Research on the impact of biofertilizers on the productivity of an intensive apple orchard

Received: 31-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. mp-25-160594; Accepted: 02-Mar-2025, Pre QC No. mp-25-160594 (PQ); Editor assigned: 03-Feb-2025, Pre QC No. mp-25-160594 (PQ); Reviewed: 18-Feb-2025, QC No. mp-25-160594 (Q); Revised: 24-Feb-2025, Manuscript No. mp-25-160594 (R); Published: 08-Mar-2025, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17906132

Introduction

The practical interest in biological preparations is due to the fact that they allow for the production of organic fruit products, and are also safe for warm-blooded animals, humans, and pollinating insects. They also exhibit high selectivity, do not pollute the environment, and do not lead to soil degradation (Bulgakov, et al. 2023, Farionik, et al. 2023, Okrushko, et al. 2025).

Today, biological preparations are also used to enrich the rhizosphere of plants with beneficial microorganisms, which are responsible for the effective nutrition of fruit crops with nutrients from the soil. Plant nutrition depends on which type of microorganisms dominates in the rhizosphere (Hnatiuk, et al. 2019, Ivanyshyn, et al. 2021, Pantsyreva, 2021).

Populating the root zone, microorganisms convert unavailable forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the soil into forms available to the plant, inhibit the development and destroy pathogenic microflora-pathogens of crop diseases, and produce phytohormones that directly affect plant growth and development, their resistance to external stresses, and therefore yield (Titarenko, et al. 2022).

Biological preparations are capable of increasing the yield and quality and environmental safety of fruits by 15%-25%, have a positive effect on the preservation of soil fertility, form biologically active compounds-phytobiotics, phytohormones, amino acids and vitamins (Kaletnik and Lutkovska, 2020).

It has been established that the highest efficiency of biological preparations is achieved when growing crops on mineral agro-backgrounds that do not exceed physiologically and agronomically appropriate indicators. At the same time, the coefficients of plant absorption of nutrients from fertilizers increase significantly, which has a positive effect on yield (Puyu, et al. 2021, Hnatiuk, et al. 2019, Mazur, et al. 2025).

Materials and Methods

Field observations were conducted in 2022-2024 in the intensive semi-dwarf apple orchard of Vinnytsia National Agrarian University. The apple variety is Jonathan. The soil in the orchard is gray podzolized medium loam. The influence of traditional mineral fertilizers and biofertilizers of the Bionorma series, produced by the Bionorma company, on the indicators of preservation, growth, individual productivity and yield of apple fruits was studied. Among the mineral fertilizers, ammonium nitrate was applied at a rate of 60 kg/ha of mineral nitrogen, double superphosphate at a rate of 60 kg/ha of mineral phosphorus and nitroammofosk at a rate of 60 kg/ha of mineral nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Mineral fertilizers were applied by scattering in the tree trunk circles in the spring with their incorporation into the soil. Biofertilizers of the Bionorma series included: Bionorma nitrogen at a rate of 10 l/ha, Bionorma phosphorus at a rate of 10 l/ha, Bionorma garden at a rate of 5 l/ha. Biofertilizers were applied by spraying the soil around the trunk circles with a working fluid consumption of 200 l/ha with subsequent incorporation into the soil. The preparations were applied in the spring.

Results and Discussion

One of the important factors in the formation and preservation of apple fruit yield is the total number of fruits set on one tree and the intensity of their fall (Tokarchuk, et al. 2020, Vdovenko, et al. 2018). We found the largest number of apple fruits set on one tree when fertilized with Bionorma nitrogen-330 pieces. This was 23.9% more than in the control variant without fertilizer, where 251 fruits were set. Also, many fruits were formed on the variant with complex mineral fertilizer N₆₀P₆₀K₆₀-317 fruits, which was 20.8% more than in the control. The smallest number of fruits was formed on the variants with the application of biological fertilizer Bionorma phosphorus and Bionorma garden-191 fruits each, which was 23.9% less than in the control. Also, fewer fruits were set than in the control on the variants of fertilization with mineral nitrogen fertilizer N₆₀-215 fruits and mineral phosphorus fertilizer P₆₀-207 fruits (Tab. 1).

Table 1. Intensity of premature apple fruit drop depending on fertilization.

However, the total number of fruits laid by a tree on one tree does not determine the final yield, since fruit trees are characterized by the shedding of unformed fruits. This process is due to the tree shedding an excess amount of fruits due to a lack of moisture, nutrients and other unfavorable vegetation conditions. The tree remains with as many fruits as it can provide in sufficient quantity for their full ripening. June, July and August fruit shedding are distinguished.

The greatest fruit shedding in June was detected in the control variant without fertilizer application-22.6% of the total number of laid fruits. The least fruit fell on the variants with the application of biofertilizer Bionorm nitrogen-12.6% and mineral phosphorus P₆₀-12.9% of the total number of laid fruits. Among the variants with fertilizer application, the greatest number of fruit fell in June, where Bionorm phosphorus fertilizer was applied-17.5%.

An important factor influencing the formation of apple fruit productivity is the intensity of their growth, which is manifested in the increase in the size of apples. We studied the dynamics of changes in the diameter of apple fruits during the period from June to September, as an indicator of the formation of their productivity. In June, the largest diameter of apple fruits was observed in the variant of mineral nitrogen application N60-5 cm, and the smallest-in the variant of biofertilizer application Bionorma Phosphorus and in the control without fertilizer application-3 cm. In the remaining variants, the diameter of the fruits was about 4 cm (Tab. 2).

Table 2. Dynamics of apple fruit diameter growth depending on fertilization.

In July, the largest diameter of apple fruits was maintained in the variant of applying mineral nitrogen N60-5.5 cm, and the smallest-in the control variant without fertilizer-4.2 cm and with the application of complex mineral fertilizer N₆₀Р₆₀К₆₀-4.3 cm. In August, the largest diameter of apples was observed in the variants of applying mineral phosphorus P₆₀ and biofertilizer Bionorma Sad-6.0 cm each. The smallest diameter of apples was observed in the variant of applying complex mineral fertilizer N₆₀P₆₀K₆₀ and biofertilizer Bionorma Azot-5.0 cm each.

The indicators of individual fruit productivity are their number on the tree and the average weight of one fruit. The largest number of fruits on one tree was established on the variant of applying the biofertilizer Bionorma nitrogen-283 fruits, which was 95 apple fruits more than on the control variant, where there were 188 fruits. Also, many apple fruits were found on the variant of applying the complex mineral fertilizer N₆₀P₆₀K₆₀-267 pieces.

Conclusion

So, when fertilizing an intensive apple orchard with classic mineral fertilizers and biofertilizers of the Bionorm series, the highest fruit yield is ensured by applying a complex mineral fertilizer at the rate of N₆₀P₆₀K₆₀-39.617 t/ha. When replacing mineral fertilizers with the biological fertilizer Bionorm nitrogen, the fruit yield decreases by 8.0% and amounts to 36.451 t/ha. This biological fertilizer provides apple yield 1.8% higher than the application of mineral nitrogen N₆₀ and 26.1% higher than the application of mineral phosphorus P₆₀.

References

References

1. Bulgakov V, Rucins A, Holovach I, Adamchuk O, Aboltins A, Zabolotnyi H, Kolomyets L, Polishchuk S. (2023). Computer investigation of mineral fertiliser particle movement along centrifugal spreader disc inclined under angle to horizontal plane. Eng Rural Dev. 22:506-516.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Farionik TV, Yaremchuk OS, Razanova OP, Ohorodnichuk GM, Holubenko TL, Glavatchuk VA. (2023). Effects of mineral supplementation on qualitative beef parameters. Regul Mech Biosyst. 14:64-69.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Hnatiuk TT, Zhitkevich NV, Petrychenko VF, Kalinichenko AV, Patyka VP. (2019). Soybean diseases caused by genus Pseudomonas phytopathenes bacteria. Mikrobiol Z. 81:68-83.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Ivanyshyn O, Khomina V, Pantsyreva H. (2021). Influence of fertilization on the formation of grain productivity in different-maturing maize hybrids. Ukr J Ecol. 11:262-269.

   [Google Scholar]

5. Kaletnik G, Lutkovska S. (2020). Strategic priorities of the system modernization environmental safety under sustainable development. J Environ Manag Tour. 11:1124-1131.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

6. Pantsyreva H. (2021). Morphological and ecological-biological evaluation of the decorative species of the genus Lupinus L. Ukr J Ecol. 9:74-77.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Puyu V, Bakhmat M, Pantsyreva H, Khmelianchyshyn Y, Stepanchenko V, Bakhmat O. (2021). Social-and-ecological aspects of forage production reform in Ukraine in the early 21st century. Eur J Sustain Dev. 10:221-228.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

8. Titarenko O, Ibatullin I, Nedashkivskyi V, Nedashkivska N, Stepanchenko V. (2022). Accumulation of Zn and Cu by cereal and leguminous vegetation under agrochemical improvement of natural fodder lands of the right bank forest steppe of Ukraine. Int J Ecosyst Ecol Sci. 12:245-250.

   [Google Scholar]

9. Tokarchuk DM, Pryshliak NV, Tokarchuk OA, Mazur KV. (2020). Technical and economic aspects of biogas production at a small agricultural enterprise with modeling of the optimal distribution of energy resources for profits. INMATEH-Agric Eng. 61:339-349.

   [Google Scholar]

10. Vdovenko S, Pantsyreva G, Palamarchuk I, Lytvyniuk H. (2018). Symbiotic potential of snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) depending on biological products in agrocoenosis of the right bank forest-steppe of Ukraine. Ukr J Ecol. 8:270-274.

    [Google Scholar]

11. Mazur O, Voloshyna O, Mazur O, Zayka K, Dovgopolyi V, Yakovets V. (2025). The effect of seed inoculation and fertilization on the nitrogen fixing capacity of soybean varieties. EEET. 26:82-95.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

12. Okrushko SE, Verheles PN, Aralova TS. (2025). Effect of Ascochyta rabiei on symbiotic efficiency and productivity of Cicer arietinum. Regul Mech Biosyst. 16:e25001.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]