91   0.58   1.07
                 C1   1.98   0.62   1.13
                 C2   2.05   0.64   1.21
IR2              C0   1.74   0.51   0.97
                 C1   1.79   0.55   1.01
                 C2   1.84   0.59   1.09
IR3              C0   1.55   0.44   0.82
                 C1   1.61   0.47   0.87
                 C2   1.68   0.50   0.91
[LSD.sub.0.05]        0.05   0.03   0.02

      Water stress X Yeast treatments

IR1              Y0   1.95   0.59   1.09
                 Y1   1.98   0.61   1.14
                 Y2   2.01   0.64   1.17
IR2              Y0   1.77   0.54   1.01
                 Y1   1.79   0.55   1.02
                 Y2   1.81   0.57   1.04
IR3              Y0   1.59   0.45   0.85
                 Y1   1.61   0.47   0.87
                 Y2   1.63   0.49   0.88
[LSD.sub.0.05]        0.03   0.03   0.02

                      N %    P %    K %

   Compost rates X Yeast treatments

C0               Y0   1.71   0.49   0.93
                 Y1   1.73   0.51   0.96
                 Y2   1.76   0.53   0.97
C1               Y0   1.77   0.52   0.98
                 Y1   1.79   0.55   1.01
                 Y2   1.81   0.57   1.03
C2               Y0   1.83   0.56   1.04
                 Y1   1.85   0.58   1.07
                 Y2   1.88   0.60   1.10
[LSD.sub.0.05]        0.01   0.03   0.03

                           N %    P %    K %

Water stress X Compost rates X Yeast treatments

IR1              C0   Y0   1.89   0.56   1.04
                      Y1   1.90   0.58   1.09
                      Y2   1.94   0.60   1.10
                 C1   Y0   1.96   0.60   1.08
                      Y1   1.99   0.62   1.14
                      Y2   2.00   0.64   1.17
                 C2   Y0   2.02   0.61   1.16
                      Y1   2.00   0.64   1.21
                      Y2   2.09   0.68   1.26
IR2              C0   Y0   1.72   0.50   0.95
                      Y1   1.74   0.52   0.98
                      Y2   1.78   0.53   0.99
                 C1   Y0   1.77   0.53   1.00
                      Y1   1.79   0.56   1.01
                      Y2   1.81   0.58   1.04
                 C2   Y0   1.83   0.59   1.08
                      Y1   1.84   0.59   1.09
                      Y2   1.86   0.61   1.11
IR3              C0   Y0   1.53   0.44   0.81
                      Y1   1.55   0.46   0.83
                      Y2   1.58   0.46   0.84
                 C1   Y0   1.59   0.45   0.86
                      Y1   1.61   0.47   0.88
                      Y2   1.63   0.50   0.89
                 C2   Y0   1.66   0.48   0.89
                      Y1   1.68   0.51   0.91
                      Y2   1.70   0.50   0.93
[LSD.sub.0.05]             0.06   0.05   0.07

IR1 = irrigation every 5 days IR2 = irrigation every
10 days IR3 = irrigation every 15 days.

C0 = zero compost C1 = 0.25 kg/pot C2 = 0.5kg/pot.

Y0 = zero yeast Y1 = 4g/L yeast Y2 = 8g/L yeast.

Table 5: Essential oil composition (%) of Rosmarinus
officinalis plants grown under different irrigation
intervals, compost and bio fertilizer treatments
during 2nd cut of the 2nd season.

Treatments               IRC0Y0   IRC0Y0   IR3C0Y0

[alpha]-Pinene           5.0      5.2      5.4
Camphene                 3.2      3.0      2.8
[beta]-Pinene            5.5      5.0      5.9
Myrcene                  1.9      2.4      1.5
[beta]-Phellandrene      trace    trace    trace
p-Cymene                 2.4      2.0      2.2
1,8-Cineol               52.0     52.6     52.9
[gamma]-Terpinene        0.5      0.5      1.0
Sabinene hydrate         0.3      0.3      0.8
Terpinolene              0.2      0.2      0.2
Linalool                 1.1      1.1      1.1
Camphor                  12.1     12.3     12.6
Borneol                  3.9      3.7      3.4
Terpinene-4-ol           0.7      0.7      0.7
[alpha]-Terpineol        2.1      2.1      2.1
Bornyl acetate           1.1      1.1      1.1
Thymol                   trace    trace    trace
Carvacrol                trace    trace    trace
Eugenol                  trace    trace    trace
[alpha]-Copaene          0.2      0.2      0.2
[beta]-Caryophyllene     4.2      4.1      4.0
[alpha]-Humulene         0.4      0.5      0.6
Germacrene D             0.3      0.3      0.3
[alpha]-Muurolene        0.2      0.2      0.2
[alpha]-Farnesene        0.1      0.1      0.1
[gamma]-Cadinene         0.4      0.3      0.4
Calamenene               trace    trace    trace
[delta]-Cadinene         0.3      0.4      0.3
Calacorene               0.2      0.2      0.2
[alpha]-Cadinene         trace    trace    trace
Caryophyllene oxide I    0.1      0.1      0.1
Caryophyllene oxide II   0.1      0.1      0.1
Humuladienol             trace    trace    trace
Humulene oxide           trace    trace    trace
Palmitic acid            0.1      0.1      0.1
Miristic acid            trace    trace    trace

Treatments               IR1C2Y2   IR2C2Y2   IR3C2Y2

[alpha]-Pinene           5.2       5.4       5.5
Camphene                 3.5       3.0       3.0
[beta]-Pinene            5.7       5.0       6.0
Myrcene                  2.1       2.5       1.7
[beta]-Phellandrene      trace     trace     trace
p-Cymene                 2.6       2.2       2.4
1,8-Cineol               52.4      52.7      53.0
[gamma]-Terpinene        0.6       0.5       0.5
Sabinene hydrate         0.3       0.3       0.9
Terpinolene              0.2       0.2       0.2
Linalool                 1.1       1.1       1.1
Camphor                  12.3      12.8      13.0
Borneol                  3.4       3.2       3.0
Terpinene-4-ol           0.7       0.7       0.7
[alpha]-Terpineol        2.7       2.1       2.1
Bornyl acetate           1.1       1.1       1.1
Thymol                   trace     trace     trace
Carvacrol                trace     trace     trace
Eugenol                  trace     trace     trace
[alpha]-Copaene          0.2       0.2       0.2
[beta]-Caryophyllene     4.5       4.3       4.2
[alpha]-Humulene         0.5       0.6       0.8
Germacrene D             0.3       0.3       0.3
[alpha]-Muurolene        0.2       0.2       0.2
[alpha]-Farnesene        0.1       0.1       0.1
[gamma]-Cadinene         0.4       0.4       0.4
Calamenene               trace     trace     trace
[delta]-Cadinene         0.3       0.3       0.3
Calacorene               0.2       0.2       0.2
[alpha]-Cadinene         trace     trace     trace
Caryophyllene oxide I    0.1       0.1       0.1
Caryophyllene oxide II   0.1       0.1       0.1
Humuladienol             trace     trace     trace
Humulene oxide           trace     trace     trace
Palmitic acid            0.1       0.1       0.1
Miristic acid            trace     trace     trace

IR1 = irrigation every 5 days IR2 = irrigation every 10
days IR3 = irrigation every 15 days.

C0 = zero compost C1 = 0.25 kg/pot C2 = 0.5kg/pot.

Y0 = zero yeast Y1 = 4g/L yeast Y2 = 8g/L yeast. Trace < 0.05%.
COPYRIGHT 2015 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Khalil, Soha E.; Khalil, Ashraf M.
Publication:American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
Article Type:Report
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:13562
Previous Article:Indigenous medicinal practices: medicinal plants of Chakma tribal medicinal practitioners in Rangamati district.
Next Article:Preparation of quaternized chitosan nanoparticle and its antimicrobial activity on polyester, cotton and polyester/cotton blend treated fabrics.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters