Response of Linseed (Linum Usitatissimum L.) Varieties To Organic

Response of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.
) Varieties to Organic
Fertilizers and Biostimulant under Water Stress
By
Asif Ullah Khan

PhD Botany
Registration No: 2007-UB-GCB-9271
Department of Botany
Faculty of Biological Sciences
University of Science and Technology Bannu,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
(Session: 2017-2020)
Response of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) Varieties to Organic
Fertilizers and Biostimulant under Water Stress
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the University of Science and Technology Bannu, in the partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Botany
By
Asif Ullah Khan

PhD Botany
Registration No: 2007-UB-GCB-9271
Department of Botany
Faculty of Biological Sciences
University of Science and Technology Bannu,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
(Session: 2017-2020)
TO
My Parents, Wife, Teachers
and
My Dear Daughter Ayesha Gul

CONTENTS
S/No. TITLE Page No.
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
ABSTRACT ii-iv
1 INTRODUCTION 1-13
1.1 Climate change 1
1.1.1 Climate change and its status in Pakistan 1
1.2 Abiotic stress 2
1.2.1 Water stress and its effects on plants 2
1.2.2 Water stress and its effect on morphology of plants 2
1.2.3 Water stress and its effect on physiology of plants 2
1.2.4 Effect of water stress on plant secondary metabolites 4
1.3 Mitigation of abiotic stresses 5
1.4 Organic fertilizers 5
1.4.1 Chicken manure 7
1.4.2 Eruca sativa Mill 8
1.4.3 Moringa oleifera Lam 8
1.5 Biostimulants 9
1.6 Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) 10
1.6.1 Importance of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) 10
1.6.2 Human consumption 10
1.6.3 Nutritional value 11
1.6.4 Medicinal value 11
1.6.5 Used seedcake as Fertilizer 11
1.6.6 Linseed oil 11
1.6.7 Stem of linseed 11
1.6.8 As fodder 12
1.7 Aims and objective 13
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14-23

2.1 Effect of water stress on plant 14
2.2 Effect of organic fertilizer on soil fertility and health of plants 16
2.3 Effect of Biostimulant/ bioregulators on growth and yield of plants 20
Experiment No.1
3. Preparation of Organic Fertilizers and its Effects on Linseed Varieties
3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 24-34
3.1.1 Preparation of organic fertilizers 24
3.1.2 Physico-chemical analysis of organic fertilizers 25
3.1.2.1 Determination of pH and EC of organic fertilizer 25
3.1.2.2 Determination of organic matter content of organic fertilizers 25
3.1.2.3 Determination of phosphorus content of organic fertilizers 25
3.1.2.4 Determination of total Nitrogen of organic fertilizers 26
3.1.2.5 Determination of K, Zn and Fe of organic fertilizers 26
3.1.3 Physico-chemical analysis of soil 26
3.1.3.1 Determination of Soil texture 26
3.1.3.2 Determination of pH of soil 26
3.1.3.3 Determination of EC of soil 26
3.1.3.4 Determination of carbonates and bicarbonates in soil 27
3.1.3.5 Determination of Calcium and Magnesium in soil 27
3.1.3.6 Determination of organic matter of soil 27
3.1.3.7 Determination of micronutrients in soil 27
3.1.3.8 Determination of soil phosphorus 28
3.1.3.9 Determination of soil Nitrogen 28
3.1.4 Assessment of effects of organic fertilizers on growth of linseed 28
3.1.4.1 Leaf relative water content 31
3.1.4.2 Leaf Chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids determination 31
3.1.4.3 Total phenolics content analysis of leaf and root 31
3.1.4.4 Determination of leaf and root antioxidants content 31
3.1.4.5 Leaf total soluble sugars content determination 32
3.1.4.6 Leaf Electrolytic leakage determination 32
3.1.4.7 Leaf indole acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellic acid (GA) determination 32
3.1.4.8 Yield and yield related parameters 33
3.1.4.9 Fiber quality 34
3.1.4.10 Seed oil content 34
3.1.5 Statistical analysis 34
3.2 RESULTS 35-100

3.2.1 Compositional analyses of organic fertilizers 35
3.2.1.1 NPK content of organic fertilizers 35
3.2.1.2 Zn and Fe content of organic fertilizers 35
3.2.1.3 Organic matter content of organic fertilizers 35
3.2.1.4 pH and EC values of organic fertilizers 35
3.2.2 Effects of organic fertilizers on soil fertility status 37
3.2.2.1 Soil pH and EC 37
3.2.2.2 Soil total nitrogen, available phosphorous and potassium content 37
3.2.2.3 Soil Fe and Zn content 37
3.2.2.4 Soil organic matter 38
3.2.3 Effect of organic fertilizers on growth, seed yield and fiber quality of linseed 40
3.2.3.1 Plant height of linseed 40
3.2.3.2 Number of tillers per plant of linseed 40
3.2.3.3 Shoot fresh weight of linseed 45
3.2.3.4 Shoot dry weight of linseed 45
3.2.3.5 Root fresh weight of linseed 46
3.2.3.6 Root dry weight of linseed 47
3.2.3.7 Leaf relative water content of linseed 53
3.2.3.8 Leaf chlorophyll a content of linseed 53
3.2.3.9 Leaf chlorophyll b content of linseed 54
3.2.3.10 Leaf carotenoids content of linseed 55
3.2.3.11 Leaf electrolytic leakage of linseed 61
3.2.3.12 Leaf total soluble sugars of linseed 61
3.2.3.13 Leaf indole acetic acid content of linseed 66
3.2.3.14 Leaf gibberellic acid content of linseed 66
3.2.3.15 Leaf phenolics content of linseed 71
3.2.3.16 Root phenolics of linseed 71
3.2.3.17 Leaf antioxidants content of linseed 72
3.2.3.18 Root antioxidants content of linseed 73
3.2.3.19 Number of capsule per plant 79
3.2.3.20 Total number of seeds per capsule 79
3.2.3.21 Seed length of linseed 80
3.2.3.22 Seed width of linseed 81
3.2.3.23 The 1000 seed weight of linseed 87
3.2.3.24 Total seed yield of linseed 87
3.2.3.25 Seed oil content of linseed 88
3.2.3.26 Straw yield of linseed 93
3.2.3.27 Fiber length of linseed 93
3.2.3.28 Fiber weight per plant of linseed 94
3.2.3.29 Pearson correlation for growth and yield parameters of linseed 99
3.2.4 DISCUSSION 101-107

3.2.5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 108
4. Experiment No.2
The Effect of Moringa oleifera Lam. Leaf Aqueous Extract on Seed
Yield and Fiber Quality of Linseed under Water Stress
4.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 109-112
4.1.1 Collection of Moringa oleifera leaves 109
4.1.2 Preparation of aqueous leaf extract of Moringa oleifera 109
4.1.3 Determination of Phenolics content of MLAE 109
4.1.4 Determination of mineral nutrients content of MLAE 109
4.1.5 Bioassay 110
4.1.6 Leaf relative water content 111
4.1.7 Leaf photosynthetic pigments 111
4.1.8 Leaf phytohormones 111
4.1.9 Leaf and root phenolics 111
4.1.10 Leaf and root antioxidants 111
4.1.11 Leaf electrolytic leakage 111
4.1.12 Leaf total soluble sugar contents 112
4.1.13 Seed oil content 112
4.1.14 Yield parameters and fiber quality 112
4.1.15 Statistical analysis 112
4.2 RESULTS 113-160

4.2.1 Characterization of MLAE 113
4.2.2 Plant height of linseed 114
4.2.3 Number of tillers per plant of linseed 114
4.2.4 Shoot fresh weight of linseed 117
4.2.5 Shoot dry weight of linseed 117
4.2.6 Root fresh weight of linseed 117
4.2.7 Root dry weight of linseed 118
4.2.8 Leaf relative water content of linseed 123
4.2.9 Leaf chlorophyll a of linseed 123
4.2.10 Leaf chlorophyll b of linseed 123
4.2.11 Leaf carotenoids content of linseed 124
4.2.12 Leaf electrolytic leakage of linseed 129
4.2.13 Leaf total soluble sugars of linseed 129
4.2.14 Leaf indole acetic acid of linseed 132
4.2.15 Leaf gibberellic acid of linseed 132
4.2.16 Leaf phenolics of linseed 135
4.2.17 Root phenolics of linseed 135
4.2.18 Leaf antioxidant of linseed 138
4.2.19 Root antioxidant of linseed 138
4.2.20 Number of capsule per plant of linseed 141
4.2.21 Capsule weight of linseed 141
4.2.22 Total number of seed per capsule of linseed 141
4.2.23 Seed length of linseed 142
4.2.24 Seed width of linseed 142
4.2.25 Thousand seed weight of linseed 148
4.2.26 Seed oil content of linseed 148
4.2.27 Total seed yield of linseed 148
4.2.28 Straw yield of linseed 153
4.2.29 Fiber length of linseed 153
4.2.30 Fiber weight of linseed 153
4.2.31 Pearson correlation of growth and yield parameters 158
4.3 DISCUSSION 161-165
4.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 166
5 REFERENCES 167-197
APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
S/No. Legend Page No.
Figure 1.1 Water stress effects on plants 3
Figure 1.2 Impact of organic fertilizers on soil fertility and growth of plants 7
Figure 2.1. Meteorological data of two years 29
Figure 4.1a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on plant height
of linseed under water deficit stress 42
Figure 4.1b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on plant height of linseed 42
Figure 4.2a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on number of
tillers per plant of linseed under water deficit stress 43
Figure 4.2b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on number of tillers
per plant of linseed 43
Figure 4.3a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on shoot
fresh weight of linseed 48
Figure 4.3b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on shoot fresh
weight of linseed 48
Figure 4.4a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers shoot dry
weight of linseed under water deficit stress 49
Figure 4.4b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on shoot dry
weight of linseed 49
Figure 4.5a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root fresh
Figure 4.5b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root fresh weight
of linseed 50
Figure 4.6a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root dry
Figure 4.6b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root dry weight of
linseed 51
Figure 4.7a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf relative
water content of linseed under water deficit stress 56
Figure 4.7b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf relative water
content of linseed 56
Figure 4.8a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf
chlorophyll a of linseed under water deficit stress 57
Figure 4.8b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on chlorophyll a of
linseed 57
chlorophyll b of linseed under water deficit stress 58
Figure 4.9b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on chlorophyll b of
linseed 58
carotenoids of linseed under water deficit stress 59
Figure 4.10b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf carotenoids content
of linseed 59
Figure 4.11a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf electrolytic
leakage of linseed under water deficit stress 63
Figure 4.11b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf electrolytic leakage
of linseed 63
Figure 4.12a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf total
soluble sugars of linseed under water deficit stress 64
Figure 4.12b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf total soluble sugars
of linseed 64
Figure 4.13a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on indole acetic
acid of linseed under water deficit stress 68
Figure 4.13b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on indole acetic
acid of linseed 68
Figure 4.14a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on gibberellic
acid of linseed under water deficit stress 69
Figure 4.14b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on gibberellic acid of
linseed 69
Figure 4.15a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf phenolics
Figure 4.15b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf phenolics content
of linseed 74
Figure 4.16a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root phenolics
Figure 4.16b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root phenolics of
linseed 75
antioxidant of linseed under water deficit stress 76
Figure 4.17b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf antioxidant of
linseed 76
Figure 4.18a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root
antioxidant of linseed under water deficit stress 77
Figure 4.18b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root antioxidant
of linseed 77
Figure 4.19a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on number
of capsule per plant of linseed under water deficit stress 82
Figure 4.19b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on number of capsule
per plant of linseed 82
Figure 4.20a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on total number
of seed per capsule per plant of linseed under water 83
Figure 4.20b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on total numbers of seeds
per capsule of linseed 83
Figure 4.21a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on seed length
Figure 4.21b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on seed length of linseed 84
Figure 4.22a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on seed width
Figure 4.22b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on seed width of linseed 85
Figure 4.23a. Treatments means sharing effect of organic fertilizers on thousand
seed weight of linseed under water deficit stress 89
Figure 4.23b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on thousand seed weight
of linseed 89
Figure 4.24a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on total seed
yield of linseed under water deficit stress 90
Figure 4.24b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on total seed yield
of linseed 90
Figure 4.25a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers seed oil content
Figure 4.25b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on seed oil content
of linseed 91
Figure 4.26a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on straw yield
Figure 4.26b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on straw yield of linseed 95
Figure 4.27a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers fiber length
Figure 4.27b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on fiber length of linseed 96
Figure 4.28a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers fiber weight of
linseed under water deficit stress 97
Figure 4.28b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on fiber weight per plant
of linseed 97
Experiment No.2
Figure 4.1. Treatments means for MLAE effect on plant height of linseed
Varieties under water stress 115
Figure 4.2. Treatments means for MLAE effect on number of tillers per plant of
linseed varieties under water stress 116
Figure 4.3. Treatments means for MLAE effect on shoot fresh weight of linseed
varieties under water stress 119
Figure 4.4. Treatments means for MLAE effect on shoot dry weight of linseed
Figure 4.5. Treatments means for MLAE effect on root fresh weight of linseed
Figure 4.6. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on root dry weight of linseed
Figure 4.7. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf relative water content
of linseed varieties under water stress 125
Figure 4.8. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on chlorophyll a of linseed
Figure 4.9. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on chlorophyll b of linseed
Figure 4.10. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on leaf carotenoid content of
Figure 4.11. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on leaf electrolyte leakage of
Figure 4.12. Treatments means effect of MLAE on leaf total soluble sugar of
Figure 4.13. Treatments means effect of MLAE on leaf indole acetic acid of
Figure 4.14. Treatments means effect of MLAE on leaf gibberellic acid of
Figure 4.15. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on leaf phenolics of linseed
Figure 4.16. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on root phenolics of linseed
Figure 4.17. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on leaf antioxidant of linseed
Figure 4.18. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on root antioxidant of
Figure 4.19. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on number of capsules per plant
Figure 4.20. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on capsules weight of linseed
Figure 4.21. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on total number of seeds per
capsule of linseed varieties under water stress 145
Figure 4.22. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on seed length of linseed
Figure 4.23. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on seed width of
Figure 4.24. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on 1000 seed weight
Figure 4.25. Treatments Means effect of MLAE on seed oil content of linseed
Figure 4.26. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on total seed yield of
Figure 4.27. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on straw yield of linseed
Figure 4.28. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on fiber length of linseed
Figure 4.29. Treatments Means sharing effect of MLAE on fiber weight of linseed
S/No. List of Tables Page No.
Caption
EXPERIMENT No.1
Table 2.1. Physical and chemical properties of field soil 29
Table 4.1. Characterization of organic fertilizers 36
Table 4.2. Effect of organic fertilizers on soil fertility status 39
Table 4.3. Varieties means for plant height and number of tillers per plant 44
Table 4.4. Varieties means for shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root fresh
weight and root dry weight 52
Table 4.5. Varieties means for leaf chlorophyll a, b, leaf carotenoids and
leaf relative water content (RWC) 60
Table 4.6. Varieties means for leaf electrolytic leakage and leaf total soluble
sugars content 65
Table 4.7. Varieties means for Leaf indole acetic acid and Leaf gibberellic acid 70
Table 4.8. Varieties means for leaf and root phenolics and leaf and root antioxidant 78
Table 4.9. Varieties means for number of capsule per plant, total number of seed
per capsule, seed length and seed width 86
Table 4.10. Varieties means for thousand seed weight, Seed yield and seed oil content 92
Table 4.11. Varieties means for Straw yield, Fiber length and Fiber weight 98
Table 4.12. Pearson correlation for growth and yield parameters of linseed 100
Experiment No. 2
Table 2.2. Physical and chemical properties of field soil 111

Table 4.1. Phenolics and minerals content of MLAE 113
Table 4.2. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on plant
height 115
Table 4.3. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on number
of tillers per plant 116
Table 4.4. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on shoot
fresh weight 119
dry weight 120
Table 4.6. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on root
fresh weight 121
dry weight 122
Table 4.8. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on leaf
relative water content 125
Table 4.9. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on
chlorophyll a content 126
chlorophyll b content 127
carotenoids content 128
electrolyte leakage 130
total soluble sugar 131
indole acetic acid 133
gibberellic acid 134
phenolics 136
phenolics 137
antioxidant 139
antioxidant 140
of capsule per plant 143
Table 4.21. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on capsule
weight 144
Table 4.22. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on total
number of seed per Capsule 145
Table 4.23. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on seed
length 146
width 147
thousand seed weight 150
oil content 151
seed yield 152
Table 4.28. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on straw
yield 155
Table 4.29. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on fiber
length 156
weight per plant 157
Table 4.31. Pearson correlation of growth and yield parameters of
Biostimulant 159-160
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
OF1 Organic Fertilizers 1
P Phosphorus
N Nitrogen
K Potassium
Zn Zinc
Fe Iron
ANOVA analysis of varience
pH Power of Hydrogen Ions
LSD Least Significance Difference
EC Electrical Conductivity
KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
OD Optical Density
OM Organic matter
mm Millimeter
cm Centimeter
g Gram
IAA Indole acetic acid
GA Gibberellic acid
kg Kilogram
DPPH 2,2-diphenyl-1picrylhydrazyl
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
ug/g Microgram/gram
kg/hectare Kilogram per Hectare
PH Plant height
OXL Leaf antioxidant
CHA Leaf chlorophyll a
CHB Leaf chlorophyll b
EL Leaf electrolytic leakage
FL Fiber length
Carot Leaf carotenoids
FW Fiber weight,
NT Number of tillers
SY Seed yield
STY Straw yield
RPH Root phenolics
LPH Leaf phenolics
MLAE Moringa leaf aqueous extract
uS/cm Microsiemens per centimeters
mg/kg milligram per kilogram
meq/L Milli equivalents per liter

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have no words to express my deepest sense of gratitude and numerous thanks to Almighty Allah,
who enabled me to complete this study and with innumerable blessing for the Holy Prophet Peace Be Upon
Him who is forever a torch of guidance and knowledge for the whole humanity.
Recognition and very special thanks are due to Dr. Faizan Ullah Chairman Department of
Botany, University of Science and Technology Bannu who provided me with all the lab facilities and space
for my research work. I express very special thanks to my supervisor, Dr .Faizan Ullah for his affection,
consistent encouragement, sympathetic attitude and incentive guidance throughout my research work
whose guidance, concrete suggestion and incisive criticism made this work possible. I sincerely thanks for
his understanding and patience. Besides other, his valuable suggestions for thesis write-up will serve as
beacon of light through the course of my life.
I hereby acknowledge all the support and guidance of my co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Sultan Mehmood
in completion of this research work.
I want to express my cordial thanks to my teachers, friends, lab fellows and class fellows, Dr.
Shah Fahad, Dr.Abid ,Dr. Naeem Khan , Dr. Arshad Ullah , Dr. Tahir Iqbal, Dr. Mudassir Aslam, Sifat
Ullah Khan, Bashir Ahmad, Abid Ullah, Muhammad Aamir Khan, Muhammad Fawad Khan,
Muhammed Irshad, Adnan Khattak , Naveed Qureshi, Muhammad Ali Khan, , Zia Ud Din, Neelum PhD
Scholar, whom I will always remember for their help, company and cooperation during critical moments.
No acknowledgement could ever adequately express my feelings to my affectionate and adorable
family without whom I feel myself incomplete. Finally, I am thankful to my loving parents, affectionate
brothers Waqas khan, Inam Ullah Khan and my Cousin Samad Khan, Irfan Khan Words are meaningless
to what they have given me. It is, I believe their sincere encouragements, which were a constant source of
strength and inspiration to me that despite, many constraints, I was able to complete my work.
Finally as customary the errors that remain are mine alone.
ASIF ULLAH KHAN
i
ABSTRACT
Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) is an important industrial crop cultivated for its edible
seeds and fiber linen. However, soil infertility and water stress caused by low soil moisture
availability adversely affect yield and quality of linseed crop. Organic fertilizers have
beneficial effects on soil properties and quality of crops. Moreover, Moringa oleifera
(Drumstick tree) leaf extract has been reported for positive effects on the establishment of
crops. Therefore, separate field experiments were conducted during linseed growing
seasons (October to April) of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 to determine effects of (a) organic
fertilizers and (b) Moringa oleifera leaves aqueous extract (MLAE) on growth, yield and
fiber quality of linseed under imposed water stress.
Two field experiments were conducted during 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 to determine
the effect of organic fertilizers on soil fertility, yield and fiber quality of linseed varieties
Roshni, BL1 and Chandni under low soil moisture conditions (water stress). Organic
fertilizers were prepared from seed cake of Eruca sativa (E. sativa), leaves of Moringa
oleifera (M. oleifera) and chicken manure in various combinations by composting method.
The various formulations of organic fertilizers included OF1 (1 kg seed cake of E. sativa),
OF2 (1 kg seed cake of E. sativa +1 kg chicken manure), OF3 (1 kg seed cake of E. sativa
+ 0.5 kg chicken manure + 0.25 kg M. oliefera leaves) and OF4 (1 kg seed cake of E. sativa
+ 0.25 kg chicken manure + 0.5 kg M. oliefera leaves). Compositional analysis of organic
fertilizers indicated that OF3 and OF4 had higher and potentially quantities of NPK and
organic matter for improving soil fertility and linseed growth. Growth response of linseed
varieties to organic fertilizers was evaluated under water stress (40% field capacity of soil)
at tillering stage for one month. The organic fertilizers were applied at 3000 kg /ha two
weeks before sowing of seeds in the field. Moreover, recommended doses of nitrogen (80
kg/ha), phosphorus (40 kg/ha) and potassium (30 kg/ha) were applied through the broadcast
method manually in the field before sowing of seeds. The organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4
significantly improved soil total N, available P, K, Zn, Fe and organic matter contents.
Water stress had significantly adverse effects on plant height, production of tillers per plant,
leaf relative water content (LRWC), leaf photosynthetic pigments chlorophyll a, b and
carotenoids, leaf indole acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellic acid (GA) content, number of
ii
capsules per plant, thousand seed weight, total seed yield, straw yield, seed oil content,
fiber length and fiber weight of linseed varieties. However, the application of OF3 and OF4
significantly enhanced plant height, tillers production, LRWC, seed yield, straw yield, fiber
length and fiber weight under water deficit stress. Water stress also resulted in a significant
increase in the content of phenolics and soluble sugars content of the leaves. For each
measured quality parameter of linseed varieties, organic fertilizer treatments resulted in
higher values than untreated and irrigated control. We concluded that organic fertilizers
particularly OF3 and OF4 significantly improved soil fertility and minimized negative
effect of water stress on plant height, tillers production, LRWC, leaf IAA and GA contents,
seed yield, straw yield, seed oil content, fiber length and fiber weight of linseed varieties.
Of the three tested linseed varieties Roshni performed better under water stress conditions
than Chandni and BL1 and is therefore recommended for cultivation in arid and semi-arid
regions.
Moringa oleifera Lam. leaf extract contains active ingredients with stimulatory effects on
natural processes of plants like uptake of nutrients, photosynthesis, biomass production and
flowering. Therefore, we conducted field experiments to determine the effects of Moringa
oleifera leaf aqueous extract (MLAE) on growth and fiber quality of three linseed varieties
viz. Roshni, BL1, Chandni under water stress for two years (2018–2019 and 2019–2020).
The 1 kg M.oleifera leaf powder (particle size 1-2 cm) was extracted in 4 L distilled water
for 48 hrs and filtered by using Whatman No. 1 filter paper. The extract obtained was
designated as 25 % Moringa leaf aqueous extract (MLAE) which was further diluted with
distilled water to make 5% extract. The MLAE was analyzed for the content of soluble
phenolics using Folin-Ciocalteu method and minerals content by using atomic absorption
spectrophotometer. Water stress was imposed during tillering growth phase (60 days after
sowing) keeping 40% soil field capacity. The MLAE (5%) was applied to leaves once
before the start of water deficit stress period and next 15 days after imposition of water
stress. Analysis of MLAE showed the presence of natural phenolics (150 mg GAE/ml
extract) and essential nutrients like Ca, Mg, K, Zn, Mn and Fe. It was found that water
stress significantly decreased plant height, number of tillers per plant, leaf relative water
content (LRWC), chlorophyll and carotenoids content, leaf IAA and GA content, number
of capsule per plant, total seed yield, straw yield, seed oil content, fiber length and fiber
iii
weight of linseed varieties. Higher production of phenolics and soluble sugars occurred in
leaf and root due to water stress. Positive impact of the MLAE was observed on plant
height, tillers production, leaf chlorophyll pigments, phenolics content, sugars content, leaf
IAA and GA content, seed yield, straw yield, seed oil content and fiber quality of linseed
both under non-stress and water stress conditions. Our studies concluded that MLAE can
be a probable approach for maintaining normal growth and fiber quality of linseed plants
under short supply of water. Moringa oleifera is a tree achieving a height of 5-10 m
commonly found in tropical and sub-tropical regions with abundant green foliage.
Producing Biostimulant from leaves of M. oleifera has a very little cost due to its ease of
availability and production technology.
iv
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Climate change
Climate change refers to alteration in the average temperature and weather pattern in a
given region over long period of time (Rodo, 2003). Burning of fossil fuels results in
production and accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These greenhouse
gases trap solar radiations reflecting back from the surface of earth as heat waves and
thus cause global warming or climate change. The most common greenhouse gases
responsible for global warming include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapors
(Wagner et al., 2009). In the intergovernmental panel on climate change comprised of
a group of 1400 scientific experts from all over the world concluded that more than 95
% of human activities the past 50 years have contributed in warming of the planet. They
also concluded that our modern civilization mostly depends on industries. However,
these industries are responsible for increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from
280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 150 years. Major increase in the level of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere has been noted in the last 50 years (Oreskes, 2004).
The consequences of global warming are in the form of floods, drought spells, rise in
the level of oceans, extreme cold or hot weather and storms (Hulme, 2016; Pandey et
al., 2017). Experts are of the opinion that in recent future there will be wide spread of
diseases of both plants and animals, drought spells, salinity problems of land and water
resources which will severely affect biodiversity across the globe (Chakraborty &
Newton, 2011).
1.1.1 Climate change and its status in Pakistan
Pakistan is among the countries which have been highly affected by climate change in
recent years. In major parts of the country, like Sindh and Baluchistan drought spells
are expected to occur in coming years as the intensity and pattern of rain fall has
changed (Chandio, 2012). Moreover, rise in temperature and pollution of fresh water
bodies due to human activities will further increase need for good quality crop irrigation
water (Farooq et al., 2009; Bibi et al., 2016). To adopt sustainable and green
technologies for the protection of crops from shortages water supply (Pervez et al.,
2017).
1
1.2 Abiotic stresses
Abiotic stresses, like those caused by salinity of soil, drought, high and low temperature
and ultra violet rays can severely decrease growth and yield of crop plants (Vaughan et
al., 2018; Zafar et al., 2018). Drought and salinity are commonly occur in arid and
semi-arid regions of the world. These two kinds of abiotic stresses generate of water
stress which severely decreases photosynthetic activity, reduces cell elongation, causes
closing of stomata, decreases ion uptake, and translocation of assimilates (Darko et al.,
2019). Plants face water stress either when the supply of water to their roots becomes
insufficient or when the rate of transpiration is highly increased. Water stress primarily
occurs due to water deficit, i.e. drought or high soil salinity (Lisar et al., 2012).
1.2.1 Water stress and its effects on plants
Water stress is a multidimensional stress and causes change in morphological,

physiological, biochemical and molecular characteristics in plants (Figure 1.1). Many
plant species have adaptive mechanisms to tolerate drought stress, but these
mechanisms vary among different plant species (Salehi-Lisar et al., 2016). The effects
of water stress from morphological to molecular level are evident at all stages of plant
growth (Bolat et al., 2014).
1.2.2 Water stress and its effect on morphology of plants
Water stress inhibits seed germination and seedling growth of many plant species (Kaya
et al., 2006). In rice, drought stress reduced plant height and spike length (Tripathy et
al., 2000). Similarly, drought stress inhibited branching and pod production in soybean
(Frederick et al., 2001); decreased plant height, root length, fresh and dry weight of
shoot and roots of Thymus citriodorus (Babaee et al., 2010); inhibited leaf size and leaf
area of plants (Hussain et al., 2008) and stem length of soybean (Specht et al., 2001).
1.2.3 Water stress and its effect on physiology of plants
Turgor potential, relative water content and transpiration rate were decreased under
drought stress (Egilla et al., 2005). Water stress generally decreases uptake of nutrients
and their endogenous concentration in crop plants. Low absorbtion of inorganic
nutrients results in a reduced transpiration (Garg, 2003; Mc William, 2003). In general,
water stress reduces the availability, uptake, translocation and metabolism of nutrients.
2
Photosynthetic pigments were altered under drought stress (Anjum et al., 2003). These
changes damaged the photosynthetic apparatus (Fu & Huang, 2001) and decreased crop
yield (Monakhova & Chernyadev, 2002). Drought stress causes chlorosis and decreases
carotenoid to chlorophyll ratio (Yang et al., 2002). Drought stress decreased
chlorophyll content upto 13 to 15 % in wheat seedling (Guo et al., 2018). Under osmotic
stress conditions decreased in leaf soluble protein contents and chlorophyll a, b
(Surendar et al., 2013). The generation reactive of oxygen species in cells is also an
important effect of drought that inhibits both photosynthesis and growth (Reddy et al.,
2004; Pervez et al., 2017). Studies have shown that exposure of plants to drought stress
decreases their leaf relative water content, leaf water potential and transpiration rate
(Campos et al., 2011; Surendar et al., 2013).
Figure 1.1: Water stress effects on plants
3
Endogenous ABA is redistributed produced in response to drought stress affecting
many physiological process in plants including stomatal closure (Kuromori et al.,
2010). In response to drought stress ABA stimulates signaling pathway that triggers the
production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which in turn induces increase in cytosolic
Ca2+. The anion and K+ efflux from guard cell results in a reduction of guard cell turgor
which causes stomatal closure (Negi et al., 2008). Higher production of ABA during
water stress causes production of smaller leaves (Osakabe et al., 2014). Cornish &
Zeevaart (1985) investigated redistribution of ABA in leaves of Xanthium strumarium
facing water stress. They found that when Xanthium mature leaves wilt due to water
stress abscisic acid is initially released in to the apoplast just before the level of stress
induced ABA is increased. The increase in the level of apoplastic ABA may be then
responsible for rapid closure of stomata in stress facing leaves.
Drought stress significantly affects quantitative and qualitative properties of proteins.

Drought stress causes a quantitative decrease in leaf protein level. Gene expression is
changed during water stress which affects the synthesis of mRNAs and new protein.
The following proteins were synthesized during drought stress to avoid adverse effects
of drought stress (a) dehydrins, (b) late embryogenesis abundant proteins (LEA). In
addition, protein factors which are necessary for gene expression and signal
transductions like protein kinase are changed. Late embryogenesis abundant proteins
(LEA) and Hsps (Heat – shock proteins) are two major proteins having high efficiency
against different stresses. The proteins have protective function of macromolecules
such as mRNAs, enzyme and also lipid from dehydration (Lisar et al., 2012).
1.2.4 Effect of water stress on plant secondary metabolites
Secondary metabolites are synthesized by plants during environmental stresses. High

production of phenolics acids induced (Attarzadeh et al., 2020). Phenolics are very
important secondary metabolic components of plants produced during secondary
metabolism and can be divided into five subgroups: lignin, tannins, coumarins,
flavonoids and phenolic acid (Boudet, 2007; Kumar et al., 2019). Phenolics effect
different physiological processes in plant including cell division, seed germination and
photosynthetic pigments (Tanase et al., 2019). Phenolics aid tolerance to plants from
various abiotic stresses (Smirnov et al., 2015). Phenolics acids have antioxidative
4
properties providing free radicle and protect the cell membrane from peroxidation
(Schroeter et al., 2002).
1.3 Mitigation of abiotic stresses
The reduction in crop yield due to abiotic stresses such as (Bray et al., 2000), salinity,
extreme temperature, oxidative and drought stress often interrelated which can cause
damage to cellular structure and function (Wang et al., 2003). Certain biochemical and
physiological modifications acclimated plants to these abiotic stresses for better growth
and yield. All crop plants tolerance to abiotic stresses is associated with water status
maintenance, osmotic adjustment, higher nutrient acquisition ability and ion exclusion
(Athar & Ashraf, 2009). Conventional breeding can be used to increase abiotic stress
tolerance in plants (Ashraf et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2003). Moreover, the use of
different agrochemicals like stress hormones, bio fertilizers, phytochemicals and
organic fertilizers can be utilized for improving water stress tolerance of plants (Ullah
et al., 2014).
1.4 Organic fertilizers
Sustainable agricultural production is a major global issue. Application of chemical

fertilizers to get higher crop yields is a popular practice throughout the world. Nitrogen
and phosphorus fertilizers are extensively used by farmers to get higher crop yield.
However, continuous application of chemical fertilizers results in a decline of soil
fertility and yield of crops over time (Mahmood et al., 2017). Frequent use of such
fertilizers has undesirable effects on soil health, such as soil acidification, soil
compactions, heavy metals accumulation and suppression of beneficial soil microbial
flora (Lan & Xia, 2008). In present days, policy makers and scientists are opining on
the use of biological materials as alternative sources of nutrients to chemical fertilizers
improved soil fertility and crop yield (Yadav et al., 2013; Ullah et al., 2018). Organic
farming can result in quality food with fewer harmful effects on the health of soil and
consumers (Mamia et al., 2018). Organic fertilizers are used as alternative sources of
nutrients to chemical fertilizers for sustainable agriculture (Zhu et al., 2018). Beneficial
effects of organic fertilizers on soil fertility and plant growth are summarized in Figure
1.2.
Organic fertilizers are synthesized from animal manure, animal matter, vegetable
matter and compost (Dittmar et al., 2009; Timsina, 2018) are good sources of N, P, and
5
K (Palm et al., 2001), improve soil fertility, and increase, like their chemical equivalent
growth and yield of plants (Kamran et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2018). Organic fertilizer
and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria may be a better alternative to mineral
fertilizers (Adnan et al., 2020; Danish et al., 2020; Zafar-ul-Hye et al., 2020). Use of
biostimulants also reduce the need for mineral fertilizers (Abbas et al., 2020; Shafi, et
al., 2020; Ullah et al., 2020). Foliar application of fertilizer and micronutrients could
be better alternative (Rafiullah et al., 2020; Zarei & Danish, 2020). Organic fertilizer
increases electrical conductivity of soil to soil application and may act more quickly
and decreases the soil pH (Antil & Sing, 2007). Organic materials increase physical
properties of the soil, improve microbial activity in soil, nutrients availability to plants
and improve water holding capacity of soil (Mohanty et al., 2006). Organic fertilizers
are environmental friendly and less create environmental pollutions and assist farmers
to grow healthy crops in their field (Sharma & Chetani, 2017). Organic fertilizer can
increases the growth rate and yield and also increase soil fertility (Ullah et al., 2018;
Kamran et al., 2018).
To produce organic fertilizers, biological materials are composted by the action of soil
micro-biota. The compost thus produced has higher content of organic matter and
nutrients required for better growth and establishment of crops (Bot & Benites, 2005).
The composted material more readily available when applied to soil improves soil
properties and makes the soil nutrients resulting in healthy plants with higher seed yield
(Eroa, 2015).
Organic fertilizers also improve the chemical, physical and biochemical properties of
the soil and reduces nutrients leaching (Tejada et al., 2006). They also mitigates
environmental imbalance which is caused by increasing CO2 in the atmospheres.
Organic fertilizers improve water holding capacity of soil and thus protect plants from
conditions of water stress (Vengadaramana & Jashothan, 2012; Gould, 2015). Organic
fertilizers also improve microbial activity in soil and nutrients in soil (Zhen et al., 2014;
Bargaz et al., 2018).
6
Figure 1.2: Impact of organic fertilizers on soil fertility and growth of plants
Organic matter of soil deteriorates during continuous cultivation and soil erosion.
Proper management is required to increase soil organic matter to improve soil fertility
and crop yield (Assefa & Tadesse, 2019; Oldfield et al., 2019). Organic fertilizers are
a great source of organic matter that can play an important role in sustainable
agriculture. Organic matter releases nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur in soil
throughout the year. Organic matter increases biological activity and reduce soil
erosion. Organic matter is an important component of organic fertilizer that increases
soil fertility and increases water holding capacity of soil (Papini et al., 2011). Organic
matter behave just like sponges, can absorb as much as 90% of water and so play an
important role in mitigating water stress (Ankenbauer & Loheide, 2017; Minasny &
McBratney, 2018).
1.4.1 Chicken manure
Chicken manure is the feaces of chicken and contains high amounts of phosphorus,
nitrogen and potassium (Nahm, 2003; Agbede et al., 2008; Amanullah et al., 2010; El-
Mogy et al., 2020). Chicken manure is preferred over other animal wastes due to the
high concentration of macronutrients (Duncan, 2005). The pH of dry chicken manure
7
was 7.9 which is considered as the most suitable pH ensuring nutrients availability to
plants (Lopez- Masquera et al., 2008). Dikinya et al. (2010) studied the influence of
manure on soil health and production of spinach. The chicken manure significantly
increased nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil which increased the soil fertility and
yields of spinach.
1.4.2 Eruca sativa Mill.
Eruca sativa is an annual plant in the family Brassicaceae and its leaves are used as a
vegetable. Common names are garden rocket, rocket salad and rugula. E. sativa grows
in size from 20 to 100 cm in height (Morals & Janick, 2002). The flowers are 2 to 4 cm
in diameter. The inflorescence found in E.sativa is a corymb and fruit is a siliqua. E.
sativa mostly grows on dry, disturbed ground and is used by some species of moths as
food. Green leaves are used as salad. Mature seeds are non-edible due to high
concentration of glucosinolates in seeds (Yaniv et al., 1998). The seed cake of E. sativa
is non edible and animals do not prefer it. Seed cake of E. sativa has high nutrients
content and low C to N ratio and are used as an organic fertilizer in soil for high growth
and yield of linseed plant (Khan et al., 2021).
1.4.3 Moringa oleifera Lam.
Moringa oleifera (Drumstick tree) belongs to family Moringaceae and ranges from 5
to 10 m in height (Morton, 1991). It is a drought resistant and fast growing tree species
native to tropical and subtropical areas of South Asia (Parrotta, 2014). It is used as a
vegetable in Arabia, India, Africa and Pakistan (Sengupta & Gupta, 1970). Moringa
leaves are source of essential minerals like iron, calcium and potassium, amino acids,
ascorbic acid, phenolics and Zeatin (Siddhuraju & Becker, 2003; Foidl et al., 2001). M.
oleifera leaf extract (MLE) was reported as a biostimulant for improving growth and
yields of many plant species such as tea, melon, Vigna anguiculata , soybean and
tomato (Fuglie, 2000; Yasmeen et al., 2014; Maishano et al., 2017). Yasmeen et al.
(2014) suggested that MLE improved salt tolerance of wheat. Similarly, MLE
application protected maize plants from drought stress and improved yield of soybean
(Pervez et al., 2017; Ogbuehi et al., 2018).
8
1.5 Biostimulants
Biostimulants are organic substances having the ability to change the rate of biological
processes to support the changing needs of plants. Plant growth regulators, either
synthetic or natural forms are very useful to plants against abiotic stresses. Plant growth
regulators are bio stimulators or bio inhibitors because inside plant cells they are
responsible for stimulation or inhibition of certain enzymes to maintain plant growth
and development. Synthetic growth regulators are very effective in production of crop
(Khan et al., 2020). However, their extensive use has caused contamination of soil and
water sources have toxic effects on human beings (Yasmeen et al., 2014). Therefore,
there should be alternative cheap and environmental friendly growth regulators with
potential to replace their synthetic counterparts (Pervez et al., 2017). The
phytochemicals present in different parts of plants can be an option to replace synthetic
growth regulators as they have various growth regulating effects (Yasmeen et al.,
2013). Biostimulants are materials which have biologically active ingredients with
stimulatory effects on natural processes of plants like uptake of nutrients,
photosynthesis, biomass production and flowering. They have potential to increase
tolerance of plants to environmental stresses (Sharma et al., 2014). Biostimulants of
biological significance and hormones have been extracted from plants like algae,
Moringa oleifera and Pongamia pinnata (Stirk & Van Staden, 2006; Yasmeen et al.,
2012; Bibi et al., 2016; Bibi et al., 2018). Biostimulants is a diverse groups of
compounds like phenols, flavonoids, minerals and natural phytohormones depending
upon the plant species (Dimola et al., 2019). The bioactive compounds present in plant
extracts may function as growth stimulators or growth inhibitors (Popa et al., 1998;
Popa et al., 2002). Due to their environment friendly nature and effectiveness on growth
of plants. Global market for biostimulants have been increasing (Anon, 2013).
Application of a commercially available biostimulant Megafol (Valagro, Atessa, Chieti,
Italy) containing amino acids, vitamins, betains and proteins of plant and algal origin
enhanced induction of drought stress related genes such as RAB18 and RD29B in
tomato plants. Moreover, tomato plants treated with biostimulant had no variations in
fresh weight and leaf relative water contents after exposure to drought stress
(Vasconcelos et al., 2009; Petrozza et al., 2014).
9
1.6 Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.)
Linum usitatissimum is also called common flax or linseed in a family Linaceae. It is

cultivated for food, oil, medics and fiber in the cooler regions of the world (Kumar et
al., 2019). Linseed oil is used industrially for making paints, polishes, inks, cosmetic
products and biodiesel (Shim et al., 2015; Ullah et al., 2013). Linseed oil contains 38
to 42% linoleic acid which is highly beneficial for human beings and other animals (El-
beltagi et al., 2007). Linseed fibers are much stronger than cotton fibers and are used
to make clothes, bed sheets and table linen (Michael Raine, 2008; Dhirhi et al., 2015).
Several other species in Linium are similar in appearance to L. usitatissimum. Some
bear blue, white, yellow and red flowers grows to a size of 1.2 m tall with slender stem.
The leavers are green 20 to 40 mm long and 3 mm wide. The flowers are blue in colour
with five petals. The fruits is a round dry capsule containing many brown coloured
seeds (Deyholos, 2006). Linseed production is severely influenced by low nitrogen (N)
and phosphorous (P) content of the soil (Hocking and Pinkerton, 1993; Dohat et al.,
2017). Moreover, it has been reported that deficiency of water limited growth and yield
of linseed (Kariuki, 2017). Oil and fiber quality of Linseed was decreased by water
stress (Bauer et al., 2015; Mirshekari et al., 2012). Water stress decreased
morphological and yield parameters of different varieties of linseed (Kadkhodaie et al.,
2016; Kariuki et al., 2016). A large part of agriculture lands in Pakistan is arid and
deficient in NPK. Organic fertilizers have potential to improve water retention potential
and fertility of soil (Ullah et al., 2018). Therefore, we prepared organic fertilizers
having seed cake of E. sativa, chicken manure and M. oleifera leaves in different ratios
and evaluated their effect on growth, seed yield and fiber quality of linseed under water
deficit stress.
1.6.1 Importance of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.)
1.6.2 Human consumption
Linseed contains high concentration of alpha linolenic acid which lowers the
cholesterol level in human body and imparts cardio vascular benefits. The flour is used
for making various food preparations (Chauhan et al., 2009). Linseed oil is used in very
small quantity in flax seed bread and bagels (El-beltagi et al., 2007).
10
1.6.3 Nutritional value
Linseed contains many nutrients which give health benefit to human being and other
Animals. It possess many amino acid leucine, lysin, threonine, tryptophan, methionine
and valine etc. It also possesses carbohydrates, mineral fiber and vitamin (Ayesha et
al., 2019).
1.6.4 Medicinal value
Linseed seeds contain omega-3 fatty acids which provide cardiovascular benefits
(Hooper et al., 2004). Gamma linolenic acid found in flax seed show tremendous
benefits to diabetic patients. Flax seeds contain both soluble and insoluble fiber. The
soluble fiber lowers the cholesterol found in blood and insoluble fiber has laxative
properties and gives health benefits for diarrhea, constipation and inflammation walls
of intestine. Flax seed sprouts induces apoptosis and inhabits cancer cells their anti-
proliferative effects breast cancer cells (Lee & Cho, 2012; Williams et al., 2007; Hu et
al., 2019).
1.6.5 Seed cake are used as Fertilizer
Linseed seed cake is one of the best nitrogenous fertilizers among oil cakes which
contain nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium 4.7% N, 11.7% P2O5 ,1.3% K2O (Verma
& Totey, 2000; Wang et al., 2012). It protects the plants from soil nematodes and insect
further increasing yield and quality.
1.6.6 Linseed oil
Linseed oil contain Omega -3 fatty acid which is beneficial for heart health and also
reduce cancer cell growth (Harper et al., 2006). Linseed oil is helpful to treat diarrhea
and constipation. Linseed oil improve skin health and decrease inflammation of human
body (Gogus & Smith, 2010).
1.6.7 Stem of linseed
The fiber obtained from stem of linseed as much stronger from cotton fiber. From this
fiber different kinds of ropes, clothes, bed sheet and table linen is formed (Michael
Raine, 2008; Dhirhi et al., 2015).
11
1.6.8 As fodder
When oil is extracted from linseed seeds, the seed cake left behind can be used as food
for livestock (Gutierrez et al., 2010).
12
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES TEST
The production of linseed is severely affected by low nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P)
content of the soil (Dohat et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been reported that deficiency
of water limited the growth, yield and fiber quality of linseed (Bauer et al., 2015). A
large part of agriculture lands in Pakistan are arid and deficient in NPK. Frequent use
of such fertilizers has undesirable effects on soil health, such as soil acidification, soil
compactions, heavy metals accumulation and suppression of beneficial soil microbial
flora (Lan & Xia, 2008). Organic fertilizers have potential to improve water holding
potential and fertility of soil (Ullah et al., 2018). Moreover, plant based biostimulants
have been found effective in improving tolerance of crops to abiotic stresses. Therefore,
field experiments were conducted during linseed growing seasons (October to April) of
2018-2019 and 2019-2020 to determine effects of (a) organic fertilizers and (b)
Moringa oleifera leaves aqueous extract (MLAE) on growth, yield and fiber quality of
linseed under imposed water stress.
Present studies were conducted achieving the following objectives:
1. Production and characterization of the organic fertilizers from seed cake of

Eruca sativa, chicken manure and leaves of Moringa oleifera.
2. Determination of the effect of prepared organic fertilizers on soil fertility status.
3. Extraction of biostimulant from leaves of Moringa oleifera and its
characterization.
4. Determination of the effect of organic fertilizers and biostimulant on the
photosynthetic apparatus, antioxidants status and phytohormones level (IAA
and GA) of linseed under water stress.
5. Evaluation of the effect of organic fertilizers and biostimulant on seed yield and
fiber quality of linseed under water stress.
6. Screening the linseed varieties most suitable for cultivation under agro climatic
conditions of the District Bannu.
13
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Effect of water stress on plant
Drought stress generally decreases absorbtion of nutrients from soil and their
endogenous concentrations in crop plants. Low absorbtion of inorganic nutrients
decreases transpiration flow (Garg, 2003; Mc William, 2003). Water stress caused by
deficiency of water significantly decreases the presence, uptake from the soil,
transportation and absorption of nutrients by the plants. Drought stress changes the
photosynthetic pigments concentration decreasing photosynthesis and related food
production (Wahid & Rasul, 2005).
Guo et al. (2012) conducted an experiment on germination and physiology of linseed

under water stress. Water stress was imposed by exposing the linseed to polyethylene
glycol. The water content and relative growth rate of linseed was decreased with
increasing polyethylene glycol concentrations. Proline content of shoot and root was
increased with increasing polyethylene glycol concentrations. The results showed that
polyethylene glycol induced water stress increased accumulation of betaine,
carbohydrates and proline which in return increased drought resistance of linseed
seedlings.
Malik and Ashraf (2012) performed experiments on the response of wheat to water
stress. They noted that water deficiency stress significantly decreased photosynthesis,
chlorophyll and other pigments in wheat. Ascorbic acid was used as foliar spray on two
varieties of wheat seedlings. Ascorbic acid increased chlorophyll, photosynthesis and
growth of two varieties of wheat seedling under water stress. Ascorbic acid play an
important role in mitigating the effect of water stress.
Kro et al. (2014) conducted experiments to check out phenolics compounds and
antioxidant content in seeds and roots of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) exposed to low soil
moisture stress. Plants under drought stress had a lower concentration of phenolics and
antioxidants in root and leaves. Antioxidative content of the extract obtained from the
roots was lower in leaves.
Kariuki et al. (2016) studied the influence of water stress on linseed. The study showed
that water stress decreased the growth of different varieties of Linseed. Half of the pots
were well watered and the other half were kept in a stress condition. Harvesting was
14
done in stress Pots when plants reached permanent wilting condition. This experiment
proved that water stress significantly decreased morphological and physiological
parameters of different varieties of linseed.
Kadkhodaie et al. (2016) investigated the effect of salinity and drought stress on seed
oil, seed protein and yield of six varieties of linseed in pots and in field. In pot
experiment four levels of salinity stress control, moderate, high and severe salinity were
applied to six varieties of linseed. In the fields experiment drought stress was started at
different stress levels normal, moderate and severe drought stress to six varieties of
linseed. In the pots results showed that moderate and severe salinity affected growth
and physiology of linseed. Two varieties of linseed (C3 and Khorasan) showed more
tolerance to salinity stress. In the field experiment water stress significantly decreased
the growth and yield of all varieties of linseed at all stages of stress. Variety B and C2
showed less decrease in grain yield than other varieties.
Rezayian et al. (2018) investigated the effect of drought stress on seed germination,
proline content, antioxidative enzymes and lipid peroxidation of two varieties of
Brassica napus L. Antioxidant enzymes were greater in RGS003 variety than Sarigol
under drought stress. Variety RGS003 has better mechanisms against oxidative damage
than Sarigol. Variety RGS003 was more drought resistance than Sarigol because of its
antioxidant enzymes and respiratory enzymes activities.
Hussain et al. (2019) studied heat and drought stress effects on growth, physiology and
yield parameters of a maize hybrid. Drought and heat stress severely effected the maize
hybrid at reproductive stages. Drought and heat stresses were started at the reproductive
stage for 15 days. Both the stresses decreased photosynthesis, nutrients uptake from the
soil and the grain yield but increased malondialdehyde content. From the results it was
concluded that drought and heat stresses both decreased growth and yield of maize
hybrid.
Gamez et al. (2019) studied water stress effects on growth, physiological, yield and
quality parameters of two varieties of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Water deficit
stress was started at the grain filling stage. Rainbow and Altiplano there were no
significant differences in yield and quality parameters after severe water stress.
15
Al- Huqail et al. (2020) investigated the effect of water stress and temperature on
growth of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum). Shoot length and photosynthetic pigments
were determined after two days while leaf materials was collected after 14 and 20 days
of stress applied. Water stress and temperature significantly decreased plant growth and
chlorophyll content. Under severe stress conditions MDA (malondialdehyde), total
phenolics, flavonoids and sugars were increased and protected the plants from the
adverse effect of both water stress and high temperature.
2.2 Effect of organic fertilizer on soil fertility and health of plants
Organic fertilizer is the fastest growing system of agriculture in the world and its main
objective is to create balance between plants, animals and soil organisms (Berova et al.,
2010). Organic fertilizer increases the microorganism activity in soil, organic matter
and carbon content of soil. Organic fertilizer increases quality and yield of various
agriculture crops (Bulluck et al., 2002). Organic fertilizer does not cause environmental
pollution. Organic fertilizer enhances soil texture, water retention capacity and provides
resistance to soil erosion. Organic fertilizer provides nitrogen in usable form to soil and
thus improves plant growth. Organic fertilizer protects the plants from various diseases
because it provides all the nutrients needed by plants and increases plant tolerance
(Ogbalu, 1999).
Siavoshi et al. (2011) investigated the effect of organic fertilizer on morphological

parameters and yield of rice. The paddy rice, cow manure, and chicken manure were
mixed in different ratios to form organic fertilizer. The organic fertilizer was applied in
different concentrations to the field. Fertilizer was not applied to the control. Organic
fertilizer significantly increased yield of rice as compared to control. The greater yield
was obtained from the plants in fields treated with 2 ton /ha organic fertilizer. Organic
fertilizer significantly increased seed weight of rice, leaf length, length of panicle and
fertile tillers.
Natsheh et al. (2014) investigated the effect of compost and chemical fertilizer on soil
fertility and yields of Cucumber. This experiment was conducted in the greenhouse
Palestine in a summer season of 2012. The results showed that compost increased soil
characteristics, soil yield and the organic matter content. Compost increased the yield
of cucumber.
16
Rahman et al. (2014) investigated the effect of chemical fertilizer and manures on yield
of Tulsi and Pudina medicinal plants. There were six treatments consisting of control,
cow dung, poultry manure, cow dung + chemical fertilizer and mixed fertilizer. When
they used cow dung only it increased all growth and yield parameters of both plants. It
was clear from the findings that cow dung was best for the soil quality, growth and
yields of both the medicinal plants.
Oskarsson (2015) studied the effect of sunflower seed cake as organic fertilizer on
maize. The organic fertilizer was applied at different concentrations in the pots.
Inorganic fertilizer was also applied in some pots for comparison. Plant height,
chlorophyll in leaves and plant biomass was significantly increased in plants
supplemented with organic fertilizer of sunflower seeds cake.
Han et al. (2016) investigated the influence of chemical fertilizer and manures on soil,
growth, and chemical properties of Liriodendron tulipifera L. The seedlings were
treated with organic manure, cattle manure, sawdust and chemical fertilizers. Organic
fertilizer increased P, N, K, Ca, Mg and soil pH while chemical fertilizer decreased pH
of soil and Ca concentration. The nutrients concentrations in stem, roots and leaves was
less in plants chemically fertilized than in those with organic manure. The organic
manure was a good source of nutrients for increasing soil fertility, growth and yield of
Liriodendron tulipifera plant.
Saadatian et al. (2017) studied the effect of organic fertilizer on growth, physiology and
yields of most important medicinal plant fenugreek. Effect of both organic fertilizer
vermicompost and vermiwash was used on growth, physiology and yields of fenugreek
(Trigonella foenum-gaecum L.). The organic fertilizer was applied at 7 tonnes per
hectare at different concentrations to field. Organic fertilizer significantly increased pod
length, Pod fresh weight, plant height, leaves protein and nitrogen content, internode
length. Organic fertilizer significantly increased yield of fenugreek.
Ahmad et al. (2017) studied the effect of organic fertilizer on growth, physiology and
yield of coriander in green house using four treatments and three replicates. Organic
fertilizer (Farm yard manure, Poultry and Compost) were applied to all pots except
control. The statistical analysis showed that organic fertilizer increased all the growth
parameters of plant. Poultry manure along with organic manure induced growth and
was recommended for Peshawar.
17
Pangaribuan et al. (2018) studied the effect of organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizer
on growth, soil fertility and yield of sweet corn. The organic fertilizer (poultry manure)
composted and mixed with Biomax was applied at 0 and 15 ton /ha. The urea was
applied at 0, 150, 300 and 450 ton/ha. From this experiment it was concluded that
combined use of organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizer decreased the use of urea in
field and was better for cultivation of sweet corn. Organic fertilizer gave more fertility
to soil and microorganism populations in soil.
Adetutu et al. (2018) investigated the effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer on the
growth of Deinbolia pinnata schum and Thonn seedlings in pots. Three replicates were
used for each treatment. Cow dung was mixed with soil and urea in different
concentrations and applied to pots. Results showed that fertilizer has a significant effect
on growth. The best growth was recorded in cow dung applied high concentration.
Organic fertilizer was recommended for application Deinbolia pinnata seedlings.
Applying organic fertilizer to field is safe and also reduced the harmful effects of
chemical fertilizer on crops.
Aziz et al. (2018) used cotton seed cake as an organic fertilizer. Seed cake of cotton
was rich in nutrients, nitrogen and high organic matter. The organic fertilizer of cotton
seed cake improved soil properties.
Lin et al. (2019) investigated the effect of organic and chemical fertilizers on soil health
and tea orchards. Organic fertilizers increased crop yield, soil fertility and protects the
plants from diseases and pests. They checked the long term effect of organic and
chemical fertilizers on tea plants and soil fertility. Organic fertilizers decreased heavy
metals in soil, tea plants and increased microbial communities in soil. Beneficial
microbial communities improved soil fertility, tea quality and decreased heavy metals
content in soil.
Lewis et al. (2019) investigated the effect of two varieties of mustard seed meal on
growth of cotton, sorghum and soil fertility as compared to inorganic fertilizer. The soil
used in the experiment was sandy loam deficient in nutrients. Seed meal applied with
inorganic fertilizers at different rates to soil. Characterization of seed meal showed that
seed meal contained sufficient nutrients as increased growth of cotton, sorghum and
fertility of soil compared to inorganic fertilizers. Seed meal increased fertility of soil
18
and suppressed weeds emergence. Seed meal of mustard was recommended to increase
growth of crops and increase fertility of soil for sustainable agriculture.
Kumar et al. (2019) investigated the effect of vermicompost, farmyard manure and their
combination along with recommended doses of inorganic fertilizers on linseed. They
used three replicates and nine treatments for two years. Vermicompost, farmyard
manure and their combination increased growth, yield and fiber quality of linseed.
Vermicompost was effective than farmyard manure. Vermicompost and farmyard
manure along with inorganic fertilizers was recommended for better yield and quality
of flax.
Thomas et al. (2019) investigated the effect of different organic fertilizers on yield and
nutrient concentration. They used different kinds of organic fertilizers in the experiment
like compost, farmyard manner, straw and mixture of all. Organic fertilizers were
applied at 1, 2 and 3 ton per hectare in the field. The organic fertilizers increased the
macro and micronutrients both in plants and soil and also improved yield and quality
of crops.
Wajid et al. (2020) investigated the effect of mineral fertilizers and organic manure on
bioaccumulation and translocation of metals in maize plants. They checked the effect
of organic manure and mineral fertilizers on soil fertility, nutrients status in soil and on
maize plant (Zea mays L.). All the metals were present in permissible limit of FAO.
Organic and mineral fertilizers increased soil fertility and appeared no negative effects
on maize plants and safe for consumers and environment.
Zhang et al. (2020) investigated organic and Mg fertilizers on soil health, yield and
quality of banana in a two year trial in China. Organic fertilizers applied with Mg
increased soil fertility, nutrients in soil, yield and quality of banana.
Mohammed et al. (2020) investigated the effect of plant sourced organic fertilizers on
soil fertility, growth and yield of linseed varieties. Organic fertilizers were prepared
from different weeds through the process of composting. Their results showed that
organic fertilizers increased growth, yield and quality parameters of linseed varieties.
Syrian variety gave more yield than an Egyptian variety. They recommended organic
fertilizers for better yield and quality of linseed varieties in the field.
19
2.3 Effect of biostimulants/ bioregulators on growth and yield of plants
Biostimulants are organic substances having the ability to change rate of biological
processes to the changing need of plants. Biostimulants are materials which have
biologically active ingredients with stimulatory effects on natural processes of plants
like uptake of nutrients, photosynthesis, biomass production and flowering. They have
a potential to increase tolerance of plants to environmental stresses (Sharma et al.,
2014). Biostimulants the diverse groups of compounds like phenols, flavonoids,
minerals and natural phytohormones depending upon the plant species (Dimola et al.,
2019). The bioactive compounds present in plant extracts may function as growth
stimulators or growth inhibitors (Popa et al., 1998; Popa et al., 2002).
Foidl et al. (2001) investigated the effects of M. oleifera leaf aqueous extract on many
plants species like corn, peanut, sugarcane, onion, sorghum and melon. The growth of
all plant species was significantly increased. M. oleifera extract contained a
phytohormone zeatin, and other ingredients such as ascorbates, phenols, carotenoids
and antioxidants.
Hussaini & Alsaadawi (2013) Applied sorghum shoot extract to mung bean plants
exposed to water stress in field conditions. Sorghum extract was applied at pre
flowering stage, flowering stage and fruiting stage. Sorghum extract significantly
increased plant height, number of seeds, yield and dry weight of mung bean plants.
Total chlorophyll was significantly increased by sorghum extract. Prolin and protein
contents remained normal in plants treated with sorghum extract.
Mvumi et al. (2013) performed an experiments on maize (Zea mays L.) and mung bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by applying foliar spray of Moringa extract. Results showed
that foliar spray of Moringa extract increased yield of both bean and maize in field and
greenhouse experiments.
Abdalla (2013) conducted an experiment on (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa Miller) by

applying foliar spray of Moringa oleifera twigs and leaves aqueous extract. Growth was
increased by 2% leaf and 3% twig extract, abscisic acid, lipid peroxidation and
antioxidant enzyme like catalase, peroxidase levels was reduced negatively with the use
of both kinds of extract. For the higher productivity and yield of various crop twigs and
leaf extract of M .oleifera was highly recommended as a bio organic fertilizer.
20
Nadeem et al. (2013) prepared various concentrations of extract of Moringa (5, 10, 15
and 20 %) and applied them 5 to 10 days after sowing. They concluded that
concentration and application timing were responsible for yield and growth of maize
crop. Higher concentrations of Moringa extract grains per cob, cob diameter, plant
height were significantly increased.
Mohamed & Akladious (2014) conducted an experiment to study the influence of garlic
extract on two varieties of soybean (Glycine max L.) under drought stress. Drought
stress increased tocopherol, ascorbic acid, superoxide dismutase and ascorbate
peroxidase, proline sugar and phenols in the shoots of two varieties of soybean plants.
Foliar spray with two concentrations of garlic extract (400 and 600ppm) improved all
the parameters and increased drought tolerance in soybean plants.
Mansori et al. (2015) studied the effects of seaweed extract obtained from two
microalgae on green bean plants facing water deficit condition. They observed that
seaweeds extract improved the vegetative growth, increased total phenolics and
antioxidant enzymatic activity. They recommended Seaweed extract to increase
drought resistance in green bean plants.
Emongor et al. (2015) applied Moringa leaf extract on snap bean at different
concentrations 11, 20, 33 and 50 ppm 10 days of emergence after plants. Moringa
extract increased growth, leaf chlorophyll content and yield of snap beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.).
Biswas et al. (2016) investigated the effect of Moringa extract on growth and yield of
maize crop. The experiment consist of five treatments with three replications for each.
The highest concentration significantly increased height of the plant, shoot length, fresh
weight and also increased the yield of maize grain.
Maishanu et al. (2017) investigated the effect of Moringa extract on cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata). After 3rd week it is cleared that Moringa extract significantly increased
leaves and branches per plant, leaf length and thickness of stem as compared to urea
and distilled water.
Pervez et al. (2017) also reported growth stimulatory impact of Moringa leaves extract
on maize plants exposed to water stress. The Moringa leaves extract application caused
21
higher production of cell wall bound phenolics in maize leaves which was positively
associated with water stress tolerance of maize.
Thanaa et al. (2017) performed an experiment to study the effect of Moringa leaf
aqueous extract on quality and yield of plum tree (Prunus salicina Lindl). Palm trees
were sprayed with different concentrations of Moringa extract at different stages of
plant growth. Moringa leaf extract applied at 6 % concentration significantly increased
fruit yield, fruit color, ascorbic acid and anthocyanin content.
Merwad et al. (2018) performed an experiment to study Moringa extract on nutrients

accumulation and yield in pea plants (Pisum sativum L.). Moringa extract was applied
at different concentrations of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4%. All treatments significantly increased
fresh pods yield, shoot and seed dry weight, 100 seed weight, protein content and
nutrient accumulation as compared to control. The highest yield was obtained when
Moringa extract was applied at higher concentration.
Williams et al. (2018) conducted an experiment to study the effect of Moringa leaf
extract on growth and yield of Maize. Extract was prepared and applied at different
concentrations to maize plants at a stage of 3 weeks. Moringa extract applied twice,
thrice and four times increased the growth and yield of maize. Farmers can apply
Moringa extract for improving crop production of maize.
Arif et al. (2019) investigated the effect of Biostimulant and synthetic fertilizer on
cotton growth, yield and fiber quality. They checked Moringa leaf extract and synthetic
fertilizer on growth, yield and fiber quality of two varieties of cotton for two years.
Application of Moringa extract on both varieties of cotton significantly improved
growth, chlorophyll content, enzymatic activity, seed and fiber yield. Results showed
that Moringa extract alone or in combination with synthetic fertilizer improved growth,
yield and fiber quality of Cotton.
Ahmad et al. (2019) conducted an experiment on Freesia hybrida by applying Moringa

extract. Two experiments were carried out side by side. In one experiment corm of
Freesia were soaked in different concentrations of Moringa extract before planting. In
other experiment different concentrations of Moringa extract was applied as foliar spray
after 30 and 60 days after planting. Results of both experiments showed that Moringa
extract significantly improved growth, yield and quality of Freesia.
22
Iqbal et al. (2020) studied the effect of different growth elicitors on spring maize under
heat stress. Heat stress at reproductive stage adversely effected the maize crop. They
used Moringa oleifera leaf extract, salicylic acid and Calcium chloride as growth
regulator to increase the yield under heat stress. They finally concluded that Moringa
oleifera leaf extract and salicylic acid increased the yield under heat stress. Moringa
oleifera leaf extract and salicylic acid is more effective and ameliorate the adverse
effect of heat stress in spring maize.
While studying review of literature we concluded that water stress resulted due to
insufficient availability of soil moisture during growing seasons of crops is a severe
threat for agriculture production across the globe. Moreover, soil infertility will further
contribute in maximizing inhibitory effects of water stress on economically important
crops. Water stress alters not only morphological traits but also disturbs physiological
and biochemical pathways in plants. We found that water stress inhibits photosynthesis
by accelerating leaf senescence, reduce turgidity of cells, causes the production of
reactive oxygen species which results in lipid peroxidation of cellular membranes,
suppress the production of growth stimulating hormones and ultimately reduces yield.
Various kinds of agrochemicals like chemical fertilizers and plant growth regulators
have been reported for their beneficial effects in boosting agriculture productions.
However, recently toxicity of such agrochemicals has been found on biodiversity and
ecosystem. Therefore, scientists are interested in producing environment friendly,
economical and sustainable alternatives of synthetic fertilizers for improving soil
fertility and crop production under abiotic stresses. Linseed is an industrial crop and its
fiber quality and seed yield is severely affected by water stress in arid and semi-arid
regions. Organic fertilizers improve soil organic matter, nutrients and water holding
capacity. Moringa oleifera a commonly growing tree species in the tropical and sub-
tropical regions of the world has been recognized for the presence of growth stimulatory
substances. Therefore, use of organic fertilizers produced from locally available
biodegradable substances and M. oleifera leaf extract will ensure establishment of
linseed crop under short supply of water.
23
Experiments No. 1
3 Preparation of Organic Fertilizers and its Effects on Linseed Varieties

MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this experiment, organic fertilizers were prepared from seed cake of Eruca sativa,
chicken manure and leaves of Moringa oleifera in various combinations by
composting method (Eroa, 2015). The effect of these organic fertilizers was evaluated
on soil fertility status and establishment of a linseed crop under water stress for two
years in field experiments.
3.1.1 Preparation of organic fertilizers
Eruca sativa, chicken manure and M. oleifera leaves were selected as organic materials
due to their ease of availability and low cost. The seeds of E. sativa were ground to fine
powder in an electric grinder (Kasper Electric Inc. USA) for 30 minutes and then passed
through sieve plates (0.5-0.8 mm). The ground material (80 g) was extracted in
petroleum ether (20 L) using a Soxhlet extractor (AOAC, 1960). After oil extraction,
the seed cake obtained was utilized for the production of organic fertilizers. The chicken
manure was collected from poultry farms in District Bannu KP, Pakistan. The Moringa
oleifera (M. oleifera) leaves (10 kg) were collected from 20 healthy trees and dried in
shade for 2 weeks.
The required amounts of seed cake of E. sativa, chicken manure and M. oleifera
leaves were put in plastic bags, moistened (70% water content) and buried in soil (1m
deep) in a moist field near a water body. After 45 days, the bags were opened and the
composted materials were dried in the sun. The material was remoistened to 70%
water content and buried in same holes for 15 days (Eroa, 2015). After 15 days, the
composted material was collected and spread onto plastic sheets to redry. The organic
fertilizers made were OF1- seed cake of E. sativa (1 kg) , OF2- seed cake of E. sativa
(1 kg) + chicken manure (1 kg) , OF3- seed cake of E. sativa (1 kg) + chicken manure
(0.5 kg) + M. oleifera leaves (0.25 kg) and OF4- seed cake of E. sativa (1 kg) +
chicken manure (0.25 kg) + M. oleifera leaves (0.5 kg).
24
3.1.2 Physico-chemical analysis of organic fertilizers
3.1.2.1 Determination of pH and EC of organic fertilizer
50 g samples of organic fertilizer were mixed with 250 ml of distilled water for 6
seconds then shaken for 30 minutes in a shaker (IRMECO GmbH 1-4000 Geesthacht
Germany). The samples were filtered by using Whatman No. 2 filter paper and the
filtrate were analyzed for pH and EC using a pH meter (MA02052, Medifield USA)
and an EC meter (HI9813, Hanna Instruments Inc. Woonsocket, USA).
3.1.2.2 Determination of organic matter content of organic fertilizers

Air-dried organic fertilizer samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve. The samples
were oven dried at 105 oC for 12 hours, cooled, weighed, then combusted for 2 hours
in a muffle furnace (Nabertherm Mufful Furnace 30-1400 oC Bremen, Germany). After
complete combustion, the samples were cooled in a desiccator and reweighed (Nelson
and Sommers, 1996). Organic matter percentages were determined according to the
following equation.
( 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛−𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡)
𝑂𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 (%) = (𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡)
𝑋 100 (Eq. 1)
3.1.2.3 Determination of phosphorus content of organic fertilizers

Samples of organic fertilizer (1 g) were burnt for 5 hours in a muffle furnace at 550 oC
to produce ash. The ash was dissolved in 2 NHCL (5 mL) and the volume was raised with
deionized water to 50 mL and then filtered through Whatman No.1 filter paper.
Ammonium-vanadomolybdate (10 mL) was added to 10 mL filtrate and the volume
was raised to 100 mL with deionized water. The absorbance of the samples and
standards was measured via a spectrophotometer (Spectronic 20 Genesys, Illinois,
USA) at 410 nm using ammonium-vanadomolybdate reagent as the blank. To prepare
standard curve KH2PO4 (0.2197 g) was dissolved in deionized water and the volume
was raised to 1 L with deionized water. This stock solution contained 50 ppm P which
was further diluted with deionized water to obtain 30, 20 and 10 ppm P (Shimizu &
Shin, 2012).
𝑅
𝑃 (%) = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃 (𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 (𝑝𝑝𝑚) 𝑋 𝑊 𝑋 100/1000 (Eq.2)
R indicates ratio of total aliquot volume / measured aliquot, W- Dry sample weight (g)
25
3.1.2.4 Determination of total Nitrogen of organic fertilizers
Organic fertilizer samples (0.1 g) were mixed in a digestive tube (50 mL) with one
digestive tablet (Kjeltab 1.72 g), and 3.5 mL concentrated sulphuric acid. The digestive
tubes were placed in a pre-heated block digester and heated to 390 ±5oC for 2 hours.
After complete cooling, 50 mL distilled water were added to each tube. The Flow
Injection Analyzer based on the Lachat Method (1996) No 13-107-06-2-D was used
to quantify ammonium leading to measurement of total Kjeldal nitrogen .
50
𝑁𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑛 (%) = 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑋 (0.150) /100 (Eq.3)
3.1.2.5 Determination of K, Zn and Fe content of organic fertilizers

Powdered samples (0.5g) of organic fertilizers were digested in a 10 mL mixture of
Nitric acid and perchloric acid (2:1) by heating to 140 oC in 50 ml conical flasks in a
fume hood. The digestion process was completedwhen color of fumes was changed to
white. All the samples after digestion were cooled at room temperature. Each sample
was filtered using Whatman No.1 filter paper and added with deionized water to raise
volume to 50 mL mark on conical flask. The K, Fe and Zn was determined by atomic
absorption spectrophotometry (Rashid, 1986; Ryan et al., 2001).
3.1.3. Physico-chemical analysis of soil
3.1.3.1 Determination of Soil texture
Soil texture was determined as described (Bouyoucos, 1962).
3.1.3.2 Determination of pH of soil
Soil samples (10 g) air dried at room temperature were shaken with 10 mL distilled
water in a 50 ml glass flask and stirred using a magnetic stirrer (Schenectady, NY12305
USA) for 30 minutes. Stirring speed was set at 500 rpm. Each sample was filtered
using Whatman No.1 filter paper. A pH meter (MA02052 Medifield, USA) was
calibrated and used to determine pH of the soil extract (Mclean, 1982).
3.1.3.3 Determination of EC of soil

Soil samples (10 g) air dried at room temperature were stirred with 50 mL distilled
water in a 100 ml glass flask by using a magnetic stirrer (Schenectady, NY12305 USA)
for one hour. Stirring speed was set at 500 rpm. Each sample was filtered using
Whatman No.1 filter paper. The EC meter (Medifield. MA02052 USA) was first
26
calibrated with 0.01M KCl solution and then used for taking EC readings of the soil
samples (Richards, 1954).
3.1.3.4 Determination of carbonates and bicarbonates in soil
Soil samples (20 g) were stirred with 100 mL distal water for 30 minutes in a 150 ml glass
flasks by using a magnetic stirrer (Schenectady, NY12305 USA) for one hour. Stirring
speed was set at 500 rpm. Each sample was filtered using Whatman No.1 filter paper.
25 mL of the extract was taken in a 50 ml conical flask and added with 1 drop of
phenolphthalein. No change in color of the samples indicates absence of carbonates.
Another similar set of samples was added with 3 drops of methyl orange. When the
color of samples was changed to yellow orange then they were titrated with sulfuric
acid (0.01 N). Upon the completion of titration color of the solutions was changed to
red orange and reading of the burette was noted.
3.1.3.5 Determination of Calcium and Magnesium in soil

Soil samples (20 g) were stirred with 100 mL distal water for 30 minutes in a 150 ml
glass flasks by using a magnetic stirrer (Schenectady, NY12305 USA). Then the
samples were filtered using Whatman No.1 filter paper. 10 mL of the filtrate was
taken in 250 mL volumetric flask. 4 drops of Eriochrome black T and buffer solution
were added in volumetric flask. The titration was started with 0.01 N EDTA and then
color of the solution was change from red to blue or green color.
3.1.3.6 Determination of soil organic matter

Soil sample (0.5 g) was mixed with 5 mL of 1N KMNO4 solution in a 200 ml conical
flask. The mixture was added with 10 mL H2SO4 and swirled for 30 minutes. Later on
mixture was added with 100 ml deionized water. The diphenylamine (0.5 mL) was
added along with 10ml of orthophosphoric acid. The titration was completed against
1 N FeSO4.7H2O solution when the solution turn to bluish color (Walkley & Black,
1934).
3.1.3.7 Determination of micronutrients in soil
Soil samples from different locations in field were collected and then dried in lab at
room temperature to remove moisture content and then passed through sieve to obtain
fine particle of soil. 5 g of soil samples were placed in Erlenmeyer flask and added
0.05N HCL+ 0.025 NHSO4 of 20 mL to soil sample. The soil sample was stirred (500
27
rpm) by magnetic stirrer (Schenectady, NY12305 USA) for 20 minutes. The solution
obtained was filtered by using Whatman No. 42 filter paper. 50 mL polypropylene
was added to the filtrate and diluted with 50 mL of the extracting solution. The blank
was also prepared containing only acid.
3.1.3.8 Determination of soil phosphorus
Soil samples (2 g) were extracted wit 40 mL NaHCO3 (0.5 M) by shaking for 30
minutes in a shaker (IRMECO GMBH 1-4000 Germany). The solution obtained was
filtered using Whatman filter paper No.42. 10 mL filtrate was taken in 50 mL
volumetric flask. 10 mL coloring reagent B was added into the flask and the volume
was raised with distal water. After 15 minutes of color change the optical density of
the sample was recorded at 880 nm using spectrophotometer (Spectronic 20 Genesys,
Illinois, USA) (Olsen & Sommers, 1982).
3.1.3.9 Determination of soil Nitrogen

10 g soil sample was digested with 20 mL concentrated sulfuric acid and 10 g
digestionmixture in micro-kjeldahl flask. When digestion is completed the flask were
allowed to cool. The materials were transferred to 50 mL flask and distilled. The
distillation was done in 20 mL of 40 % NaOH and collected in 5 mL boric acid. The
distillate was titrated against 0.1 N H2SO4 using KMNO4 as indicator (Bremner &
Mulvaney, 1982).
3.1.4 Assessment of effects of organic fertilizers on growth of linseed

Field experiments were carried out under natural conditions during linseed growing
season (October to April) of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 in District Bannu KP,
Pakistan. The total rainfall during linseed growing season of 2018-2019 was 284.7
mm whereas, total rainfall during linseed growing season of 2019-2020 was 227.4
mm. The average monthly minimum and maximum temperature during 2018-2019
was 11.02 oC and 24.07 oC respectively. Similarly average monthly minimum and
maximum temperature during linseed growing season of 2019-2020 was 11.19 oC and
23.29 oC (Figure 2.1).
28
Max Temp Min Temp Rain Fall
35 120
Rain Fall (mm)

30 100
Temperature (oC)
25 80
20
60
15
10 40
5 20
0 0
January
January
February
October
March
February
March
November
December
November
April
December
April
October
2018-2019 2019-2020
Axis Title
Figure 2.1. Meteorological data of two years
The field soil was loam soil having pH 8.40, EC 230 μS cm-1, organic matter 0.69%,
total nitrogen 0.03%, available phosphorus 4.02%, available potassium 0.40%,
Ca/Mg 9.5 meq/L, carbonate 1.4 meq/L and bicarbonate 1.9 meq/L (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. Physical and chemical properties of field soil
Property Value
Clay 16 %
Silt 44 %
Sand 40 %
Texture Loam
pH 8.40
EC 230(μS cm-1)
Nitrogen 0.03 %
Phosphorus 4.02 %
Potassium 150.06 (mg kg-1
Organic matter 0.69 %
Zinc 0.97 (mg kg-1)
Iron 0.80 (mg kg-1)
Carbonate 1.4 (meq/L)
Bicarbonate 1.9 (meq/L)
Calcium/magnesium 9.5 (meq/L)
29
Seeds of linseed varieties Roshni and Chandni were obtained from Ayub Agriculture
Research Institute Faisalabad Pakistan. Local genotype BL1 of linseed cultivated in
District Bannu was obtained from Agriculture Research Station Bannu, Pakistan.
Uniform size seeds (4 mm obtained via sieve plate) of linseed were selected and
sterilized with 95% ethanol. The seedswere washed with autoclaved distilled water
and hand sown 3 cm deep in the field at 30 kg/ha ( Erdogdu et al., 2018).
The experiment was carried out as a fully randomized split plot design having factorial
arrangements of the treatments in triplicate. Plots measured 1×1 m2, consisting of four
rows each, 20 cm apart. The organic fertilizers were applied at 3000 kg/ha two weeks
before sowing of seeds in the field plots. Recommended doses of nitrogen (80 kg/ha),
phosphorus (40 kg/ha) and potassium (30 kg/ha) were manually applied through the
broadcast method in the field at the time of seed sowing. The sources of fertilizers
were urea (for N), diammonium phosphate (for N and P) and potassium sulfate (for
K) (Hussain et al., 2017). Water deficit stress was imposed by closing off water supply
to plants up to 40% field capacity of soil at vegetative growth stage (60 DAS) for one
month.
Soil field capacity was determined by gravimetric method. A small plastic pot
perforated at the base having a fitted filter paper was filled with 100 grams of soil and
flooded with water until a saturated paste was produced and water started flowing out
of the pot. The weight of saturated paste (wet weight) was recorded. Then the soil was
allowed to dry until last drop of water came out of the filter paper and dry weight was
noted (Aschonitis, 2013; Al-Shaheen et al., 2018).
𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙−𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙

𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (%) = 𝑥 100 (Eq.4)
𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
The water (%) in 100 g soil = field capacity
Two irrigation regimes, control (normal irrigation as recommended for linseed crop
100% soil field capacity) and water stress (skipped irrigations to maintain 40% soil
field capacity), represented the main plots. Three linseed varieties (Chandni, Roshni
and BL1) and four organic fertilizer (OF1, OF2, OF3, and OF4) treatments (0
kg/hectare and 3000 kg/hectare) were randomly dispersed in the sub plots. At the end
of the water stress period young fully expended young leaves were collected
randomly from plants in alltreatments and analyzed for the following parameters.
30
3.1.4.1 Leaf relative water content
Leaf relative water content was determined by collecting five fully expanded leaves
per plant from 10 random plants per plot. After measuring fresh weight of leaves
(FWL) they were kept overnight in distilled water. Fully turgid leaves were weighted
to obtain their turgid weights (TWL). The leaves were then dried in an oven at 72 oC to
constant weight and their dry weights (DWL) were determined.
FWL−DWL
Leaf Relative Water Content (%) = TWL−DWL X 100 (Eq.5)
3.1.4.2 Leaf Chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids determination

100 mg leaf tissue was ground in 10 mL 80 % acetone using a pestle and mortar
and then kept at 4oC for 24 hours in complete darkness. The samples were taken
to a centrifuge machine (Zentrifugen D-78532 Tuttlingen, Germany) and
subjected to centrifugation 4000 x g for 10 minutes. The absorbance of the
supernatant was measured spectrophotometrically at 663, 645 and 480 to
determine Chlorophyll a and b and carotenoids content (MA02052-USA)
(Arnon, 1949).
𝐶ℎ𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑙 𝑎 = 12.7(𝐴663 − 2.69(𝐴645) (Eq.6)
𝐶ℎ𝑙𝑟𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑙 𝑏 = 22.9(𝐴645) − 468(𝐴663) (Eq.7)
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠 = [𝐴480 + (0.114(𝐴663) − (0.638 − 𝐴645)]𝑋𝑉 ÷ 1000 𝑋 𝑊 (Eq.8)
3.1.4.3 Total phenolics content analysis of leaf and root

Method of Shen et al. (2009) modified by Ma et al. (2016) was used to extract and
quantify total phenolics content. Root or leaf samples (2 g each) were extracted in
acidified (1% HCL) methanol (16 mL) for 24 h at 25±01oC. After centrifugation of
the mixtures at 4000 x g for 15 minutes, a 500 µl of aliquot of each supernatant was
added to Folin Ciocalteu reagent (5 mL) and 4 mL of sodium carbonate solution (7.5
g/100 mL). The mixtures were incubated for 90 minutes at 25±1 °C and their
absorbance was measured at 765 nm via a Spectrophotometer (Spectronic 20
Genesys, Illinois, USA). Total phenolics content was calculated as mg GAE/g fresh
weight.
3.1.4.4 Determination of leaf and root antioxidants content

Freeze dried leaves or roots (100 mg) were ground in liquid nitrogen in a pestle and
mortarto make fine powder then were mixed with 1 ml (70 %) methanol in glass test
tubes (15 x 100 mm). The samples were incubated at room temperature in darkness
31
for 48 hours, then centrifuged for 10 minutes at 10000 r.p.m. A stock solution of 2,2-
diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) was prepared by dissolving 24 mg DPPH in 100
mL methanol. The supernatants of the centrifuged samples (150 µL) were mixed with
1.35 mL of DPPH solution and kept for 30 minutes in darkness. The absorbance of
each sample was measured using methanol as blank at 517nm with a
spectrophotometer (Spectronic 20 Genesys, Illinois, USA) (Blois, 1958).
(𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙−𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐻 (% 𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑠) = [ ] 𝑥 100 (Eq.9)
𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
3.1.4.5 Determination of leaf soluble sugars content
Leaf total soluble sugar content was determined by the method of Dubois et al. (1956).
Leaf pieces were ground using a pestle mortar in 10 ml distilled water and centrifuged
for 5 min at 3000 x g (Zentrifugen D-78532 Tuttlingen, Germany). The sample
supernatant (0.1mL) was mixed with 1ml phenol and 5ml concentrated sulphuric acid.
The absorbance of the samples was recorded at 420 nm by using spectrophotometer
(SP-3000 plus, Optima Tokyo, Japan). Standard curve of glucose was used as a
reference for comparison of samples O.D values.
dilution factor
Total soluble sugars (mg/g) = Absorbance value X K value X (
weight of sample
) (Eq.10)
K value= 20, dilution factor = 10, weight of sample = 500 mg
3.1.4.6 Leaf Electrolytic leakage determination

Electrolytic leakage was determined by the method of Blum & Ebercon (1981). Leaf
tissue was cut into small pieces (2 mm) and placed in distilled water (10 mL) in a test
tube (15 x 100 mm) for 12 hour at 4 oC in dark. EC1 of the solution was noted after
12 hour with an EC meter (Schenectady, NY12305 USA). The sample was heated in
a water bath at 60 oC for 20 minutes. The sample was cooled at room temperature and
a second EC determination was made (EC2). Electrolytic leakage was calculated
according to the following formula
EC1
Electrolyte leakage (%) = (EC2) X100 (Eq.11)
3.1.4.7 Leaf indole acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellic acid (GA) determination
Leaf indole acetic acid and gibberellic acid content was determined as described (Sarwar
32
et al., 1992;Li et al., 1994). Leaves of linseed (1 g) were first frozen in liquid nitrogen
and then ground in 10 ml chilled methanol (80%) added with 5 granules of BHT
(antioxidant) using a pestle mortar. The extraction process was completed at 4oC for 72
hours by changing extracting solvent (80 % methanol) on daily basis. Leaf extracts (30
ml) were centrifuged (3000 x g) for 20 minutes and supernatant was treated with 15 ml
ethyl acetate for 5 minutes. The ethyl acetate fraction was dried in a rotary evaporator
(RE301 Japan). The dried residue was re- dissolved in HPLC grade methanol (1 mL)
having 99.9 % purity. The samples were filtered through a Millipore filter with pore
size 0.45 µm (HAWP04700 Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and analyzed by HPLC
(Agilent 1100, Germany) equipped with a UV detector and C-18 column (39 x 300mm).
The mobile phase was composed of water, methanol and acetic acid (70:30:1) at a flow
rate of 0.5 mL/min with an average sample run time of 15 min/sample. The IAA and
GA quantification was based on retention time and peak area of standards. Pure IAARs
(±) IAA (Sigma Chemicals Co. Ltd. USA), GA3Rs (±) GA3 (Sigma Chemicals Co. Ltd.
USA) were used as standards for identification and quantification of plant hormones.
The wavelengths used for detection of leaf indole acetic acid and gibberellic acid were
280 nm and 254 nm, respectively.
3.1.4.8 Yield and yield related parameters
After the completion of water stress period plants in all treatments were rewatered
and allowed to grow to maturity. When the plants turned yellow and their seed capsules
were mature, they were analyzed for yield and quality of fiber. Plant height of
randomly selected 10 plants/plot was measured using a measuring tape. Similarly, the
number of tillers/plant of 10 randomly selected plants/plot were counted. Total
number of capsules/plant was determined from10 plants/plot. Capsules were crushed
and cleaned mechanically using a threshing machine and total number of
seeds/capsule were estimated for each plot using the weight of 1000 seeds (hand
counted) per plot determined using a digital balance. After threshing, seeds obtained
from plants in all plots of each treatment were dried to 7% moisture content in an
oven (80 oC for 48 hours) and their dry weight was determined. Total seed yield
obtained per plot was converted to kg/ha. After removing capsules the weight (g) of air
dried straw in all plots was determined and the values were converted into kg/ha. Seed
length and width was determined using a digital Vernier Caliper (Mitutoyo, Japan).
33
3.1.4.9 Fiber quality
After harvesting, the straw was separated and put into stagnant water (pH 6.7) of a
pond for 4 days. After retting for 14 days it was washed with tap water and dried in
the sun. The fiber was removed by means of scutching using a scutching machine
(Taproot Fiber Lab, Port Williams, NS, Canada). Fiber length was determined by
measuring tape whereas, fiber weight was determined using a digital balance.
3.1.4.10 Seed oil content

NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) was used to quantify seed oil content as
described (Robertson & Morrison, 1979).
3.1.5 Statistical analysis.

The data about compositional analysis of organic fertilizers and their effects on soil
fertility indicators were tested via one way analysis of variance. Whereas, the data
obtained from two years field experiments were analyzed by two-way analysis of
variance. The replicates of two years of each treatment were combined and then
subjected to statistical analysis. The means of treatments and control were compared
by LSD test (Steel & Torrie, 1997). Coefficient of correlation (Pearson) was
determined among various growth and yield parameters using Statistix-9
∑𝑋𝑌 −((∑𝑋 )(∑𝑌 )/𝑛)

𝑟= (Eq.12)
√(∑𝑋2 −((∑𝑋 )/𝑛)2 )(∑𝑌2 −((∑𝑌 )/𝑛)2 )
X indicates values in the ﬁrst data set and Y indicates values in the second data set.
Value of n is 12.
34
RESULTS
3.2.1 Compositional analyses of organic fertilizers
3.2.1.1 NPK content of organic fertilizers
Results showed that organic fertilizers have a balanced composition with respect to
NPK content (Table 4.1). The N content of organic fertilizers was OF1 2.57%, OF2
3.20 %, OF3 2.75% and OF4 2.74%. Similarly, P content was OF1 0.71%, OF2 0.46%,
OF3 0.81% and OF4 0.84%. The K content was highest in OF3 12.43 % followed by
OF2 11.78 %, OF4 11.58 % and OF1 8.21 %.
3.2.1.2 Zn and Fe content of organic fertilizers
The Zn content was highest in OF2 372.00 mg/kg followed by OF4 324.00 mg/kg, OF3
322.00 mg/kg and OF1 230.00 mg/kg. The Fe value for various formulations of organic
fertilizers was OF1 3422.3 mg/kg, OF2 2893.3 mg/kg, OF3 4118.7 mg/kg and OF4
3485.0 mg/kg (Table 4.1).
3.2.1.3 Organic matter content of organic fertilizers
Organic matter content was highest in OF3 10.88 % followed by OF4 5.50 %, OF2
4.10% and OF1 2.83 % (Table 4.1).
3.2.1.4 pH and EC values of organic fertilizers
The EC value recorded was highest for OF2 13.40 mS/cm and lowest for OF1 7.93
mS/cm. Similarly, the highest pH value of 6.50 was recorded for OF2 and the lowest
pH value for OF1 4.78 (Table 4.1)
35
Table 4.1. Characterization of organic fertilizers
Organic pH EC(mS/cm) N (%) P (%) K (%) Organic Zn Fe
fertilizer matter (%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
4.78± 0.10c 7.93± 0.08d 2.57± 0.13b 0.71± 0.10ab 8.21±0.07c 2.83± 0.07d 230.00± 15.27c 3422.3± 12.71c
OF1
6.50± 0.15a 13.40± 0.12a 3.20± 0.11a 0.46± 0.04b 11.78±0.10b 4.10± 0.11c 372.00± 9.64a 2893.3± 7.50d
OF2
6.22± 0.13ab 12.90± 0.11b 2.75± 0.08b 0.81± 0.09a 12.43±0.10a 10.88± 0.11a 322.33±12.46b 4118.7± 11.05a
OF3
5.93± 0.14b 10.80± 0.08c 2.74± 0.16b 0.84± 0.04a 11.58±0.11b 5.50± 0.17b 324.00± 6.65b 3485.0± 11.21b
OF4
. ± is used for indication of standard error value

OF1- Organic fertilizer 1 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa), OF2- Organic fertilizer 2 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa +1 kg chicken manure), OF3-
Organic fertilizer 3 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.5 kg chicken manure + 0.25 kg Moringa oleifera leaves), OF4- Organic fertilizer 4 (1 kg
seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.25 kg chicken manure + 0.5 kg Moringa oleifera leaves).
36
3.2.2 Effects of organic fertilizers on soil fertility status
Improvement in soil fertility related parameters was recorded after the application of
organic fertilizers. The following soil fertility indicators were studied.
3.2.2.1 Soil pH and EC
Soil pH and EC was significantly affected by organic fertilizers. The highest EC value
was recorded for soil amended with OF2 280 μS cm-1 followed by OF3 270 μS cm-1,
OF1 250 μS cm-1 and OF4 240 μS cm-1. The EC value of control soil was 230 μS cm-1.
The soil pH was significantly decreased due to application of OF3 and OF4 (Table 4.2).
3.2.2.2 Soil total nitrogen, available phosphorous and potassium content
Use of organic fertilizers increased soil total nitrogen, available phosphorous and
potassium content (Table 4.2). All OF treatments significantly increased soil nitrogen
content with the highest value in OF3. Significantly higher and statistically similar
effect of OF1 and OF4 was recorded on soil available phosphorus content. Significantly
higher value of soil available potassium was recorded for treatment OF4. Moreover,
potassium content was higher in plots amended with OF3 than OF2 and OF1.
3.2.2.3 Soil Fe and Zn content
The OF3 and OF4 resulted in a higher soil Zn and Fe contents (Table 4.2). The plots
supplemented with OF3 had significantly highest values of Zn over other OF treatments
and untreated control plots. Zn content was higher in plots with OF4 than OF2 and OF1.
The Fe content was highest in plots applied with OF4 compared to other OF treatments
and untreated control. Fe content was higher in plots with OF3 than either OF2 or OF1.
37
3.2.2.4 Soil organic matter
Soil organic matter content was significantly increased by the application of all the
tested organic fertilizers compared to untreated control (Table 4.2). Maximum value of
organic matter content was recorded in field soil amended with OF3 followed by OF2,
OF4 and OF1.
38
Table 4.2 Effect of organic fertilizers on soil fertility status
Organic Total N (%) Available P Available Organic matter Zn (mg kg-1) Fe (mg kg-1) Soil pH Soil EC (μS
-1
fertilizers (%) K(mg kg ) (%) cm-1)
Control 0.0343±0.00c 4.00±0.00c 150.06±0.18e 0.69±0.04d 0.97±0.02d 0.80±0.03e 8.40±0.05a 230±1.09c
OF1 0.0387±0.00b 6.03±0.03a 155.13±0.24d 0.79±0.01c 1.05±0.05d 0.95±0.03d 7.80±0.05c 250±2.00b
ab b c b c c
OF2 0.0413±0.00 5.10±0.05 169.98±0.18 0.82±0.09 1.32±0.08 1.25±0.07 8.10±0.05b 280±1.01a
OF3 0.0433±0.00a 5.13±0.08b 190.03±0.43b 0.86±0.01a 2.18±0.09a 2.45±0.06b 7.80±0.05c 270±2.00a
ab a a c b a
OF4 0.0403±0.00 6.00±0.00 224.93±0.23 0.79±0.00 1.49±0.08 2.75±0.08 7.80±0.05c 240±2.03bc
Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the data was pooled together. ± is used for indication of standard error value
OF1- Organic fertilizer 1 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa), OF2- Organic fertilizer 2 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa +1 kg chicken manure), OF3-
Organic fertilizer 3 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.5 kg chicken manure + 0.25 kg Moringa oleifera leaves), OF4- Organic fertilizer 4 (1 kg
seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.25 kg chicken manure + 0.5 kg Moringa oleifera leaves).
39
3.2.3 Effect of organic fertilizers on growth, seed yield and fiber quality of linseed
3.2.3.1 Plant height of linseed
Treatments means showed beneficial effect of the synthesized organic fertilizers on

plant height of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.1a). In
a non – stress environment highest plant height was recorded in plants supplemented
with OF2, OF3 and OF4. The beneficial effect of OF2, OF3 and OF4 on plant height
was statistically similar. The imposed water stress significantly decreased plant height
of linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF2, OF3 and OF4 minimized
adverse effect of water stress on plant height.
Treatments and varieties interaction for plant height was non-significant (p> 0.05).
However, the water stress resulted percent decline in plant height was greater in
Chandni variety (18.01%) than Roshni (13.56%) and BL1 (12.37%) as compared with
their respective untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.1b). In non-stress conditions
all the treatments of organic fertilizers improved plant height of linseed varieties. All
the three varieties of linseed showed greater response to OF3 and OF4. In response to
OF3 and OF4 applications, Roshni showed 8.52% increase in plant height than its
untreated and irrigated control. Similarly, BL1 showed 12.6% increase in plant height
due to OF4 application over its untreated and irrigated control. Treatments OF3 and
OF4 showed 10.48% and 9.75% increase in plant height of Chandni over its untreated
and irrigated control. The water stress resulted decline in plant height was completely
overcome by the application of organic fertilizers. However, under water stress Roshni
and BL1 were more responsive to OF4. Whereas, Chandni showed greater response to
OF3.
Variety effect showed that Roshni had significantly higher plant height (101.09 cm)
than that of Chandni (93.56 cm) and BL1 (83.74 m) (Table 4.3).
3.2.3.2 Number of tillers per plant of linseed
Effect of various treatments on number of tillers per plant of linseed was significant at
p<0.05 (Figure 4.2a). In a non – stress environment highest number of tillers per plant
was recorded in plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4; however, the beneficial effect
of OF3 and OF4 on number of tillers per plant was statistically similar. The imposed
water stress significantly decreased number of tillers per plant of linseed. However,
40
application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 significantly minimized adverse effect
of water stress on number of tillers per plant of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions for number of tillers per plant was non-significant
(Figure 4.2b). However, water stress decreased the tillers production in Chandni (40%),
BL1 (38.33%) and Roshni (37.52%). In non-stress conditions organic fertilizers
improved tillers production per plant of linseed varieties. Of the three varieties Roshni
was more responsive to OF4; whereas BL1 and Chandni showed greater response to
OF2 and OF3. The water stress induced decrease in tillers production was significantly
overcome by the application of organic fertilizers. Under water stress, the positive
response of Roshni and Chandni was higher to OF3 and OF4; whereas BL1 was highly
responsive to OF1, OF2 and OF4.
Variety affect showed that Roshni had significantly more tillers per plant (7.70 tillers
per plant) than that of Chandni (6.97 tillers per plant) and BL1 (6.67 tillers per plant)
(Table 4.3).
41
120
a a a
c b
100 d cd cd cd
Plant height (cm) e
80
60
40
20
Treatments
Figure 4.1a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on plant height
of linseed varieties under water deficit stress (LSD: 3.7276). Due to non-significant
variations in two years data, the data was pooled together. Each bar is the mean
of 18 replicates. Error bars indicates value of standard error.
ifghijk
abc
abc
bcde
cdef
cdef
bcd
defg
efgh
efgh
ab
120
a
a
fghi
a
a
klmn
klmn
ghij
jklm
jklm
Plant height (cm)
ijkl
hij
hij
hij
hij
lmn
mn
100
no
o
80
60
40
20
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
Control
Control
Control
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.1b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on plant height of

linseed (LSD: 6.4564). Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the data
was pooled together. Different letters above the data columns indicate significant
differences among the treatments. Each bar is the mean of 6 replicates. OF1-
Organic fertilizer 1 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa), OF2- Organic fertilizer 2 (1 kg
seed cake of Eruca sativa +1 kg chicken manure), OF3- Organic fertilizer 3 (1 kg seed
cake of Eruca sativa + 0.5 kg chicken manure + 0.25 kg Moringa oleifera leaves), OF4-
Organic fertilizer 4 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.25 kg chicken manure + 0.5 kg
Moringa oleifera leaves).
42
12
Number of tillers per plant

10 ab a a
bc cd cd
8 cd d
6 e
4 f
Treatments
Figure 4.2a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on number of

tillers per plant of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.8665). Due to non-
significant variations in two years data, the data was pooled together. Each bar is
the mean of 18 replicates. Error bars indicates value of standard error.
14
Number of tillers per plant
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcd
12
a
bcdef
bc
cdefg
bcde
b
cdefg
cdefg
cdefg
ghijkl
bcd
cdefg
b
defg
defg
efg
efg
10
efg
fgh
ghi
8
hij
ij
6
jk
kl
kl
4
l
2
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
OF4+Water stress
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.2b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on number of tillers

per plant of linseed (LSD: 1.5008). Due to non-significant variations in two years
data, the data was pooled together. Different letters above the data columns
indicate significant differences among the treatments. Each bar is the mean of 6
replicates. OF1- Organic fertilizer 1 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa), OF2- Organic
fertilizer 2 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa +1 kg chicken manure), OF3- Organic
fertilizer 3 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.5 kg chicken manure + 0.25 kg Moringa
oleifera leaves), OF4- Organic fertilizer 4 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.25 kg
chicken manure + 0.5 kg Moringa oleifera leaves).
43
Table 4.3. Varieties means for plant height and number of tillers per plant
Varieties Plant height (cm) Number of tillers
Roshni 101.09a 7.70a
BL1 83.74c 6.67b
6.97b
Chandni 93.56b
LSD 2.0417 0.4746
Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the data was pooled together.
Different letters above the means indicate significant differences among the varieties
44
3.2.3.3 Shoot fresh weight of linseed
Organic fertilizers significantly increased linseed shoot fresh weight compared to
untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.3a). In a non – stress environment greater shoot
fresh weight was observed in plants grown on soils supplemented with OF3 and OF4.
The beneficial effect of OF3 and OF4 on shoot fresh weight was statistically similar.
The imposed water stress significantly decreased shoot fresh weight of linseed.
However, application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 significantly minimized the
adverse effect of water stress on shoot fresh weight of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions indicated that water stress had significantly
negative affect on shoot fresh weight of all the three tested linseed varieties (Figure
4.3b). The water stress resulted decline in shoot fresh weight was greater in Chandni
(55.12%) than Roshni (51.08%) and BL1 (51.60%) as compared with their respective
untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three varieties of linseed
showed positive response to organic fertilizers; however, response of all the three
linseed varieties was higher to OF3 and OF4. In response to OF3 and OF4 application
Roshni showed 24.22% and 23.99 % increase in shoot fresh weight as compared to its
untreated and irrigated control. Similarly BL1 showed 14.50 % and 11.45 % increase,
Chandni showed 33.40 % and 40.10 % increase in shoot fresh weight as compared to
their untreated and irrigated control. The water stress caused decrease in shoot fresh
weight was completely over came by the application of organic fertilizers OF3 and
OF4.
Variety effect showed that Roshni had significantly higher shoot fresh weight than that
of BL1 and Chandni. Lowest shoot fresh weight was recorded in Chandni (Table 4.4).
3.2.3.4 Shoot dry weight of linseed
Result of treatments means showed beneficial effect of the synthesized organic

fertilizers on shoot dry weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control
(Figure 4.4a). In a non – stress environment highest shoot dry weight was recorded in
plants supplemented with OF4 followed by OF3. The imposed water stress significantly
decreased shoot dry weight of linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF3
and OF4 completely overcame adverse effect of water stress on shoot dry weight of
linseed.
45
Treatments and varieties interactions indicated that water stress significantly decreased
shoot dry weight of all the three tested linseed varieties (Figure 4.4b). The water stress
resulted percent decline in shoot dry weight was greater in Chandni (73.06%) than
Roshni (52.67%) and BL1 (13.95%) as compared with their respective untreated and
irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three varieties of linseed showed positive
response to organic fertilizers. Response of linseed varieties Roshni and Chandni was
higher to OF3 and OF4 application. Whereas, BL1 was significantly more responsive
to OF2 application.
Variety affect showed that Roshni had significantly higher shoot dry weight than that
of BL1 and Chandni. The BL1 and Chandni exhibited statistically similar shoot dry
weight (Table 4.4).
3.2.3.5 Root fresh weight of linseed
Treatments means showed beneficial effect of the synthesized organic fertilizers on root
fresh weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.5a). In
a non - stress environment higher root fresh weight was recorded in plants
supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The beneficial effect of OF3 and OF4 on root fresh
weight was statistically similar. The imposed water stress significantly decreased root
fresh weight of linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4
minimized adverse effect of water stress on root fresh weight of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions for root fresh weight were non-significant (Figure
4.5b). However, the decrease in root fresh weight caused by water stress was greater in
Roshni than Chandni and BL1 as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated
control. In non-stress condition the three varieties of linseed showed positive response
to organic fertilizers. However, response of all the three linseed varieties was higher to
OF3 and OF4. In response to OF3 and OF4 application Roshni showed 38.73% and
46.45 % higher root fresh weight as compared to its untreated and irrigated control.
Similarly BL1 showed 64.32 % and 63.12 % higher root fresh weight over its untreated
and irrigated control. Chandni showed 45.25 % and 51.72 % higher root fresh weight
as compared to its untreated and irrigated control. The reduction in root fresh weight
due to water stress was totally over came by the application of organic fertilizers OF1,
OF2, OF3 and OF4.
46
Variety affect showed that Roshni had significantly higher root fresh weight than that
of BL1 and Chandni. The BL1 and Chandni had statistically similar root fresh weight
(Table 4.4).
3.2.3.6 Root dry weight of linseed
Treatments means showed that the synthesized organic fertilizers exhibited stimulatory
effect on the root dry weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control
(Figure 4.6a). In a non – stress environment higher root dry weight was recorded in
plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress significantly
decreased root dry weight of linseed as compared to irrigated control. However,
application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 significantly ameliorated water stress
induced decrease in root dry weight of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions for root dry weight was non-significant (Figure
4.6b). However, the water stress resulted percent reduction in root dry weight was
higher in Roshni (71.69%) than BL1 (61.53%) and Chandni (50%) as compared with
their respective untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three
varieties of linseed showed positive response to organic fertilizers. However, response
of all the three linseed varieties was higher to OF3 and OF4. In response to OF3 and
OF4 application Roshni showed 34.56 % and 44.79 % increase in root dry weight as
compared to its untreated and irrigated control. Similarly due to OF3 and OF4
application BL1 showed 43.47 % and 33.33 % increase in root dry weight as compared
to its untreated and irrigated control. Chandni showed 57.57 % and 62.16 % increase in
root dry weight due to OF3 and OF4 application as compared to its untreated and
irrigated control. The water stress resulted percent decline in root dry weight was
completely over came by the application of organic fertilizers OF1, OF2, OF3 and OF4;
however, OF3 and OF4 were more effective in overcoming water stress induced
decrease in root dry weight.
Variety affect showed that Roshni had significantly higher root dry weight than that of
Chandni and BL1. Lowest root dry weight was recorded in BL1 (Table 4.4).
47
30
a a
Shoot fresh weight (g)

25 ab
c bc bc
20 cd cd
d
15
10 e
Treatments
Figure 4.3a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on shoot fresh

weight of linseed (LSD: 2.3494). Due to non-significant variations in two years
data, the data was pooled together. Each bar is the mean of 18 replicates. Error
bars indicates value of standard error.
45
ab
abc
abc
abc
40
bc
cd
35
de
30
25
fgh
fghi
fghi
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fg
ghij
f
hijk
20
hij
ijkl
klm
jkl
lmn
lmn
15
mn
lm
mn
10
n
5
0
Control
Control
Water Stress
OF3
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF1
OF2
OF4
OF2+ Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF2+ Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF2+ Water stress

OF1+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.3b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on shoot fresh weight
of linseed (LSD: 4.0694). Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the
data was pooled together. Different letters above the data columns indicate
significant differences among the treatments. Each bar is the mean of 6 replicates.
OF1- Organic fertilizer 1 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa), OF2- Organic fertilizer 2 (1
kg seed cake of Eruca sativa +1 kg chicken manure), OF3- Organic fertilizer 3 (1 kg
seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.5 kg chicken manure + 0.25 kg Moringa oleifera leaves),
OF4- Organic fertilizer 4 (1 kg seed cake of Eruca sativa + 0.25 kg chicken manure +
0.5 kg Moringa oleifera leaves).
48
12
10 a
Shoot dry weight (g) ab
8 bc bcd
bcd cd cd bcd
d
6
4 e
2
Treatments
Figure 4.4a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers shoot dry
weight of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 1.2799). Due to non-significant
20
a
Shoot dry weight (g)
18
ab
16
bc
bc
bc
bc
14
c
12
efgh
d
10
efg
de
efgh
efgh
8 ef
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fgh
fghi
fghi
6
ghi
hi
4
i
2
0
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.4b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on shoot dry weight of
49
2.5
a a
Root fresh weight (g)

2 b
bc bc bc
1.5 cd
cd
1 d
e
0.5
Treatments
Figure 4.5a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root fresh

bcdef
abcd
a
cdefg
ab
cdefgh
efghijk
bcdef
abc
bcde
2.5
cdefg
defghi
efghijk
efghij
efghijk
efghijk
fghijk
fghij
2
ghijkl
ghijkl
hijklm
hijklm
hijklm
ijklmn
jklmn
1.5
klmn
lmn
mn
1
mn
0.5
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.5b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root fresh weight of
linseed (LSD: 0.5730). Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the
0.5 kg Moringa oleifera leaves)
50
0.9
0.8 a
abc ab ab
Root dry weight (g) 0.7 cd
0.6 bcd
cd
0.5 de
0.4 e
0.3
0.2 f
0.1
0
Treatments
Figure 4.6a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root dry

1.2
bcde
Root dry weight (g)
bcdef
cdefgh
bcd
bcdefg
1
abc
bcd
bcde
ab
cdefgh
defgh
defgh
defgh
defgh
0.8
efgh
fghi
ghi
fghi
fghi
ghi
0.6
ghi
hi
hi
hi
0.4
ij
ij
j
0.2
j
j
0
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF2+ Water stress

OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.6b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root dry weight of
51
Table 4.4. Varieties means for shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root fresh
weight and root dry weight
Varieties Shoot fresh Shoot dry Root fresh Root dry
weight (g) weight (g) weight (g) weight (g)
Roshni 30.78a 11.42a 1.52a 0.65a
BL1 15.51b 4.21b 1.17b 0.397c
Chandni 9.97c 3.85b 1.31b 0.49b
LSD 1.2868 0.7010 0.1812 0.0689
52
3.2.3.7 Leaf relative water content of linseed
Treatments means showed beneficial effect of the synthesized organic fertilizers on leaf
relative water content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.7a). In a non – stress environment highest leaf relative water content was recorded in
plants supplemented with OF4. The imposed water stress significantly decreased leaf
relative water content of linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF4
minimized adverse effect of water stress on leaf relative water content of linseed.
Interactions of treatments and varieties showed that leaf relative water content (LRWC)
of all the three linseed varieties was significantly negatively affected by water stress
(Figure 4.7b). The BL1 was more susceptible (12.84%) than Chandni (5.37%) and
Roshni (1.95%) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated controls.
Under normal irrigated conditions, all the formulations of organic fertilizer did not
affect LRWC. However, the treatments were more effective under stress conditions and
significantly overcome the water stress induced decrease in LRWC.
Variety affect showed that Roshni and BL1 exhibited similar and significantly higher
leaf relative water content than Chandni (Table 4.5).
3.2.3.8 Leaf chlorophyll a content of linseed
chlorophyll a content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.8a). In a non – stress environment higher content of chlorophyll a was recorded in
leaves of plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The beneficial effect of OF3 and
OF4 on leaf chlorophyll a content was statistically similar. The imposed water stress
significantly decreased content of chlorophyll a in leaves of linseed. However,
application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 minimized adverse effect of water stress
on leaf chlorophyll a content.
Treatments and varieties interactions for leaf chlorophyll a was non-significant

(p>0.05) (Figure 4.8b). The percentage of decrease in leaf chlorophyll a content caused
by water stress was greater in BL1 (47.22 %) than Chandni (40.53 %) and Roshni
(39.15%) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated control. In non-
stress condition the three varieties of linseed showed positive response to organic
fertilizers. However, response of all the three linseed varieties was higher to OF3 and
53
OF4. In response to OF3 and OF4 application Roshni showed 31.99% and 36.04 %
increase in leaf chlorophyll a content respectively as compared to its untreated and
irrigated control. Similarly BL1 showed 34.32% and 34.07 % higher chlorophyll a
content due to OF3 and OF4 application over its untreated and irrigated control.
Chandni showed 13.71 % and 27.33 % increase in leaf chlorophyll a content in response
to OF3 and OF4 application respectively as compared to its untreated and irrigated
control. The percentage of decrease in leaf chlorophyll a due to water deficiency stress
was significantly minimized by the application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4.
Variety affect showed that Roshni had significantly higher content of leaf chlorophyll
a than that of BL1 and Chandni. The BL1 and Chandni exhibited statistically similar
leaf chlorophyll a content (Table 4.5).
3.2.3.9 Leaf chlorophyll b content of linseed
Synthesized organic fertilizers positively influenced leaf chlorophyll b content of

linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.9a). Under non – stress
conditions highest content of chlorophyll b was recorded in leaves of plants
supplemented with OF4. The imposed water stress significantly decreased content of
chlorophyll b in leaves of linseed. However, application of all the four organic
fertilizers significantly minimized adverse effect of water stress on leaf chlorophyll b
content.
Treatments and varieties interaction indicated that water stress had significantly
negative affect on leaf chlorophyll b content of all the three tested linseed varieties
(Figure 4.9b). The percent decrease in leaf chlorophyll b content due to water stress
was higher in Chandni (40.78%) than BL1 (36.56%) and Roshni (21.23%) as compared
with their respective untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three
varieties of linseed showed positive response to organic fertilizers. However, response
of all the three linseed varieties was higher to OF3 and OF4. In response to OF3 and
OF4 application Roshni showed 27.36% and 43.30 % increase in leaf chlorophyll b
content as compared to its untreated and irrigated control. Similarly BL1 showed
38.81% and 44.39 % higher chlorophyll b content due to OF3 and OF4 application over
its untreated and irrigated control. Chandni showed 51.12 % and 58.58 % increase in
leaf chlorophyll b content respectively due to OF3 and OF4 application over its
untreated and irrigated control. The percentage of decrease in leaf chlorophyll b due to
54
water deficiency stress was completely over came by the application of organic
fertilizers OF4.
Variety affect showed that Roshni and BL1 had similar but significantly higher content
of leaf chlorophyll b over Chandni (Table 4.5).
3.2.3.10 Leaf carotenoids content of linseed
Means data of treatments showed stimulatory effect of the synthesized organic

fertilizers on leaf carotenoid content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated
control (Figure 4.10a). In a non-stressed environment higher content of carotenoid was
recorded in leaves of plants supplemented with OF2, OF3 and OF4. The beneficial
effect of the three organic fertilizers viz. OF2, OF3 and OF4 on leaf carotenoids content
was statistically similar. The imposed water stress significantly decreased content of
carotenoid in leaves of linseed as compared to irrigated control. However, application
of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 minimized adverse effect of water stress on leaf
carotenoid content.
Values of treatments and varieties interaction indicated that water stress significantly
(p<0.05) negatively affected leaf carotenoids content of all the three tested linseed
varieties as compared to their respective control (Figure 4.10b). The percentage of
decrease in leaf carotenoids due to water deficiency stress was greater in Roshni
(49.59%) than Chandni (30.26%) and BL1 (26.5%) as compared with their respective
untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress conditions the three varieties of linseed
showed positive response to organic fertilizers. However, response of all the three
linseed varieties was higher to OF2, OF3 and OF4. In response to OF2, OF3 and OF4
application Roshni showed 25.21%, 19.55% and 28.36 % increase in leaf carotenoids
content as compared to its untreated and irrigated control. Similarly, BL1 showed
36.78%, 35.10 % and 36.41 % higher leaf carotenoids content due to OF2, OF3 and
OF4 application respectively over its untreated and irrigated control. Chandni showed
34.07%, 48.58 % and 34.93 % increase in leaf carotenoids content respectively due to
OF2, OF3 and OF4 application as compared to its untreated and irrigated control. Under
water all the three varieties of linseed were highly responsive to organic fertilizers OF2,
OF3 and OF4.
Variety effect showed that Roshni and Chandni had similar and significantly higher
content of leaf carotenoid over BL1 (Table 4.5).
55
90
a
88
86 abc ab
abc abc
84 bcd
LRWC (%)
82 bcd bcd
cd
80
78 d
76
74
72
70
Treatments
Figure 4.7a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf relative

water content of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 4.0861). Due to non-
cdefg
cdefg
cdefg
cdefg
cdefg
abcd
abcd
bcde
bcdef
bcdefg
bcdefg
bcdefg
defg
abc
ab
100
ab
defg
ab
defg
defg
defg
defg
defg
defg
defg
a
efg
90
fg
fg
g
80
70
LRWC (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.7b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf relative water
content of linseed (LSD: 7.0773). Due to non-significant variations in two years
56
9
a
8
Chlorophyll a (mg/g f.w)
a
7 b
bc
6 cd de
5 ef
fg fg
4 g
3
2
1
0
Treatments
Figure 4.8a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf

chlorophyll a of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.8146). Due to non-
abcd
abcd
abcd
abc
9
ab
a
cde
bcde
Chlorophyll a (mg/g f.w)
defg
def
fghijk
efgh
ghijkl
efghi
efghi
efg
7
efg
ghijkl
fghij
hijkl
jklm
jklm
jklm
ijkl
ijkl
ijkl
klm
5
lm
lm
4
m
3
2
1
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.8b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on chlorophyll a of

57
6
Chlorophyll b ( mg/g.fw)
5 a
b
4 b
c c c c
3 c c
2 d
Treatments

chlorophyll b of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.4792). Due to non-
abcd
6
bcdefg
cdefgh
cdefgh
a
bcde
abc
bcdef
ab
cdefghi
Chlorophyll b (mg/g f.w)
defghi
efghij
efghij
5
efghij
fghijk
hijklm
ghijklm
efghij
efghij
ghijkl
4
ijklm
ijklm
jklm
klmn
klmn
lmn
lmn
mn
mn
2
n
1
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.9b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on chlorophyll b of

58
3
a
Leaf Carotenoids (mg/g f.w)

a a a
a ab
2.5
bc c
2 c
1.5
d
1
0.5
Treatments

carotenoid of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.3346). Due to non-
abcde
abcdef
abc
abcdefg
abcd
3.5
abcd
abcde
abcd
ab
abc
cdefg
bcdefg
bcdefg
cdefg
Leaf Carotenoid (mg/g f.w)
defg
a
defg
defg
efgh
2.5 efgh
fgh
gh
gh
gh
hi
2
hi
hi
1.5
i
i
i
1
0.5
0
Control
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF3
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF1
OF3
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF4
OF2+ Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF2
OF4
OF2+ Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.10b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf carotenoids

content of linseed (LSD: 0.5796). Due to non-significant variations in two years
59
Table 4.5. Varieties means for leaf chlorophyll a, b, leaf carotenoids and leaf
relative water content (RWC)
Varieties Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll b Carotenoids RWC%
(mg/g f.w) (mg/g f.w) (mg/g f.w)
Roshni 5.4639a 3.5015a 2.3352a 82.42a
BL1 4.9403b 3.1913a 1.8607b 82.10a
Chandni 4.9598b 2.0364b 2.1665a 78.88b
LSD 0.4213 0.3540 0.1833 2.24
60
3.2.3.11 Leaf electrolytic leakage of linseed
Treatments effect showed that leaf electrolytic leakage of linseed was significantly
decreased due to organic fertilizers application as compared to untreated and irrigated
control (Figure 4.11a). It was noted that water stress significantly increased leaf
electrolytic leakage of linseed. The applied organic fertilizers minimized leaf
electrolytic leakage both under non stress and water stress conditions. All the four tested
organic fertilizers OF1, OF2, OF3 and OF4 has statistically similar effect on leaf
electrolytic leakage content under water stress.
Treatments and varieties interaction for leaf electrolytic leakage was significant (Figure
4.11b). Water stress increased leaf electrolytic leakage in all the three tested linseed
varieties. The Roshni under water stress showed 52.63 % increase in leaf electrolytic
leakage as compared to its untreated and irrigated control. Similarly, the BL1 and
Chandni showed 32.28 % and 32.81 % higher leaf electrolytic leakage due to water
stress as compared to their untreated and irrigated control. Under water stress all the
four tested organic fertilizers exhibited statistically similar effect on leaf electrolytic
leakage of linseed varieties. The treatments OF1 + Water stress, OF2 + Water stress,
OF3+ Water stress and OF4+ Water stress had significantly lower and statistically
similar values of leaf electrolytic as compared to sole treatment of water stress.
Variety effect showed that highest value of leaf electrolytic leakage was recorded in
Roshni (127.09%). Whereas, lowest value of leaf electrolytic leakage was reported in
Chandni (101.13%). The leaf electrolytic leakage value in BL1 was 111.05% (Table
4.6).
3.2.3.12 Leaf total soluble sugars of linseed

Treatments effect showed that leaf total soluble sugars content of linseed was high in
organic fertilizers treatments as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.12a). Moreover, the stimulatory effect of four tested organic fertilizers on leaf soluble
sugars content was statistically similar. It was noted that water stress significantly
increased leaf total soluble of sugars content of linseed. It is worthy to mention here
that combined treatments of water stress and organic fertilizers had higher values of
soluble sugars content over untreated irrigated control but significantly lower values of
leaf total soluble sugars than sole treatment of water stress.
61
Treatments and varieties interactions for leaf total soluble of sugars content was non-
significant (Figure 4.12b). Speaking of percent increase, Roshni under water stress
showed 20.28 % increase in leaf total soluble sugars as compared to its untreated and
irrigated control. Similarly, the BL1 and Chandni showed 37.94 % and 26.83 % higher
leaf total soluble sugars due to water stress as compared to their untreated and irrigated
control. Under water stress all the four tested organic fertilizers exhibited statistically
similar effect on leaf total soluble sugars of linseed varieties. The treatments OF1 +
Water stress, OF2 + Water stress, OF3+ Water stress and OF4+ Water stress had
significantly lower and statistically similar values of leaf soluble sugars as compared to
sole treatment of water stress.
Variety effect showed that highest value of leaf total soluble sugars was recorded in
Roshni (351.86 mg/g). Whereas, lowest value of leaf total soluble sugars was reported
in Chandni (122.07 mg/g). The leaf total soluble sugars value in BL1 was 125.64 mg/g
(Table 4.6).
62
200 a
Leaf electrolytic leakage (%)

180
160
140
120 bc bc bc bc c bc bc bc b
100
80
60
40
20
0
Treatments

electrolytic leakage of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 7.2630). Due to non-
300
Leaf electrolytic leakage (%)
250
200
cdefgh
cdefgh
defghi
defghi
defghi
defghi
defghi
cdefg
b
cdef
cdef
cdef
cdef
cdef
efghi
cde
fghi
cd
cd
150 ghi
c
hi
hi
ij
ij
ij
ij
100
j
50
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF2
Control
Water Stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.11b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf electrolytic

leakage of linseed (LSD: 12.580). Due to non-significant variations in two years
63
300
Leaf total soluble sugars (mg/g)

250 a
bc bc b bc bc bc
cd bc
200 d
150
100
50
Treatments
Figure 4.12a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf total
soluble sugars of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 17.196). Due to non-
500
Leaf total soluble sugars content (mg/g)
450
b
bc
400
b
bc
b
b
b
c
350
300
250
def
def
def
de
def
def
def
efg
efg
200
efg
efg
efg
efg
d
efg
fg
fg
fg
fg
150
g
100
50
0
Control
Water Stress
OF2
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF3
OF1
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.12b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf total soluble
sugars of linseed (LSD: 29.785). Due to non-significant variations in two years
64
Table 4.6. Varieties means for leaf electrolytic leakage and leaf total soluble
sugars content
Varieties Leaf electrolytic leakage Leaf total soluble sugars
(%) mg/g
Roshni 127.09a 351.86a
BL1 111.05b 125.64b
Chandni 101.13c 122.07b
LSD 3.978 9.4188
65
3.2.3.13 Leaf indole acetic acid content of linseed
Data of treatments means showed beneficial effect of the synthesized organic fertilizers
on leaf indole acetic acid content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated
control (Figure 4.13a). In a non – stress environment highest indole acetic acid content
was recorded in plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress
significantly decreased leaf indole acetic acid content of linseed as compared to
irrigated control. The organic fertilizers application prevented decrease in leaf indole
acetic content due to water stress; however, OF3 and OF4 were significantly more
effective under water stress.
Values of treatments and varieties interactions indicated significant decrease in leaf

indole acetic acid content of all the three used linseed varieties (Figure 4.13b). Percent
decrease in the indole acetic acid due to water stress was higher in leaves of BL1 (30.17
%) followed by Chandni (28.80 %) and Roshni (25 %) as compared with their
respective untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress environment organic fertilizer
treatments showed positive effect on the indole acetic acid, however the indole acetic
acid was higher in the leaves of plants treated with OF3 and OF4.
Variety affect showed that indole acetic acid was higher in Roshni (90.30 µg/g) than
Chandni (81.00 µg/g) and BL1 (74.80 µg/g) respectively (Table 4.7).
3.2.3.14 Leaf gibberellic acid content of linseed

gibberellic acid content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control
(Figure 4.14a). In a non – stress environment highest gibberellic acid content was
recorded in plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress
significantly decreased leaf gibberellic acid content of linseed as compared to irrigated
control. The organic fertilizers minimized decrease in leaf gibberellic acid production
due to water stress; however, OF3 and OF4 were significantly more effective than OF1
and OF2.
Values of treatments and varieties interactions showed significant decrease in leaf

gibberellic acid content of all the three linseed varieties (Figure 4.14b). Percentage of
decrease in leaf gibberellic acid content due to water deficiency stress was greater in
leaves of BL1 (29.64 %) than Chandni (28.91 %) and Roshni (23.12 %) as compared
66
with their respective untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress environment
organic fertilizer treatments showed positive effect on gibberellic acid of all the three
linseed varieties; however highest gibberellic acid concentration was observed in leaves
of those plants which were treated with OF3 and OF4. Under water stress conditions,
response of all the three varieties was significantly higher to OF3 and OF4.
Variety affect showed that gibberellic acid was higher in leaves of Roshni (92.23 µg/g)
than Chandni (82.83 µg/g) and BL1 (76.17 µg/g) (Table 4.7).
67
120
Leaf Indole acetic acid content (ug/g)

a a
100 b bc
d c de d
e
80
f
60
40
20
Treatments
Figure 4.13a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on indole

acetic acid of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 1.6119). Due to non-
120
ab
cde
Indole acetic acid (ug/g)
def
cd
b
ef
c
fg
fg
fg
fg
100
klm
f
hi
hi
hi
h
jkl
lm
jk
jk
ij
m
no
80
n
o
p
q
60
40
20
0
Control
Water Stress
OF1
Control
Water Stress
OF2
Control
Water Stress
OF3
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.13b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on indole acetic acid
of linseed (LSD: 2.79). Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the data
68
120
Leaf gibberllic acid (ug/g)

a a
100 b
d c d b
e e
80
f
60
40
20
Treatments
Figure 4.14a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on gibberellic

acid of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 1.8435). Due to non-significant
120
ab
cde
a
Leaf giberllic acid (ug/g)
cd
efg
b
ef
c
ef
ef
ef
gh
fg
ij
100
klm
hi
mn
ij
ij
ij
jk
lm
kl
k
k
no
lm
80
o
p
q
60
40
20
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.14b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on gibberellic acid of

69
Table 4.7. Varieties means for Leaf indole acetic acid and Leaf gibberellic acid
Varieties Leaf indole acetic acid Leaf gibberellic acid

content (ug/g) content ug/g)
Roshni 90.30a 92.23a
BL1 74.80c 76.17c
Chandni 81.00b 82.83b
LSD 0.8829 1.0097
70
3.2.3.15 Leaf phenolics content of linseed
phenolics content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.15a). In a non – stress environment highest leaf phenolics content was recorded in
plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress also significantly
increased root phenolics content of linseed as compared to irrigated control. The
organic fertilizers further boosted the phenolics production in leaves of linseed under
water stress; however, highest values of leaf phenolics content were recorded in
treatment OF4 + water stress followed by treatment OF3 + water stress.
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf phenolics content was found non-
significant (Figure 4.15b).However, percent increase in phenolics content due to water
stress was higher in leaves of Roshni (44.47%) followed by Chandni (35.94%) and BL1
(35.28%) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated control. In a non-
stress environment organic fertilizer treatments showed positive effect on the content
of leaf phenolics; however, higher phenolics content was recorded in the leaves of
plants treated with OF4. Under water stress conditions, the beneficial effects of organic
fertilizers on phenolics content were more pronounced than under non-stress
conditions.
Variety affect showed that leaf phenolics content was statistically similar in all the three
vanities of linseed (Table 4.8).
3.2.3.16 Root phenolics of linseed
Mean values of treatments showed that synthesized organic fertilizers except OF2
significantly improved root phenolics content of linseed as compared to untreated and
irrigated control (Figure 4.16a). In a non – stress environment highest root phenolics
content was recorded in treatments supplemented with OF3 and OF4. Water stress
resulted in a significant increase in root phenolics content as compared to untreated and
irrigated control. Application of organic fertilizers further improved the content of root
phenolics under water stress; however, OF3 and OF4 were significantly more effective
in improving root phenolics content under water stress.
71
Treatments and varieties interactions for root phenolics content was significant (Figure
4.16b). The water stress enhanced the root phenolics content of Roshni, BL1 and
Chandni by 37.30%, 28.22% and 36.85% as compared with their respective untreated
and irrigated controls. In non-stress conditions organic fertilizers boosted production of
phenolics in roots; however, maximum phenolics content was recorded for treatment
OF4. In terms of phenolics content Roshni showed greater response to applied
fertilizers than that of BL1 and Chandni. The treatment OF4 + Water stress has
significantly more phenolics in roots than any other treatment.
Variety affect showed that root phenolics content was statistically similar in all the
three varieties of linseed (Table 4.8).
3.2.3.17 Leaf antioxidants content of linseed
Treatments effect showed that the content of antioxidant in leaves of linseed was
significantly increased due to organic fertilizers application as compared to untreated
and irrigated control (Figure 4.17a). It was noted that stimulatory effect of organic
fertilizers under non – stress conditions on leaf antioxidant content was statistically
similar. The imposed water stress also exhibited stimulatory effect on leaf antioxidant
content as compared to untreated and irrigated control. However, water stress did not
affect antioxidants content in treatments of organic fertilizers. In other words organic
fertilizers maintained normal level of antioxidants content under water stress.
Treatments and varieties interactions was observed non-significant as p value was

higher than 0.05 (Figure 4.17b). The Roshni showed 35.16 % increase in leaf
antioxidants content in response to water stress as compared to its untreated and
irrigated control. Similarly, the BL1 and Chandni showed 17.09 % and 23.60 %
increase in leaf antioxidants content due to water stress in comparison to their untreated
and irrigated respective control. After period of water stress all the four tested organic
fertilizers exhibited statistically similar effect on leaf antioxidants content of linseed
varieties.
Variety affect showed that leaf antioxidants content was higher in leaves of BL1, than
Roshni and Chandni. Similar, value of leaf antioxidant was higher in leaves of Roshni
than Chandni (Table 4.8).
72
3.2.3.18 Root antioxidants content of linseed
Mean values of treatments showed that the content of antioxidants in roots of linseed
was not significantly affected due to organic fertilizers application as compared to
untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.18a). It was noted that effect of organic
fertilizers under non-stress conditions on root antioxidant content was statistically
similar. The imposed water stress significantly increased root antioxidants content as
compared to untreated and irrigated control. Induced increase in root antioxidants
content was reversed by organic fertilizers treatments. All the four tested organic
fertilizers OF1, OF2, OF3 and OF4 has statistically similar effect on root antioxidant
content under water stress.
Treatments and varieties interactions showed that water stress significantly increased
root antioxidants content of all the three linseed varieties (p<0.05). The Roshni showed
20.28 % higher root antioxidants content after water stress as compared to its untreated
and irrigated control (Figure 4.18b). Similarly, the BL1 and Chandni showed 57.95 %
and 28.70 % increase in root antioxidants content due to water stress in comparison to
their untreated and irrigated respective control. After period of water stress all the four
tested organic fertilizers exhibited statistically similar effect on root antioxidants
content of the three linseed varieties under water stress .The treatments OF1 + water
stress , OF2 + water stress, OF3 + water stress and OF4+ water stress had statistically
similar content of root antioxidants to that of untreated and irrigated control.
Variety affect showed that root antioxidants content was statistically similar in all the
three varieties of linseed (Table 4.8).
73
45 a
Leaf phenolics (mg Gallic acid eq./ g f.w)

40
35 b
c
30 cd
25 de de
ef e
20 f f
15
10
5
0
Treatments

phenolics of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 3.9063). Due to non-
Leaf phenolics (mg GAE eq./ g f.w)
50
cde
a
cdef
45
ab
ab
bcd
fghijkl
bc
40
efgijkl
defg
ghijk
hijklmn
efgh
efgh
35
hijklm
ghijk
ghijkl
ghijk
ijklmn
ijklmn
ijklmn
ghij
ghij
jklmn
30
jklmn
klmn
25
lmn
mn
mn
20 n
15
10
5
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatemnts
Figure 4.15b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf phenolics

content of linseed (LSD: 6.7659.Due to non-significant variations in two years
74
40
Root phenolics(mg Gallic acid eq./ g f.w)

35 a
b
30
25 cd c
de cde cde
20 ef
fg
15 g
10
5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.16a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root

phenolics of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 2.5595). Due to non-
40
Fig 13.Treatment means sharing effect of organic fertilizers on leaf phenolics of
a
bc
ab
Root phenolics (mg GAE eq./ g f.w)
bc
35
fghijkl
linseed
30 under water deficit stress
cd
cd
de
fghijkl
fghijkl
de
efgh
efgh
efgh
fghij
efg
ghijk
fghij
fghij
fgh
ef
25
ghij
ghij
hijk
hijk
ijkl
20
jkl
kl
kl
15
l
10
5
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.16b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root phenolics of

75
60
50 a
b bc bc bc bc bc
Leaf antioxidant (%) bc c
40 d
30
20
10
Treatments

antioxidant of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 2.6874). Due to non-
70
ab
Leaf antioxidant (%)
ab
ab
a
60
bc
bc
bc
bc
b
cd
de
efg
fgh
50
fghi
fghi
fghi
ef
ghij
ef
hijk
hijk
ijk
ijk
ijk
40
jk
jk
k
k
30
l
20
10
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF1
Control
Water Stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress

OF1+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.17b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on leaf antioxidant of

76
35
30 a
Root antioxidant (%)

25 b
bc bc bc
20 bc bc bc bc
c
15
10
5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.18a.Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on root

antioxidant of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 3.3842). Due to non-
45
Root antioxidant (%)
40
a
35
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcde
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
30 b
bcdef
bcdef
bcd
bcd
bcdef
bc
cdef
25
def
def
def
ef
20
f
15
10
5
0
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF3
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF4
OF4 + Wate stress

OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress

OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.18b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on root antioxidant

77
Table 4.8. Varieties means for leaf and root phenolics and leaf and root
antioxidant
Varieties Leaf Root Leaf Root
phenolics (mg phenolics (mg antioxidant antioxidant
Gallic acid eq/ Gallic acid eq/ (%) (%)
g f.w) g f.w)
Roshni 23.468a 20.085a 32.446c 18.80 a
BL1 25.139a 20.012a 52.433a 19.87 a
Chandni 23.256a 19.596a 38.601b 19.639 a
LSD 2.1396 1.4019 1.4719 1.8536
78
3.2.3.19 Number of capsule per plant
All the treatments of organic fertilizers positively affected number of capsule per plant
of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.19a). In a non –
stress environment highest number of capsules per plant was recorded in plants
supplemented with OF4 followed by OF3. The imposed water stress significantly
decreased number of capsule per plant of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated
control. Application of organic fertilizers significantly minimized adverse effect of
water stress on number of capsule per plant of linseed; however, most effective organic
fertilizers under water stress were OF3 and OF4.
Treatments and varieties interactions indicated that water stress significantly decreased
number of capsule per plant of linseed varieties Roshni and BL1. The Chandni was not
significantly effected by water stress (Figure 4.19b). The percent decrease in number
of capsule per plant due to water stress was higher in Roshni (38.37 %) than BL1 (27.16
%) and Chandni (24.93 %) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated
control. In non-stress condition the three varieties of linseed showed positive response
to organic fertilizers. However, response of the linseed varieties BL1 and Chandni was
higher to OF3 and OF4. Whereas, Roshni was significantly more responsive to OF4
and OF2. Under water stress linseed varieties Roshni and BL1 were more responsive
to OF3 and OF4. Whereas, Chandni should better response to OF2 and OF4 under water
stress.
Variety affect showed that Roshni had highest number of capsule per plant than
Chandni and BL1. BL1 and Chandni varieties are statistically similar (Table 4.9).
3.2.3.20 Total number of seeds per capsule
Means values of treatments showed beneficial effect of the synthesized organic

fertilizers on total number of seeds per capsule of linseed as compared to untreated and
irrigated control (Figure 4.20a). In a non – stress environment highest number of seeds
per capsule was recorded in plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed
water stress significantly decreased total number of seeds per capsule of linseed.
However, application of all the four tested organic fertilizers significantly reversed
decreasing effect of water stress on total number of seeds per capsule of linseed.
79
Although Treatments and varieties interaction for number of seeds per capsule was non-
significant (p>0.05) yet the decrease in total number of seeds per capsule due to water
stress was higher in Chandni (39.97%) than Roshni (36.01 %) and BL1 (26.07 %) as
compared with their respective untreated and irrigated control (Figure 20b). In non-
stress condition the three varieties of linseed showed positive response to organic
fertilizers. However, response of all the three linseed varieties was higher to OF2, OF3
and OF4. Under water stress all the three varieties of linseed statistically similar
response to the four tested organic fertilizers.
Variety affect showed that all the three linseed varieties had statistically similar number
of seeds per capsule (Table 4.9).
3.2.3.21 Seed length of linseed
Treatments means depicted that the synthesized organic fertilizers positively influenced
seed length of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.21a). In
a non – stress environment highest seed length was recorded in plants supplemented
with OF1, OF2 OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress significantly decreased seed
length of linseed. Application of all the tested organic fertilizers significantly
minimized adverse effect of water stress on seed length of linseed; however organic
fertilizers OF3 and OF4 were significantly more effective.
negative affect on seed length of all the three tested linseed varieties (Figure 4.21b).
The percent decrease in seed length due to water stress was higher in BL1 (19.15 %)
than Roshni (17.67 %) and Chandni (17.55 %) as compared with their respective
untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three varieties of linseed
showed positive response to organic fertilizers. The percent decrease in seed length due
to water stress of all the three linseed varieties was completely overcome by the
application of organic fertilizers.
Variety affect showed that Roshni and BL1 had statistically similar and higher seed
length over Chandni (Table 4.9).
80
3.2.3.22 Seed width of linseed
Treatments means showed that under non-stress conditions all the synthesized organic
fertilizers did not significantly effect seed width of linseed as compared to untreated
and irrigated control (Figure 4.22a). The imposed water stress significantly decreased
seed width of linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4
significantly minimized adverse effect of water stress on seed width of linseed.
negative affect on seed width of linseed varieties Roshni and Chandni. However, water
stress did not significantly affect seed width of BL1 (Figure 4.22b). The percent
decrease seed width due to water stress was higher in Roshni (14.77 %) than Chandni
(8.27 %) and BL1 (5.50%) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated
control. The water stress resulted percent decline in seed width was completely
overcome by the application of organic fertilizers OF1, OF2, OF3 and OF4; however,
OF3 and OF4 were more effective in the amelioration of water stress effect on seed
width of all the three tested linseed varieties.
Variety means showed that Roshni and Chandni had statistically similar and higher seed
width over BL1 (Table 4.9).
81
300
Number of capsules per plant

a
250
bc b bcd
200 de bcd
cde de
e
150
f
100
50
Treatments
Figure 4.19a .Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on number

of capsule per plant of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 30.377). Due to
non-significant variations in two years data, the data was pooled together. Each
bar is the mean of 18 replicates. Error bars indicates value of standard error.
350
cdefghi
fghijklm
cdefgh
fghijklmn
ab
ghijklmno
defghijk
bcde
cdef
defghij
defghi
hijklmno
300
cdefg
bc
cdef
hijklmno
efghijk
bcd
fghijkl
fghijkl
ijklmno
klmno
jklmno
jklmno
250
lmno
lmno
200
mno
no
150 o
100
50
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.19b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on number of capsule

per plant of linseed (LSD: 52.615). Due to non-significant variations in two years
82
12 a a
Total number of seed per capsule

ab ab b b ab
10 b
c
8
6 d
Treatments
Figure 4.20a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on total

number of seed per capsule per plant of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD:
0.8550). Due to non-significant variations in two years data, the data was pooled
together. Each bar is the mean of 18 replicates. Error bars indicates value of
standard error.
14
Total numbers of seeds per capsule
abc
abcd
abcd
abcd
abcd
abcd
abcd
abc
abc
abc
ab
ab
ab
ab
a
12
abc
a
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
cde
cde
cde
de
10
de
8
f
6
f
4
2
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1
Treatemnts Chandni
Figure 4.20b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on total numbers of

seeds per capsule of linseed (LSD: 1.4810). Due to non-significant variations in two
years data, the data was pooled together. Different letters above the data columns
83
6
c a a ab a bc c ab ab
Seed length (mm) 5
d
4
Treatments
Figure 4.21a .Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on seed length
of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.0765). Due to non-significant
defgh
defgh
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
bcdef
cdefg
bcde
bcde
bcde
bcde
efgh
bcd
fghi
ghi
ab
bc
bc
bc
bc
Seed length (mm)
hi
i
5
j
j
j
4
3
2
1
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.21b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on seed length of

84
3.5
3 abc abc ab a
abc bc cd e de
Seed width (mm)
2.5 f
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.22a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on seed width
abcde
abcde
abcde
abcde
abcde
abcde
abcde
bcdef
bcdef
defgh
cdefg
cdefg
abcd
abcd
abcd
efghijkl
3.5
abc
fghij
ab
ghij
Seed width (mm)
hijk
hijk
hijk
a
3
ijk
ijk
jk
k
k
k
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.22b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on seed width of

85
Table 4.9. Varieties means for number of capsule per plant, total number of seed
per capsule, seed length and seed width
Varieties Number of Total number Seed length Seed width
capsule per plant of seed per (mm) (mm)
capsule
Roshni 208.50a 9.26a 4.97a 2.59a
BL1 147.37b 9.53a 4.99a 2.41b
Chandni 157.37b 9.06 a 4.92b 2.59a
LSD 16.638 0.4683 0.0419 0.0514
86
3.2.3.23 The 1000 seed weight of linseed

1000 seed weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.23a). In a non – stress environment highest 1000 seed weight was recorded in plants
supplemented OF4 followed by OF3 and OF2. The imposed water stress significantly
decreased 1000 seed weight of linseed as compared to irrigated control. However,
application of organic fertilizers OF1, OF2, OF3 and OF4 significantly minimized
adverse effect of water stress on 1000 seed weight of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interaction indicated that water stress had significantly
negative effect on 1000 seed weight of all the three tested linseed varieties (Figure 4.
23b). The water stress resulted percent decline in 1000 seed weight was greater in
BL1(6.42 %) than Roshni (2.98 %) and Chandni (2.02%) as compared with their
respective untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three varieties of
linseed showed positive response to organic fertilizers. However, response of all the
three linseed varieties was higher to OF3 and OF4. In response to OF3 and OF4
application Roshni showed 3.78 % and 4.16 % increase in thousand seed weight as
compared to its untreated and irrigated control. Similarly BL1 showed 21.88 % and
21.76 % increase and Chandni showed 5.00 %, 5.24 % increase in 1000 seed weight in
response to OF3 and OF4 application as compared to their untreated and irrigated
control. The percent decrease in 1000 seed weight of all the three varieties due to water
stress was completely overcome by the application of organic fertilizers.
Variety affect showed that Chandni had highest 1000 seed weight followed by Roshni
and BL1 (Table 4.10).
3.2.3.24 Total seed yield of linseed

All the treatments of organic fertilizers showed positive effect on total seed yield of
linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.24a). In a non – stress
environment highest seed yield was recorded in plants supplemented OF4. The imposed
water stress significantly decreased total seed yield of linseed as compared to irrigated
control. However, application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 significantly
minimized adverse effect of water stress on total seed yield of linseed.
87
negative affect on total seed yield of all the three tested linseed varieties (Figure 4.24b).
The percentage of decrease in total seed yield caused by water deficiency stress was
greater in Roshni (33.33 %) than Chandni (17.95 %) and BL1 (17.44 %) as compared
with their respective untreated and irrigated control. In non-stress condition the three
varieties of linseed showed positive response to organic fertilizers. The percent
decrease in total seed yield of Roshni and BL1 due to water stress was completely
overcome by the application of organic fertilizers OF2, OF3 and OF4. However, in case
of Chandni only OF4 was significantly effective in minimizing water stress effects on
seed yield.
Variety affect showed that Roshni and BL1 had similar and significantly higher seed
yield over Chandni (Table 4.10).
3.2.3.25 Seed oil content of linseed
Data of treatments means revealed that the synthesized organic fertilizers improved
seed oil content of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.25a).
In a non – stress environment highest seed oil content was recorded in plants
supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress significantly decrease seed
oil content of linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4
significantly minimized adverse effect of water stress on seed oil content of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions showed that seed oil content was significantly
decreased in all the three varieties of linseed upon exposure to water stress (Figure 4.
25b). Percent decrease of seed oil content due to water deficit stress was greater in
Chandni (11.01%) than BL1 (8.52 %) and Roshni (7.89 %) as compared with their
respective untreated and irrigated controls. In non-stress condition the three varieties of
linseed showed positive response to organic fertilizers. Seed oil content was reported
greater in OF3 and OF4 application. All the fertilizers minimized the adverse effect of
water stress on seed oil content
Variety affect showed that Roshni had high seed oil content (33.44 %) than Chandni
(32.83 %) and BL1 (32.35 %) (Table 4.10).
88
7.6
b ab a
7.4
1000 seed weight (g)

7.2 cd cd cd c
d
7
6.8 e
6.6 f
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
Treatments
Figure 4.23a.Treatments means sharing effect of organic fertilizers on thousand

seed yield of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.0563). Due to non-
ab
efg
fgh
fgh
fgh
bc
de
de
cd
gh
gh
gh
ef
a
fg
hi
c
c
i
j
m
m
m
l
7
l
n
o
6
p
q
5
4
3
2
1
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
Control
Control
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.23b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on 1000 seed weight
89
4500
Total seed yield (kg/hectare)

a
4000 b ab b
3500 c
c cd c
3000 de
2500 e
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Treatments
Figure 4.24a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on total seed
yield of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 312.31). Due to non-significant
abcde
5000
defgh
abcd
abc
abc
abc
bcde
ab
abc
Total seed yield (kg/hectare)
4500
cdef
efghi
defg
cde
ghijk
fghij
4000
ghij
hijkl
hijkl
hijkl
jklm
3500
ijkl
klm
jkl
3000
lm
lm
lm
2500
m
2000
1500
1000
500
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
Control
Control
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress

Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.24b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on total seed yield of
90
45
40 a a
bc b b bc
Seed oil content (%) 35 d e cd
f
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.25a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers seed oil
content of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.6202). Due to non-significant
defghi
defghi
defghij
defghij
defghij
defgh
defghi
defghi
bcde
efghij
40
cdef
defg
bcd
fghij
bc
a
a
bc
ghij
hijk
b
ijk
35
jk
kl
kl
Seed oil content (%)
m
l
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Water Stress
Control
Water Stress
OF2
Control
Water Stress
OF1
Control
OF1
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1+Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.25b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on seed oil content of
91
Table 4.10. Varieties means for thousand seed weight, Seed yield and seed oil
content
Varieties Thousand seed Seed Seed oil content
weight (g) yield(kg/hectare) (%)
Roshni 7.47b 3473.3a 32.83b
BL1 6.10c 3323.3a 32.35c
Chandni 7.51a 2493.3b 33.44a
LSD 0.0308 171.06 0.3397
92
3.2.3.26 Straw yield of linseed
Organic fertilizers positively influenced straw yield of linseed as compared to untreated
and irrigated control (Figure 4.26a). In a non – stress environment highest straw yield
was recorded in plants supplemented with OF3 and OF4. The imposed water stress
significantly decreased straw yield of linseed as compared to irrigated control.
However, application of organic fertilizers OF2, OF3 and OF4 significantly minimized
adverse effect of water stress on straw yield of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions showed that water stress significantly decreased
straw yield of all the three varieties of linseed (Figure 4.26b). Percent decrease in straw
yield due to water stress was higher in Roshni (24.88%) than BL1 (23.33%) and
Chandni (22.56%) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated control.
Among the four used organic fertilizers, OF4 was more promising in the alleviation of
adverse effects of water deficiency on the straw yield of Roshni and BL1 whereas,
Chandni was more responsive to OF2.
Variety means showed that Roshni and BL1 had statistically similar and significantly
higher straw yield over Chandni (Table 11).
3.2.3.27 Fiber length of linseed

fiber length of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.27a). In
a non – stress environment highest fiber length was recorded in plants supplemented
with OF2 and OF4. The imposed water stress significantly decreased fiber length of
linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF2, OF3 and OF4 minimized
adverse effect of water stress on fiber length of linseed.
Treatment and varieties interaction was significant at p<0.05. Water stress exhibited a
major decrease in fiber length of linseed varieties (Figure 4.27b). Percent decrease in
fiber length due to water deficit stress was greater in Chandni (22.40 %) than Roshni
(19.15 %) and BL1 (18.75 %) as compared with their respective untreated and irrigated
controls. Linseed plants supplemented with organic fertilizers had a significantly higher
fiber length over the control both under normal and water deficit conditions. Under non-
stress conditions, OF4 increased fiber length of Roshni and Chandni (30.8% and
22.67%) respectively. However, BL1 showed greater response to OF3 that caused a
27.5% increase in their fiber length over untreated control. We noted that organic
93
fertilizers completely overcame the negative effects of water deficit stress on fiber
length; however, the OF3 and OF4 had greater tendency than that of OF1 and OF2.
Variety affect showed that Roshni and Chandni had significantly higher fiber length
than BL1. Roshni and Chandni are statistically similar (Table 4.11).
3.2.3.28 Fiber weight of linseed
Treatments means showed beneficial affect of the synthesized organic fertilizers on

fiber weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.28a).
In a non – stress environment highest fiber weight was recorded in plants supplemented
with OF2 and OF4. The imposed water stress significantly decreased fiber weight of
linseed. However, application of organic fertilizers OF2 and OF4 minimized adverse
effect of water stress on fiber weight of linseed.
Treatments and varieties interactions indicated that fiber weight was significantly
decreased (p<0.05) (Figure 4.28b). Percent decrease in fiber weight due to water deficit
stress was greater in BL1 (50.51%) than Roshni (37.67%) and Chandni (35.08%) as
compared with their respective untreated and irrigated controls. Under non-stressed
conditions, organic fertilizer OF4 resulted in higher value (35.4%) of fiber weight over
other treatments. Similarly, decrease in fiber weight after water deficit stress was
overcome by all the formulations of organic fertilizer; however, the OF4 was
significantly more effective in the protection of fiber weight from the damaging effects
of water deficit stress.
Variety affect showed that Roshni and Chandni had significantly higher fiber weight
than BL1. Roshni and Chandni are statistically similar (Table 4.11).
94
16000
Straw yield (kg/hectare)

14000 a
b ab
12000 bc
de cd
ef de
10000 f
8000 g
6000
4000
2000
0
Treatments
Figure 4.26a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on straw yield
abcdef
abcde
abcd
bcdef
defg
16000
abc
abc
ab
cdef
efgh
a
a
fghi
14000
ghij
ghij
ghij
ghij
hijk
12000
ijk
ijk
klm
jkl
jk
jk
jk
10000
lm
lm
m
m
m
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.26b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on straw yield of

95
70
a ab
60 cd bc
de de e e
Fiber length (cm) 50 f
40 g
30
20
10
0
Treatments
Figure 4.27a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers fiber length
cdefgh
80
cdefgh
cdefgh
cdefgh
cdefgh
cdefgh
cdefgh
cdefg
ab
defgh
a
cdef
bcd
cde
70
Fiber length (cm)
efgh
bc
efgh
efgh
fghi
ghij
hijk
60
ijkl
jkl
jkl
kl
50
lm
l
l
m
m
40
30
20
10
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
Control
Control
OF2+ Water stress

Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.27b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on fiber length of

96
2
a
1.8
1.6 b b bc
Fiber weight (g)

1.4 bc
bc bc bc
1.2 c
1
0.8 d
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Treatments
Figure 4.28a. Treatments means showing effect of organic fertilizers on fiber

weight per plant of linseed under water deficit stress (LSD: 0.2883). Due to non-
3
a
bcdefg
2.5
ab
a
Fiber weight (g)
bcdefgh
bcdefgh
bcdefgh
bcdef
bcde
bcdefg
cdefghij
bcd
cdefghi
bcd
cdefghi
bcdef
cdefghij
bc
defghijk
defghijk
bc
efghijk
fghijkl
ghijkl
1.5
hijkl
hijkl
ijkl
jkl
1
kl
l
0.5
0
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
OF1
OF2
OF3
OF4
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Control
OF1+Water stress
OF3+Water stress
OF4+Water stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
Water Stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
OF2+ Water stress
Roshni BL1 Chandni

Treatments
Figure 4.28b. Effect of treatments and varieties interactions on fiber weight per
plant of linseed (LSD: 0.4994). Due to non-significant variations in two years data,
the data was pooled together. Different letters above the data columns indicate
97
Table 4.11. Varieties means for Straw yield, Fiber length and Fiber weight
Varieties Straw yield Fiber length (cm) Fiber weight (g)
(kg/hectare)
Roshni 10934a 50.21a 1.44a
BL1 10921a 48.18b 1.02b
Chandni 8800b 51.05a 1.36a
LSD 470.32 1.9678 0.1579
98
3.2.3.29 Pearson correlation for growth and yield parameters of linseed
Plant height exhibited significantly positive relationship with leaf chlorophyll a (r =
0.590), leaf chlorophyll b (r = 0.419), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.524), fiber length (r =
0.576), fiber weight (r = 0.543), leaf gibberellic acid (r = 0.817), leaf Indole acetic acid
(r = 0.808), number of tillers (r = 0.624) and seed oil content (r = 0.586). Plant height
exhibited significantly negative relationship with leaf electrolyte leakage (r = -0.233)
and leaf antioxidant (r = - 0.649). Seed yield had significantly positive correlation with
chlorophyll a (r = 0.536), chlorophyll b (r = 0.659), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.343), leaf
gibberellic acid (r = 0.437), leaf Indole acetic acid (r = 0.502), number of tillers (r =
0.532), seed oil content (r = 0.353), plant height (r = 0.443) and straw yield (r = 0.858).
Straw yield had significantly positive correlation with chlorophyll a (r = 0.581),
chlorophyll b (r = 0.677), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.397), leaf gibberellic acid (r = 0.505),
leaf Indole acetic acid (r = 0.521), number of tillers (r = 0.616), seed oil content (r =
0.439) and plant height (r = 0.429). Leaf gibberellic acid had significantly positive
correlation with chlorophyll a (r = 0.693), chlorophyll b (r = 0.586), leaf carotenoids (r
= 0.719), fiber length (r = 0.631) and fiber weight (r =0.381). Leaf Indole acetic acid
exhibited significantly positive relationship with chlorophyll a (r = 0.709), chlorophyll
b (r = 0.601), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.725), fiber length (r = 0.631) and fiber weight (r=
0.381). Leaf total soluble sugars had significantly positive correlation with chlorophyll
b (r = 0.327), leaf electrolyte leakage (r = 0.437), fiber weight (r = 0.304), leaf
gibberellic acid (r = 0.441), leaf indole acetic acid (r = 0.424), plant height (r = 0.491)
and seed yield (r = 0.315) (Table 4.12).
99
Table 4.12. Pearson correlation for growth and yield parameters of linseed
CHA CHB Carot EL FL FW GA3 IAA NT OIL OXL PH RPH LPH STY SY
CHB 0.603
0.0000
Carot 0.450 0.422
0.000 0.000
EL - 0.308 - 0.092 - 0.417
0.003 0.385 0.000
FL 0.573 0.454 0.555 - 0.543
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000
FW 0.159 0.177 0.227 0.012 0.405
0.133 0.095 0.031 0.910 0.000
GA3 0.693 0.586 0.719 - 0.374 0.631 0.381
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
IAA 0.709 0.601 0.725 -0.378 0.631 0.363 0.997
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
NT 0.581 0.550 0.681 - 0.463 0.692 0.289 0.739 0.742
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000
OIL 0.676 0.436 0.644 - 0.547 0.629 0.303 0.751 0.759 0.717
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000
OXL -0.146 -0.003 -0.354 0.029 - 0.149 - 0.362 - 0.578 - 0.559 - 0.211 - 0.209
0.168 0.976 0.000 0.784 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.047
PH 0.590 0.419 0.524 - 0.233 0.576 0.543 0.817 0.808 0.624 0.586 - 0.649
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
RPH - 0.199 0.005 0.292 0.0097 - 0.057 - 0.109 0.064 0.068 0.154 0.115 0.048 - 0.194
0.060 0.964 0.005 0.927 0.595 0.307 0.550 0.526 0.146 0.278 0.650 0.067
LPH - 0.332 - 0.122 0.073 0.076 - 0.176 - 0.2001 - 0.129 - 0.131 - 0.043 - 0.106 0.118 - 0.340 0.795
0.001 0.252 0.493 0.477 0.097 0.058 0.225 0.217 0.688 0.321 0.269 0.001 0.000
STY 0.581 0.677 0.397 - 0.284 0.515 0.144 0.505 0.521 0.616 0.439 0.064 0.429 - 0.171 - 0.277
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.548 0.000 0.107 0.008
SY 0.536 0.6596 0.343 - 0.155 0.437 0.166 0.487 0.502 0.532 0.353 0.015 0.443 - 0.202 - 0.295 0.858
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.144 0.000 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.885 0.000 0.055 0.005 0.000
Sugar 0.113 0.327 0.199 0.4370 - 0.021 0.3046 0.441 0.424 0.157 - 0.053 - 0.606 0.491 0.060 0.0062 0.183 0.315
0.288 0.001 0.059 0.000 0.844 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.139 0.622 0.000 0.000 0.569 0.953 0.085 0.002
CHA: leaf chlorophyll a , CHB: leaf chlorophyll b, Carot : leaf carotenoids, EL: leaf electrolytic leakage, FL: fiber length , FW: fiber weight, GA3: leaf gibberellic acid , IAA: leaf indole acetic acid, NT: number of
tillers , OIL: seed oil content , OXL: leaf antioxidant , PH: plant height , RPH: root phenolics , LPH: leaf phenolics , STY: straw yield , SY: seed yield , sugars: leaf total soluble sugars
100
DISCUSSION
The organic fertilizers were characterized for NPK content with varying values of seed
cake of E. sativa, chicken manure and M. oleifera leaves. Looking into NPK rating on
organic fertilizers is an important indicator to decide whether the formulated organic
fertilizers are suitable or not for soil and plants (Eroa, 2015). Nitrogen is necessary for
better plant growth with healthy stems and leaves. Phosphorus is necessary for better
establishment of the root system. Whereas, potassium adds in better water flow inside
the plants and is necessary for flowering and fruit set (Salih et al., 2016; Hasanuzzaman
et al., 2018). In present study higher content of N and P was recorded in OF4 whereas
K content was higher in OF3. The variations in the content of NPK among the
formulated organic fertilizers may be due to alterations in the content of chicken manure
and M. oleifera leaves. The values of N, P and K were higher than those reported by
Eroa (2015) for various formulations of organic fertilizers produced from Jatropha
curcas seeds and chicken manure. Maximum value of organic matter was recorded for
OF3 followed by OF4. Organic matter plays an important role in the retention of soil
moisture. Soil enriched with organic matter has greater water retention potential
(Liyanage et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2019).
The organic fertilizers OF2 and OF3 had higher EC values than OF1 and OF4. Organic
fertilizers of higher EC values may cause soil salinization if applied in larger quantities
(Melo et al., 2008). Therefore, such organic fertilizers with high EC values must be
used with great care to prevent soil salinization (Higashikawa et al., 2010).
Our studies pointed out that organic fertilizers improved soil fertility status, measured
as total soil N, available P, K, Zn and Fe contents after two months of their application.
Increase in soil total N due to application of organic fertilizers has been reported
previously by Angelova et al. (2013). Higher soil organic matter content and acidic pH
favors the availability of N for plants (Zupanc & Zupancic, 2010). Improvement in soil
P occurs due to the application of organic compost (Marinari et al., 2000) largely due
to improved microbial activity (Arancon et al., 2006). Our fertilizers OF3 and OF4
contained M. oleifera leaves along with E. sativa seed cake and chicken manure.
Organic fertilizers OF1 and OF2 did not contain M. oleifera leaves. This has led us to
the conclusion that M. oleifera leaves improved soil fertility potential of the synthesized
organic fertilizers.
101
The organic fertilizers application increased soil EC by decreasing soil pH. Electrical
conductivity is used as an indicator of total soluble salts present in the soil medium and
gives information about salinity. Soils with EC values less than 1 ds/m are considered
as non-saline. Increase in EC value of soil causes a reduction in soil microbial activity
and nitrogen cycling (Citak & Sonmez, 2011). The EC values of soil amended with
organic fertilizers were lower than EC range (750 to 3,490 μS cm-1) determined for soil
fertility status and plant growth (Carmo et al., 2016). However, our synthesized organic
fertilizers improved soil EC values under normal growth conditions. Increase in soil EC
by organic fertilizers may be due to their high K+ content and various inorganic N ions
present in the seed cake of E. sativa, chicken manure and M. oleifera. The decrease in
soil pH due to organic fertilizers application can be explained by the number of H+ ions
added to the soil due to generation of inorganic acidic species like HNO3 and H2SO4
during the decomposition of organic material (Galdos et al., 2004). Moreover, the
alterations in soil pH are linked to the rate of nitrification, organic acids production and
oxidation of various kinds of chemical species during decomposition of organic wastes
(Mokolobate & Haynes, 2002).
Water deficit stress decreased plant height and number of tillers per plant. Water deficit
stress causes decrease in turgor of cell which leads to reduced cell division in growing
regions of plants (Farooq et al., 2009b). However, the organic fertilizers minimized
water deficit stress induced decrease in plant height and production of tillers. This may
be due to the fact that our formulated organic fertilizers were rich in nitrogen and
phosphorus. Presence of sufficient amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus in soil results
in taller and healthy plants (Razaq et al., 2017).
Water stress caused a decrease in root and shoot weight of linseed varieties. Previous
studies have reported decline in root and shoot weight of plants due to water stress
(Latif et al., 2016; Pervez et al., 2017). However, application of organic fertilizers
improved fresh and dry weight of both root and shoot both under non –stress and water
stress conditions. Water stress decrease turgidity of cells restricting normal process of
cell division in stem and root apices (Farooq et al., 2009). Moreover, water stress
decreases photosynthetic activity of plants resulting in lower biomass production (Bano
et al., 2012). The beneficial impact of organic fertilizers on root and shoot weight may
be attributed to their stimulatory effect on the chlorophyll synthesis and phytohormone
102
production. Our synthesized organic fertilizers improved leaf IAA and GA contents,
both of which are enhance growth of stem and roots (Tu et al., 2006).
In our study, the organic fertilizers prevented decrease in LRWC of linseed. The LRWC
is an important indicator of plant water status (Jaleel et al., 2009). Water deficit stress
results in a loss of cell turgidity resulting in a decrease in gaseous exchange by closing
of stomata. Our findings established that organic fertilizers improved water holding
capacity of soil which ultimately maintained normal water supply to plants under water
deficit stress. The variations in LRWC of linseed varieties may be due to differences in
their genetic makeup and resistance to water deficit stress. Organic fertilizers were rich
in K which is necessary for normal water flow inside the plant body (Soremi et al.,
2017; Hasanuzzaman et al., 2018).
Our synthesized organic fertilizers improved photosynthetic pigments concentration in

leaves of linseed. Also, the decrease in photosynthetic pigments concentration due to
water stress was completely overcome by organic fertilizers particularly OF3 and OF4.
The decline in chlorophyll concentration due to osmotic stress is a common
phenomenon in plants (Nikolaeva et al., 2010) which may be due to inhibition of
chlorophyll biosynthesis or its degradation by higher activity of Chlorophyllase enzyme
(Kumar et al., 2011). Water stress leads to oxidation damage of proteins and lipids in
chloroplast membrane causing destruction of pigment- protein complexes leading to
the inhibition of chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids biosynthesis (Nikolaeva et al., 2010).
The positive affect of organic fertilizers on chlorophyll concentration may be attributed
to their higher N content because N is among the most important mineral nutrients
required for biosynthesis of chlorophyll and protein molecules (Ray –Tucker, 2004).
Fertilizers improve water stress resistance of plants by stabilizing and protecting their
photosynthetic pigments and whole photosynthetic apparatus from oxidative damage
(Zhang et al., 2020). In our studies organic fertilizers also increased level of
phytohormones IAA and GA in leaves of linseed which have proven roles in improving
photosynthetic pigments content of plants (Saeidi-Sar et al., 2013). Organic fertilizers
improved carotenoids concentration in leaves of linseed. Carotenoids play important
role in scavenging free radicals and protect photosynthetic apparatus from damage
caused by reactive oxygen species (Mcelroy & Kopsell, 2009).
103
The leaf electrolyte leakage is used as a marker to determine and calculates cell
membrane injury caused by water deficiency stress. It is a reliable approach for
evaluating the water stress level in plants (Levitt, 1987; Bajji et al., 2002). In our
studies, we observed that water stress increased leaf electrolyte leakage in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, plant grown with organic fertilizers had similarly low
electrolyte leakage levels of unstressed control plants. In a stressful environment
production of ROS is significantly increased in cells which causes oxidation of lipids
in cell membrane. As a result integrity of cell membrane is destroyed (McNeil &
Steinhardt, 1997). The cell ruptures and K+ ions move out of the cell. That is why
electrolytic leakage coming out of the cell mostly contains K+ ions. The beneficial effect
of the organic fertilizers in overcoming increase in electrolytic leakage due to water
stress might be because that they sufficiently supplied K+ to plants , improved osmotic
adjustment of plants by retaining soil water status, improved production of
phytohormones and antioxidants in linseed plants .
The soluble sugars concentration was higher in leaves of linseed plants treated with
water stress. It is well known fact that water stress increases the production and
accumulation of secondary metabolites in plants. Moreover to avoid dehydration stress
and maintain normal turgidity of cell plants produce osmolytes like soluble sugars,
proteins, amino acid and some inorganic ions (Chaves et al., 2003 ; Bakry et al., 2012
; Khan et al., 2019). In our studies although organic fertilizers treatments did not
significantly improved soluble sugars content under water stress, yet they stabilized
normal level of soluble sugars in leaves of linseed. The combined treatments of organic
fertilizers and water stress had low concentration of soluble sugars than sole treatment
of water stress. This may be due to the fact that organic fertilizers improved water
holding capacity of soil and maintained normal flow of water in soil - plant- atmosphere
continuum.
We recorded an increase in indole acetic acid and GA production in leaves of linseed

plants due to application of organic fertilizers both under non–stress and water stress
conditions. It was noted that water stress decreased the level of indole acetic acid and
GA in leaves of linseed. Studies of previous authors like Wang et al. (2008) and Bano
& Yasmeen (2010) have reported a decline in level of indole acetic acid in maize and
wheat due to water stress. Similarly, Claeys et al. (2012) reported decline in GA
synthesis due to water stress in leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana. Water deficit conditions
104
decrease IAA and GA levels in plants either due to inhibition of IAA and GA synthesis
or their destruction by higher activity of enzyme oxidase (Xie et al., 2004; Davenport
et al., 1980). The beneficial impact of organic fertilizers on the IAA and GA production
may be due to the fact that they sufficiently fulfilled N requirements of linseed plants
and prevented N loss due to leaching, improved chlorophyll synthesis which in turn
improved production of IAA and GA. It has been reported that organic fertilizers
contained traces of phytohormones like IAA, GA and Cytokinin, produced due to
activity of microbes during composting process (Ouni et al., 2014). When compost
produced from tea leaves was examined, it showed presence of GA (Pant et al., 2012).
This indicates indirect role of organic fertilizers in improving phytohormone pool in
leaves of linseed.
In response to low soil moisture availability linseed plants produced high concentration
of phenolic compounds in roots and leaves. In control and water stress treatments
organic fertilizers raised the phenolics level. Higher production of phenolic compounds
is an adaptive mechanism of plants to low soil moisture (Hale et al., 2005). Phenolic
compounds function as antioxidants to stabilize reactive oxygen species and increase
the thickness of cell walls to prevent water loss from cells (Hura et al., 2013; Latif et
al., 2016). Beneficial effect of organic fertilizers on phenolic compounds in plants have
been reported (Zhang et al., 2016). Our proposed organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 have
M. oleifera leaves as a component which is also reported for positive effects on phenolic
compounds in maize plants (Pervez et al., 2017). It is generally accepted that higher
production of phenolic compounds occur in water deficit conditions at the cost of
photosynthates which results in lower dry mass production of plants (Hura et al., 2017).
In our study, it was noted that our proposed organic fertilizers not only improved the
content of phenolics but also seed and straw yield in linseed. This dual effect of organic
fertilizers can be correlated to its phytochemicals makeup and their effect on
endogenous hormones.
The antioxidants content is increased during water stress. By applying organic

fertilizers increase macro and micronutrients to soil that increase antioxidants in leaves
and roots (Rostaei et al., 2018). Pandey et al. (2016) studies that poultry manure
increase antioxidant level in basil as compare to chemical fertilizers. Abiotic stresses
increase production of ROS inside cells destroying their biomolecules including DNA.
To quench these ROS cells produce antioxidant (del Rio, 2015). Organic fertilizers
105
ensure constant availability of N and other nutrients to plants which results in a higher
production of antioxidant (Aina et al., 2019). Moreover in our studies it was evident
that organic fertilizers increased the content of phenolics in roots and leaves of linseed.
Phenolics function as natural antioxidant and have been reported in improving water
stress tolerance capacity of plants (Latif et al., 2016).
The yield parameters like number of capsules per plants, number of seeds capsule-1,
1000 seed weight and total seed yield was decreased by water deficit stress. Several
authors have reported yield lessening in linseed due to water stress (Mirshekari et al.,
2012; Sadak et al., 2019). Our formulated organic fertilizers particularly OF3 and OF4
prevented losses in seed yield caused by water stress. This may be credited to the fact
that organic fertilizers improved not only water holding capacity of soil but also
improved total N, available P and K content of the soil. Our formulated organic
fertilizers improved seed length and width and thus resulted in healthy seeds.
Oil yield is the major goal in the cultivation of oilseed crops. Finding of our studies
revealed that water stress decreased seed oil content, however organic fertilizers
particularly OF3 and OF4 minimized water stress effects and retained normal value of
seed oil content. Decrease in seed oil content by drought stress has been reported in
oilseed crops like canola (Ullah et al., 2012; Zali et al., 2020) and Soybean
(Wijewardana et al., 2018). Low soil moister availability cause higher production of
seed proteins reducing seed oil content (Ullah et al., 2012). Seed oil is mostly derived
from photosynthetic carbon assimilation of green leaves, later on carbohydrates
conversion occur to triacylglycerol via a metabolic pathway existing in chloroplast,
endoplasmic reticulum and cytosol (Baud & Lepiniec, 2010). Organic fertilizers effect
on seed oil content of linseed was stimulatory which may be due to their positive impact
on soil fertility, enhancing nutrients uptake, chlorophyll synthesis and phytohormone
production (Rahimi et al. 2019).
Reduction in straw yield of linseed varieties was recorded due to water deficit stress.
Dry season with decrease in irrigation intervals resulted in a reduction of straw yield in
linseed (Gabiana et al., 2005). Our formulated organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4
prevented losses in straw yield due to water deficit stress. The higher straw yield in
plots supplemented with organic fertilizers may be partly accounted due to availability
of sufficient soil moisture and nitrogen content in such plots which resulted in
106
secondary growth and biomass partitioning in favour of stems (Sankari, 2001).
Moreover, linseed is a crop in which the root system is severely affected by water
deficiency in soil and produces shallow roots (Hocking et al., 1997).
Fiber quality measured as fiber length and weight was decreased by water deficit stress.
However, our prepared organic fertilizers not only improved fiber quality under non-
stress but also under water deficit stress. Decrease in fiber yield due to low availability
of soil moisture is common in linseed (Patel et al., 2017). Organic fertilizers improved
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium availability to the linseed plants which ultimately
led to improved fiber quality. Beneficial effects of sufficient availability of soil nitrogen
on fiber quality and yield of linseed has been reported (El-Shimy et al., 2002). Kumar
et al. (2019) found encouraging effects of vermicomposting on fiber length and weight
of linseed.
Variations were found among the three linseed varieties for various morphological,
physiological and biochemical traits. The linseed variety Roshni had tallest plants,
higher number of tillers per plant, LRWC, Shoot and Root weight, leaf soluble sugar
Content, IAA and GA content, seed and straw yield and fiber weight. Some of the traits
like LRWC, Seed and Straw yield, phenolics content and soluble sugars content was
similar in Roshni and BL1. The Chandni had highest value of seed oil content. The
variations in morphological, physiological and biochemical trait of the three linseed
varieties may be attributed to their genetic makeup (Kariuki et al., 2016; Tavarini et
al., 2019). Overall, of the three varieties, the Roshni performed better than BL1 and
Chandni.
107
3.2.5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our synthesized organic fertilizers particularly OF3 and OF4 were rich sources of
NPK, Zn, Fe and organic matter, improved soil fertility and resulted in a better
establishment of linseed crop. The water deficit stress has a reducing effect on plant
height, tillers production, LRWC, chlorophyll synthesis, phytohormones
production, seed yield, seed oil content and fiber quality of linseed. Water stress
was stimulatory on the production of phenolics in roots and leaves. It is worthy to
note that our prepared organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 were highly and nearly
equally effective in improving morphological growth parameters, chlorophyll
content, antioxidants content, phytohormones production, seed yield, seed oil
content and fiber quality of linseed both under control and water stress
environments. Therefore, separate field experiments were conducted during linseed
growing seasons of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 to determine effects of (a) organic
fertilizers and (b) Moringa oleifera leaves aqueous extract (MLAE) on growth,
yield and fiber quality of linseed under imposed water stress. The potential of OF3
and OF4 as potent nutrient careers can be explored to enhance and improve linseed
production, soil nutrients status and water retention capacity. Therefore, OF3 and
OF4 are recommended as nutrient careers for successful establishment of linseed
crop in arid and semi-arid regions. The influence of OF3 and OF4 on the activity of
soil beneficial microbes needs to be explored. The OF3 and OF4 improved seed oil
content of linseed. Therefore, effect of the organic fertilizers on the biosynthesis
and metabolism of major fatty acids should be investigated. Our findings showed
that linseed variety Roshni performed better under agro climatic conditions of
District Bannu, Pakistan. Therefore, Roshni is recommended for cultivation in
District Bannu and adjacent regions.
108
Experiment No. 2
4 The Effect of Moringa oleifera Lam. Leaf Aqueous Extract on Seed Yield and
Fiber Quality of Linseed under Water Stress
4.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1.1 Collection of Moringa oleifera leaves
The Moringa oleifera leaves (1 kg) were collected from 15 healthy trees in District
Bannu KP, Pakistan and dried in shade for 3 weeks and cut into small pieces (1-2cm).
4.1.2 Preparation of aqueous leaf extract of Moringa oleifera
1 kg of leaf powder was soaked in 4 L distilled water. The mixture was left for 48 hours
at 25oC and filtered using Whatman No.1 filtered paper. The extract obtained was
designated as 25% Moringa leaf aqueous extract (MLAE) which was further diluted to
make 5% extract and kept at 4oC for future use.
4.1.3 Determination of Phenolics content of MLAE
The 1 ml of MLAE was mixed with 0.5ml of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent and kept at room
temperature for 5 minutes and then added with 7.5% sodium carbonate solution. The
mixture volume was raised to 8 ml by adding autoclaved distilled water and kept for 2
hours. Optical density of samples was measured by using spectrophotometer (SP-3
Tokyo Japan) at 765nm. The optical density readings of samples were compared with
a standard curve of gallic acid (GAE) solutions. The total content of phenolics was
expressed as mg gallic acid eq/ ml extract (Singleton et al., 1965; Chun et al., 2003).
4.1.4 Determination of mineral nutrients content of MLAE
The MLAE was put in a silica crucible and heated in a muffle furnace at a constant
temperature (400 oC) till there was no smoke evolution. The ash obtained was
moistened with sulphuric acid (concentrated) and heated for time there were no fume
evolution of sulphuric acid. Than 1 gm of ash was dissolved in 5% HCl (100 ml) to
make ready the samples for minerals analysis using atomic absorption
spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer Germany). Calibration curved were generated for
standard solutions of each element independently using atomic absorption
spectrophotometer (Indrayan et al., 2005).
109
4.1.5 Bioassay
The experiment was carried out in University of Science and Technology Bannu
Pakistan (altitude 380 m.a.s.l, latitude 32°.59 N, longitude 70°.36 E) for two years
2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The physicochemical properties of field soil are shown in
Table 2.2. The meteorological data of linseed growing season of the two years was
same as that of Experimental No. 1. Two varieties of Linseed Roshni and Chandni were
obtained from Ayub Agriculture Research Institute Faisalabad. Local variety (BL1) was
obtained from agriculture research station Bannu KP, Pakistan. Seeds were sterilized
with mercuric chloride for 3 minutes and then washed with autoclave distal water and
sown in the field at rate of 30 kg per hectare. Recommended doses of NPK were applied
at the rate of 80:40:30 kg/ha in the field during seed sowing. Plot size of 1x1 m2 and
each plot contained four rows. The row to row distance was 20 cm in the field. Hand
weeding was done at 30 days after sowing in both years. Water stress was started 60
DAS for a period of one month at 40 % soil field capacity skipping four irrigations. The
experimental design was split-split plot design having three replicates for each and
every treatment. The irrigation treatments were kept in main plots as control (irrigated
maintaining 100 % soil field capacity), water deficiency stress (non- irrigated
maintaining 40 % soil field capacity) and MLAE treatments (0 and 5%) as subplots and
three linseed varieties (Roshni, BL1, Chandni) in subplots. The MLAE was applied as
foliar spray before the start of water deficiency stress and after next 15 days after
imposition of water deficiency stress. After the completion of water deficiency stress,
leaf samples were collected from 10 plants per plot for physiological and biochemical
parameters determination. Plant height of 10 randomly selected plants per plot was
measured using a measuring tape. Similarly, number of tillers per plant of 10 randomly
selected plants per plot were counted. The plants in all plots were irrigated to achieve
control soil field capacity (100 % soil field capacity) and allowed to grow to maturity.
110
Table 2.2. Physical and chemical properties of field soil
Property Value
Clay 16 %
Silt 44 %
Sand 40 %
Texture Loam
pH 8.1
EC 250 (μS cm-1)
Nitrogen 0.02 %
Phosphorus 3.02 %
Potassium 140.06 (mg kg-1
Organic matter 0.50 %
Zinc 0.91 (mg kg-1)
Iron 0.70 (mg kg-1)
Carbonate 1.2 (meq/L)
Bicarbonate 1.5 (meq/L)
Calcium/magnesium 8.60 (meq/L)
The following parameters were studied.
4.1.6 Leaf relative water content
Leaf relative water content was determined according to experiment No.1.
4.1.7 Leaf photosynthetic pigments
Leaf chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids content was determined according to experiment

No.1.
4.1.8 Leaf phytohormones
Leaf indole acetic acid and leaf gibberellic acid was determined according to
experiment No.1.
4.1.9 Leaf and root phenolics
Leaf and root Phenolics was determined according to experiment No.1.
4.1.10 Leaf and root antioxidants
Leaf and root antioxidants was determined according to experiment No.1.
4.1.11 Leaf electrolytic leakage
Leaf electrolytic leakage was determined according to experiment No.1.
111
4.1.12 Leaf total soluble sugar contents
Leaf total soluble sugar contents were determined according to experiment No.1.
4.1.13 Seed oil content
Seed oil content was determined according to experiment No.1.
4.1.14.12 Yield parameters and fiber quality
Yield parameters and fiber quality was determined according to experiment No.1.
4.1.15 Statistical analysis
Two way ANOVA test was performed for data analysis using least significant
difference test for comparison of mean values. Coefficient of correlation (Pearson) was
determined among various growth and yield parameters using Statistix-9.
∑𝑋𝑌 −((∑𝑋 )(∑𝑌 )/𝑛)

𝑟= (Eq.12)
√(∑𝑋2 −((∑𝑋 )/𝑛)2 )(∑𝑌2 −((∑𝑌 )/𝑛)2 )
X indicates values in the ﬁrst data set and Y indicates values in the second data set.
Value of n is 12.
112
RESULTS
4.2 Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf aqueous extract (MLAE) on growth and yield of
linseed
4.2.1 Characterization of MLAE
Initially we characterized MLAE for phenolics content and nutrients composition. It was
found that MLAE contains natural phenolics (150 mg GAE/ ml) and nutrients Ca (7.16
mg/g d.w), Mg (0.812 mg/g d.w), K (5.607 mg/g d.w), Zn (0.051 mg/g d.w), Fe (0.175
mg/g d.w) and Mn (0.014 mg/g d.w) (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Phenolics and minerals content of MLAE
Phenolics 150 ±8.00mg GAE/ ml

Ca 7.16 ± 1.34 mg/g d.w
Mg 0.812 ± 0.47 mg/g d.w
K 5.607 ±0.97 mg/g d.w
Fe 0.175± 0.035 mg/g d.w
Zn 0.051 ±0.002 mg/g d.w
Mn 0.014± 0.008 mg/g d.w
113
Evaluation of Moringa leaf aqueous extract (MLAE) effect on growth, seed yield and
fiber quality of linseed under water stress
In this experiment effect of MLAE was studied on the following growth and yield
indicators of linseed.
4.2.2 Plant height of linseed
In our studies plant height was decreased (11.32 %) by water stress than well irrigated
control. In a non-stress environment foliar spray of MLAE resulted in taller plants (15.98
%) over untreated and irrigated control. We noted that MLAE not only remediated water
stress effect on plant height but also caused production of taller plants over irrigated control
(Figure 4.1).
The treatments and varieties interactions showed that water stress decreased plant height
in all the three varieties of linseed. However, maximum decrease in plant height due to
water stress was recorded in BL1 (13.84 %) followed by Chandni (11.59 %) and Roshni
(8.71 %) than their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on
plant height, Chandni had taller plants (88.58 cm) followed by Roshni (83.33 cm) and BL1
(77.91 cm) (Table 4.2).
4.2.3 Number of tillers per plant of linseed
We noted that water stress inhibited production of tillers in linseed. Plants facing water
stress exhibited (45.75 %) decrease in tillers production as compared with untreated and
irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE under non-stress conditions significantly
improved (31.39 %) tillers production per plant (Figure 4.2). Similarly, water stress effect
on tillers production was completely reversed by MLAE application.
The treatments and varieties interactions for number of tillers of linseed showed that water
stress reduced number of tillers per plant in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in number of tillers due to water stress was recorded in Roshni (54.49
%) followed by BL1 (44.33 %) and Chandni (40 %) than their respective untreated and
irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on number of tillers per plant Chandni had more
tillers per plant (4.83) followed by Roshni (4.00) and BL1 (3.42) (Table 4.3)
114
120
100 a
b
c
Plant height (cm)
80
d
60
40
20
0
Control Water stress MLAE MLAE+Water stress
Treatments
Figure 4.1. Treatments means for MLAE effect on plant height of linseed varieties under
water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant variations.
(LSD: 3.1064)
Table 4.2. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on plant
height
Treatments Roshni BL1 Chandni
Control 80.33±2.33f 74.67±2.96g 83.33±1.20ef
Water stress 73.33± 1.20g 64.33±0.88h 73.67± 1.45g
MLAE 93.00±2.08bc 89.33±2.02cd 101.33± 1.45a
Water stress + MLAE 86.67±1.45de 83.33±2.60ef 96.00±1.15ab
Mean 83.33b 77.91c 88.58a
Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant variations. Treatments x
varieties interaction LSD: 5.3805, Varieties LSD: 2.6903.
115
7
a
6
Number of tillers per plant b
5
c
4
3
d
0
Control Water stress MLAE MLAE + Water stress
Treatments
Figure 4.2. Treatments means for MLAE effect on number of tillers per plant of linseed
varieties under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant
variations. (LSD: 0.7606)
Table 4.3. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on number of
tillers per plant
Control 3.67± 0.33de 3.00± 0.57e 5.00± 0.57bc
Water stress 1.67± 0.33f 1.67± 0.33f 3.00±0.57e
MLAE 6.00±0.57ab 4.67±0.33cd 6.33±0.33a
Water stress + MLAE 4.67±0.33cd 4.33±0.33cd 5.00± 0.57bc
Mean 4.00b 3.42b 4.83a
varieties interaction LSD: 1.3174, Varieties LSD: 0.6587.
116
4.2.4 Shoot fresh weight of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE significantly increased shoot fresh weight of linseed by 28.47 %
over untreated and irrigated control. Water stress significantly decreased shoot fresh
weight of linseed by 53.49 % of control. MLAE application in water stress condition
increased shoot fresh weight and ameliorated the adverse effect of water stress on shoot
fresh weight (Figure 4.3).
The treatments and varieties interactions for shoot fresh weight of linseed revealed that
water stress decreased shoot fresh weight in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in shoot fresh weight due to water stress was recorded in Chandni
(70.16 %) followed by BL1 (51.08 %) and Roshni (46.40 %) than their respective
untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on shoot fresh weight Roshni
had higher shoot fresh weight (23.38 g) followed by BL1 (15.83 g) and Chandni (12.44
g) (Table 4.4).
4.2.5 Shoot dry weight of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE in non-stress condition increased shoot dry weight of linseed by
40.58 % as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress reduced shoot dry
weight of linseed by 50.78 % as compared to untreated and irrigated control. The
MLAE application retained normal dry weight of shoot under water stress (Figure 4.4).
The treatments and varieties interactions for shoot dry weight of linseed showed that
water stress decreased shoot dry weight in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in shoot dry weight due to water stress was recorded in Chandni
(72.4 %) followed by Roshni (54.77 %) and BL1 (14.17 %) than their respective
untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on shoot dry weight Roshni
had higher shoot dry weight (7.83 g ) followed by BL1 (5.38 g) and Chandni (4.82 g)
(Table 4.5).
4.2.6 Root fresh weight of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE in non-stress condition increased (61.59 %) root fresh weight of
linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased (54.71
%) root fresh weight of linseed. MLAE in water stress condition significantly increased
root fresh weight of linseed and ameliorated the adverse effect of water stress (Figure
4.5).
117
The treatments and varieties interactions for root fresh weight of linseed revealed that
water stress decreased root fresh weight in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
water stress resulted percent decline in root fresh weight was recorded in Roshni (67.09
%) followed by Chandni (46.93 %) and BL1 (37.87 %) than their respective untreated
and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on root fresh weight Roshni had higher
root fresh weight (1.96 g) followed by Chandni (1.53 g) and BL1 (0.98 g) (Table 4.6).
4.2.7 Root dry weight of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE in non -stressed condition significantly increased (66.92 %) root
dry weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress
significantly decreased (65.11 %) root dry weight of linseed as compared to untreated
and irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE maintained normal value of root dry
weight under water stress (Figure 4.6).
The treatments and varieties interactions for root dry weight of linseed was significant
(p<0.05). Water stress decreased root dry weight in all the three varieties of linseed.
However, maximum decrease in root dry weight due to water stress was recorded in
Roshni (71.69 %) followed by BL1 (61.53 %) and Chandni (57.69 %) than their
respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on root dry weight
Roshni had higher root dry weight (0.85 g) followed by Chandni (0.84 g) and BL1
(0.37 g) (Table 4.7).
118
30
a
25
20 b b
15
10 c
0
Treatments
Figure 4.3. Treatments means for MLAE effect on shoot fresh weight of linseed
varieties under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-
significant variations. (LSD: 2.3214)
Table 4.4 Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on shoot
fresh weight
Control 25.30±0.57b 16.15±1.31de 13.14± 0.85e
Water stress 13.56±1.47e 7.90±0.74f 3.92± 0.39f
MLAE 33.40±1.17a 23.26±1.33bc 19.65±2.22cd
Water stress + MLAE 21.27±2.13c 16.01±1.18de 13.05± 1.74e
Mean 23.38a 15.83b 12.44c
varieties interactions LSD: 4.0208, Varieties LSD: 2.0104.
119
12
a
Shoot dry weight (g) 10
8
b
b
6
4
c
0
Treatments
Figure 4.4. Treatments means for MLAE effect on shoot dry weight of linseed varieties
under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant
dry weight
Control 8.27±0.49b 3.88±0.38cd 5.00±0.38cd
Water stress 3.74±0.24cd 3.33±0.53d 1.38±0.21e
MLAE 11.94±1.17a 8.93±0.41b 7.97±1.14b
Water stress + MLAE 7.38±0.60b 5.37±0.68c 4.95±0.49cd
Mean 7.83a 5.38b 4.82b
120
3.5
a
3
2.5
2 b
1.5
c
1
d
0.5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.5. Treatments means for MLAE effect on root fresh weight of linseed varieties
fresh weight
Control 1.55± 0.20de 0.66± 0.03fgh 0.98± 0.06fg
Water stress 0.51± 0.06gh 0.41±0.04h 0.52± 0.00gh
MLAE 4.15± 0.39a 1.74± 0.08cd 2.40± 0.32b
Water stress + MLAE 1.62± 0.24de 1.11± 0.06ef 2.20± 0.13bc
Mean 1.96a 0.98 c 1.53b
121
1.6 a
1.4
1.2
Root dry weight (g)
1 b
0.8
0.6
c
0.4
d
0.2
0
Treatments
Figure 4.6. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on root dry weight of linseed varieties
dry weight
Control 0.53±0.06def 0.26± 0.00fg 0.52±0.13def
Water stress 0.15± 0.03fg 0.10± 0.03g 0.22± 0.02fg
MLAE 1.81± 0.27a 0.70±0.09 de 1.40±0.27b
Water stress + MLAE 0.90± 0.06cd 0.41±0.10efg 1.23±0.16bc
Mean 0.85a 0.37b 0.84a
122
4.2.8 Leaf relative water content of linseed
In non-stressed environment the foliar spray of MLAE increased significantly (1.77 %)

leaf relative water content as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress
decreased (8.18 %) the leaf relative water content of linseed. The foliar spray of MLAE
maintained normal value leaf relative water content under water stress (Figure 4.7).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf relative water content of linseed was
significant (p<0.05). Water stress decreased leaf relative water content in all the three
varieties of linseed. However maximum decrease in leaf relative water content due to
water stress was recorded in BL1 (13.63 %) followed by Roshni (5.46 %), and Chandni
(4.90 %) than their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect
on leaf relative water content BL1 has highest leaf relative water content (81.55 %)
followed by Roshni (80.22 %) and Chandni (79.90 %) (Table 4.8).
4.2.9 Leaf chlorophyll a content of linseed
In our studies leaf chlorophyll a was decreased (36.10 %) by water stress than untreated
and irrigated control. In a non-stress environment foliar spray of MLAE increased
chlorophyll a content by (32.86 %) over untreated and irrigated control. We noted that
MLAE completely remediated water stress effect on chlorophyll a content and retained
normal value of chlorophyll a content (Figure 4.8).
The treatments and varieties interactions for chlorophyll a content of linseed revealed
that water stress decreased chlorophyll a content in all the three varieties of linseed.
However, maximum decrease in chlorophyll a due to water stress was recorded in BL1
(37.47 %) followed by Roshni (36.87 %) and Chandni (34.11 %) than their respective
untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on chlorophyll a content
Chandni had more chlorophyll a (5.89 mg/g f.w) followed by BL1 (5.30 mg/g f.w) and
Roshni (4.72 mg/g f.w) (Table 4.9).
4.2.10 Leaf chlorophyll b content of linseed
We noted that water stress decreased leaf chlorophyll b content in linseed. Plants facing
water stress exhibited significant decrease (41.93 %) in chlorophyll b content as
compared to untreated and irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE under non-stress
conditions significantly improved (33.68 %) chlorophyll b content in linseed. The foliar
123
spray of MLAE under water stress condition significantly retained normal value of
chlorophyll b content (Figure 4.9).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf chlorophyll b content of linseed
showed that water stress decreased leaf chlorophyll b content in all the three varieties
of linseed. However, maximum decrease in leaf chlorophyll b content due to water
stress was recorded in Roshni (49.15 %) followed by Chandni (46.11 %) and BL1
on leaf chlorophyll b content Roshni had more chlorophyll b (2.94 mg/g f.w) followed
by BL1 (2.91 mg/g f.w) and Chandni (1.75 mg/g f.w) (Table 4.10).
4.2.11 Leaf carotenoids content of linseed
In our studies leaf carotenoids content was decreased (30.33 %) by water stress than
untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress environment foliar spray of MLAE
increased carotenoids content by (32.83 %) over untreated and irrigated control. We
noted that MLAE significantly alleviated water stress effect on carotenoids content and
retained normal value of carotenoids content as compared to untreated and irrigated
control (Figure 4.10).
The treatments and varieties interactions for carotenoids content of linseed revealed that
water stress decreased carotenoids content in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in carotenoids content due to water stress was recorded in Roshni
(35.5 %) followed by Chandni (29.03 %) and BL1 (24.83 %) than their respective
untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on carotenoids content
Chandni had more carotenoids content (1.92 mg/g f.w) followed by Roshni (1.91 mg/g
f.w) and BL1 (1.71 mg/g f.w) (Table 4.11).
124
86 a
84 a
leaf relative water content (%) 82 b
80
78
c
76
74
72
70
68
Treatments
Figure 4.7.Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf relative water content of linseed
relative water content
Control 80.27±0.29cd 87.30±1.31a 79.56±0.65cd
Water stress 75.88±0.86e 75.40±1.17e 75.66±0.57e
MLAE 84.21±1.33b 82.43±1.48bc 84.99±1.06ab
Water stress + MLAE 80.52±0.79cd 81.08±1.08cd 79.40±0.55d
Mean 80.22ab 81.55a 79.90b
Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant variations. Treatment x
varieties LSD: 2.9066, Varieties LSD: 1.4533.
125
9
a
8
Chlorophyll a ( mg/g f.w)
7
6 b
b
5
4 c
3
2
1
0
Treatments
Figure 4.8. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on chlorophyll a content of linseed
chlorophyll a content
Control 4.61±0.36bcd 5.31±0.55b 5.95±0.39b
Water stress 2.91±0.33e 3.32±0.22de 3.92±0.23cde
MLAE 7.63±0.79a 7.67± 0.51a 8.37±0.60a
Water stress + MLAE 3.75±0.41cde 4.92±0.45bc 5.33±0.45b
Mean 4.72b 5.30ab 5.89a
126
4.5
a
4
Chlorophyll b (mg/g f.w)
3.5
3
b b
2.5
2
c
1.5
1
0.5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.9. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf chlorophyll b content of linseed
significant variations (LSD: 0.4062)
Table 4.10. Effect of varieties and treatment and varieties interactions on
chlorophyll b content
Control 2.97±0.36b 2.67±0.26b 1.80±0.06c
Water stress 1.51±0.13cd 1.85± 0.23c 0.97±0.07d
MLAE 4.29±0.35a 4.31±0.45a 2.62±0.11b
Water stress + MLAE 2.99±0.23b 2.83±0.03b 1.62±0.08cd
Mean 2.94a 2.91a 1.75b
127
3
a
Carotenoids (mg/g f.w) 2.5
2 b
b
1.5 c
0.5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.10.Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf carotenoid content of linseed
carotenoids content
Control 2.00±0.19b 1.49±0.19cde 1.86±0.09bc
Water stress 1.29±0.17de 1.12±0.12e 1.32±0.15de
MLAE 2.67±0.12a 2.58±0.17a 2.71±0.13a
Water stress + MLAE 1.67±0.11bcd 1.63±0.15bcd 1.79±0.06bc
Mean 1.91a 1.71a 1.92a
128
4.2.12 Leaf electrolytic leakage of linseed
In our studies leaf electrolyte leakage was increased (37.90 %) by water stress than
untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress and stress environment foliar spray of
MLAE retained normal value of leaf electrolyte leakage and statistically similar to
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf electrolyte leakage of linseed was
significant (p<0.05). Water stress increased leaf electrolyte leakage in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, maximum increase in leaf electrolytic leakage due to
water stress was recorded in Roshni (50.37 %) followed by Chandni (27.63 %) and BL1
on leaf electrolytic leakage Roshni had more leaf electrolyte leakage (153.71 %)
followed by BL1 (120.95 %) and Chandni (118.36 %) (Table 4.12).
4.2.13 Leaf total soluble sugars of linseed
We noted that water stress increased leaf total soluble sugars content in linseed. Plants
facing water stress showed 24 % higher leaf total soluble sugars content in leaves as
compared with untreated and irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE under non-
stress conditions significantly improved (13.27 %) leaf total soluble sugars content in
linseed. However, MLAE foliar spray under water stress conditions reversed increased
in leaf total soluble sugars content and such that the value was similar to untreated and
irrigated control (Figure 4.12).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf total soluble sugars content of linseed
was significant (p<0.05). Water stress increased leaf total soluble sugars in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, maximum increase in leaf total soluble sugars content
due to water stress was recorded in BL1 (31.41 %) followed by Chandni (26.11 %) and
Roshni (20.03 %) than their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing
variety effect on leaf total soluble sugars Roshni had greater leaf total soluble sugars
content (355.30 mg/g) followed by BL1 (143.00 mg/g) and Chandni (128.37 mg/g)
(Table 4.13).
129
200
a
180
160
Leaf electrolyte leakage (%)
140
b b b
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Treatments
Figure 4.11.Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf electrolyte leakage of linseed
electrolyte leakage
Control 123.26±2.01c 111.32± 3.45de 106.23±2.68e
Water stress 248.40±4.09a 153.61± 4.42b 146.80±4.76b
MLAE 118.85± 1.93cd 108.08±3.50 e 108.49± 1.70e
Water stress + MLAE 124.31± 2.38c 110.80± 3.97de 111.91± 2.25de
Mean 153.71a 120.95b 118.36b
130
300
a
Leaf total soulble Sugar (mg/g ) 250
b
bc
200 c
150
100
50
0
Treatments
Figure 4.12. Treatments means for MLAE effect on leaf total soluble sugar of linseed
total soluble sugar
Control 318.80± 1.61c 116.89±3.60f 113.78± 3.56f
Water stress 398.67±38.01a 170.43± 5.71d 154.00± 4.43de
MLAE 361.30± 5.89b 141.94± 1.88def 130.35± 2.68ef
Water stress + MLAE 342.43±6.05bc 142.75±4.46def 115.34± 2.84f
Mean 355.30a 143.00b 128.37b
131
4.2.14 Leaf indole acetic acid of linseed
We noted that water stress decreased leaf indole acetic acid content in linseed. Plants
facing water stress showed (23.69 %) decrease in leaf indole acetic acid content in
leaves as compared to untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress and stress
environment foliar spray of MLAE enhance (13.04 % and 4 %) leaf indole acetic acid
of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.13).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf indole acetic acid of linseed was
significant (p<0.05). Water stress decreased leaf indole acetic acid in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, maximum decrease in leaf indole acetic acid due to water
stress was recorded in BL1 (24.92 %) followed by Chandni (24.08 %) and Roshni
on leaf indole acetic acid Chandni had highest leaf indole acetic acid (86.93 ug/g)
followed by Roshni (84.94 ug/g) and BL1 (81.07 ug/g) (Table 4.14).
4.2.15 Leaf gibberellic acid of linseed
We noted that water stress decreased leaf gibberellic acid content in linseed. Plants
facing water stress showed 23.16 % decrease in leaf gibberellic acid content in leaves
as compared to untreated and irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE under non-
stress conditions significantly enhance (12.19 %) leaf gibberellic acid content in
linseed. However, MLAE foliar spray under water stress conditions increased (26.59
%) leaf gibberellic acid content as compared to only water stress (Figure 4.14).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf gibberellic acid content of linseed was
significant (p<0.05). Water stress decreased leaf gibberellic acid content in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, maximum decreased in leaf gibberellic acid content due
to water stress was recorded in BL1 (24.22 %) followed by Chandni (23.84 %) and
Roshni (21.43 %) than their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing
variety effect on leaf gibberellic acid content Chandni had highest leaf gibberellic acid
content (86.93 ug/g) followed by Roshni (84.94 ug/g) and BL1 (81.07 ug/g) (Table
4.15).
132
120
a
Leaf indole acetic acid (ug/g)
100
c b
80
d
60
40
20
0
Treatments
Figure 4.13. Treatments means for MLAE effect on leaf indole acetic acid of linseed
varieties under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant
Table 14.14. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on leaf indole
acetic acid
Treatment Roshni BL1 Chandni
Control 84.43±0.46d 81.41±0.57e 87.08±0.90cd
Water stress 65.78± 1.57f 61.12 ±1.18g 66.11± 1.15f
MLAE 97.88±1.29a 92.49±0.73b 100.49 ± 1.12a
Water stress + MLAE 79.65±0.52e 94.02±0.70b 94.02 ±1.15b
Mean 84.94b 81.07b 86.93a
133
120
a
100 b
Leaf gibberllic acid (ug/g)
c
80
d
60
40
20
0
Treatments
Figure 4.14. Treatments means for MLAE effect on leaf gibberellic acid of linseed varieties
under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-significant variations.
(LSD: 1.7917)
gibberellic acid
Control 86.17±0.98f 84.07±0.99fg 89.62±0.69e
Water stress 67.70± 1.41h 63.70 ±1.27i 68.25± 1.13h
MLAE 98.60± 1.09b 94.17±0.63cd 102.64 ± 1.22a
Water stress + MLAE 81.65±0.68g 91.52±0.60de 96.00 ±1.50bc
Mean 84.94b 81.07b 86.93a
134
4.2.16 Leaf phenolics content of linseed
Water stress significantly increased (34.72 %) leaf phenolics content as compared to

untreated and irrigated plants. Foliar spray of MLAE both in non-stress and stress condition
increased (20.36 %) leaf phenolics content over untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.15).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf phenolics content of linseed revealed that
water stress increased leaf phenolics content in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum increase in leaf phenolic due to water stress was recorded in Chandni (39.58 %)
followed by Roshni (35.51 %) and BL1 (28.88 %) than their respective untreated and
irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on leaf phenolics Chandni had more leaf
phenolics (21.66 mg gallic acid eq/g extract) followed by BL1 (21.56 mg gallic acid eq/g
extract) and Roshni (20.76 mg gallic acid eq/g extract) (Table 4.16).
4.2.17 Root phenolics content of linseed
Water stress significantly increased (36.81%) root phenolics content as compared to

untreated and irrigated control. Foliar spray of MLAE both in non-stress and stress
condition increased (31.74 %) root phenolics over untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.16).
The treatments and varieties interactions for root phenolics content of linseed revealed that
water stress increased root phenolics content in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum increase in root phenolics content due to water stress was recorded in Roshni
(43.82 %) followed by Chandni (36.41 %) and BL1 (30.48 %) than their respective
untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on root phenolics BL1 had more
root phenolics (19.14 mg gallic acid eq/g extract ) followed by Chandni (18.44 mg gallic
acid eq/g extract) and Roshni (17.76 mg gallic acid eq/g extract) (Table 4.17).
135
30
Leaf phenolics (mg gallic acid eq/g f.w) a
25
b b
20
c
15
10
0
Treatments
Figure 4.15. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf phenolics content of linseed
significant variations. (LSD: 1.7525).
phenolics
Control 16.035±0.91g 18.54±1.24efg 16.47±1.54fg
Water stress 24.86±1.16ab 26.070±1.56a 27.26±1.51a
MLAE 19.62±0.53cde 22.157±0.39bcd 22.30±0.83bcd
Water stress + MLAE 22.53±0.62bc 19.49±0.60def 20.61±0.45cde
Mean 20.76a 21.56a 21.66a
136
25
Root phenolics (mg gallic acid eq/g f.w)

a
b b
20
15 c
10
0
Treatments
Figure 4.16. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on root phenolics content of linseed
significant variations LSD: 1.3237
phenolics
Control 11.55±0.53d 15.05±0.70c 13.74± 069cd
Water stress 20.56±0.70a 21.65±1.13a 21.61± 067a
MLAE 19.39±0.58ab 19.42±0.58ab 20.27± 0.88ab
Water stress + MLAE 19.54±1.14ab 20.46±0.42a 18.16±0.96b
Mean 17.76b 19.14a 18.44 ab
137
4.2.18 Leaf antioxidant of linseed
We noted that water stress increased leaf antioxidants content of linseed. Plants facing
water stress showed 26.35 % higher leaf antioxidants content as compared to untreated and
irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE under non-stress and stress conditions
significantly improved (13.34 %) leaf antioxidant content (Figure 4.17).
The treatments and varieties interactions for leaf antioxidants content of linseed revealed
that water stress increased leaf antioxidants content in all the three varieties of linseed.
However, maximum increase in leaf antioxidants due to water stress was recorded in BL1
(60.70 %) followed by Chandni (40.74 %) and Roshni (29.16 %) than their respective
untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on leaf antioxidants BL1 had
more leaf antioxidant (51.16 %) followed by Chandni (35.83 %) and Roshni (32.53 %)
(Table 4.18).
4.2.19 Root antioxidant of linseed
In our studies root antioxidants content was increased (44.71 %) by water stress than
untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress and stress environment foliar spray of
MLAE increased root antioxidants content (24.12 %) over untreated and irrigated control
(Figure 4.18).
The treatments and varieties interactions for root antioxidants content of linseed was
significant (p<0.05). Water stress increased root antioxidants content in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, maximum increase in root antioxidant due to water stress
was recorded in Roshni (35.15 %) followed by Chandni (25.18 %) and BL1 (21.17 %) than
their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on root
antioxidants Roshni had more root antioxidant (25.79 %) followed by BL1 (24.16 %) and
Chandni (22.75 %) (Table 4.19).
138
60
50 a
b
Leaf antioxidant ( %)
b
40
c
30
20
10
0
Treatments
Figure 4.17. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on leaf antioxidant of linseed varieties
variations (LSD: 2.6903).
antioxidant
Control 25.34±2.82g 44.67±2.60c 31.67± 0.88f
Water stress 39.08±1.82de 56.67±1.76a 42.33±1.45cd
MLAE 31.71±1.59f 50.63±1.31b 35.00±0.57ef
Water stress + MLAE 34.00±0.57f 52.67±0.88ab 34.33±0.88f
Mean 32.53c 51.16a 35.83b
139
35 a
30
b
Root antioxidant ( % )
25 b
20 c
15
10
0
Treatments
Figure 4.18. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on root antioxidant of linseed varieties
antioxidant
Control 21.59±1.40ef 14.30±1.51g 16.39±1.04g
Water stress 30.48±0.74b 36.39±2.65a 27.66±1.56bc
MLAE 26.48±0.51c 20.53±1.00f 21.87±1.01def
Water stress + MLAE 24.60±0.32cde 25.43±0.54cd 25.08±1.19c-e
Mean 25.79a 24.16ab 22.75b
140
4.2.20 Number of capsule per plant of linseed
In our studies number of capsules per plant was decreased (24.99 %) by water stress
than untreated and irrigated control. In a non-stress environment foliar spray of MLAE
resulted in the production of more capsules per plant (27.37 %) over untreated and
irrigated control. We noted that MLAE not only remediated water stress effect on
number of capsules per plant and retained normal value as compare to untreated and
irrigated control (Figure 4.19).
The treatments and varieties interactions for number of capsules per plant of linseed
revealed that water stress reduced the number of capsules per plant in all the three
varieties of linseed. However, maximum decrease in number of capsules per plant was
recorded in BL1 (35.52 %) followed by Roshni (26.88 %) and Chandni (22.4 %) than
their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on number of
capsules per plant Chandni had high (191.25) number of capsules followed by BL1
(73.75) and Roshni (162.92) (Table 4.20).
4.2.21 Capsule weight of linseed
In non –stressed environment MLAE increased capsule weight of linseed by 4.55 % as

compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased capsule weight of
linseed by 7.16 % than untreated and irrigated control. The foliar spray of MLAE under
water stress condition significantly retained normal capsule weight (Figure 4.20).
The treatments and varieties interactions for capsule weight of linseed revealed that
water stress decreased capsule weight in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in capsule weight due to water stress was recorded in Chandni (37.5
%) followed by Roshni (28.57 %) and BL1 (28.57 %) than their respective untreated
and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on capsule weight Chandni has greater
capsule weight (0.08 g) than Roshni (0.07 g) and BL1 (0.07 g) (Table 4.21).
4.2.22 Total number of seed per capsule of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE increased (11.71 %) total number of seeds per capsule of linseed
as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased (14.45 %)
number of seeds per capsule of linseed. Foliar spray of MLAE in water stress condition
retained normal value of seeds per capsule as compared to untreated and irrigated
141
The treatments and varieties interactions for total number of seeds per capsule of linseed
revealed that water stress reduce total number of seeds per capsule of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in total number of seeds per capsule due to water stress was
recorded in Roshni (19.16 %) followed by BL1 (13.05 %) and Chandni (11.11 %) than
their respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on total
number of seeds per capsule Chandni had greater number of seed per capsule (8.92)
followed by Roshni (8.58) and BL1 (7.92) (Table 4.22).
4.2.23 Seed length of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE significantly increased (17.34 %) seed length of linseed as

compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress significantly decreased (5.89
%) seed length of linseed. MLAE in water stress condition increased seed length as
compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.22).
The treatments and varieties interactions for seed length of linseed showed that water
stress decreased seed length in all the three varieties of linseed. However, maximum
decrease in seed length due to water stress was recorded in BL1 (16.06 %) followed by
Chandni (6.39 %) and Roshni (4.51 %) than their respective untreated and irrigated
control. Comparing variety effect on seed length Chandni had greater seed length (4.59
mm) followed by Roshni (4.50 mm) and BL1 (4.4 mm) (Table 4.23).
4.2.24 Seed width of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE significantly increased (13.36 %) seed width of linseed as

compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress significantly decreased (8.87
%) seed width of linseed. MLAE in water stress condition retained normal seed width
as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.23).
The treatments and varieties interactions for seed width of linseed showed that water
stress decreased seed width in all the three varieties of linseed. However, maximum
decrease in seed width due to water stress was recorded in BL1 (9.26 %) followed by
Roshni (8.63 %) and Chandni (8.29 %) than their respective untreated and irrigated
control. Comparing variety effect on seed width Roshni had greater seed width (2.27
mm) followed by Chandni (2.17 mm) and BL1 (2.13 mm) (Table 4.24).
142
250
a
200 b
b
150 c
100
50
0
Treatments
Figure 4.19.Treatments Means for MLAE effect on number of capsules per plant of
linseed varieties under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to non-
of capsule per plant
Control 155.00±18.92e 171.67±4.40de 193.33±7.26bcd
Water stress 113.33± 8.81g 126.67± 4.40fg 150.00±5.77ef
MLAE 216.33±9.13ab 208.33±10.13bc 236.67±8.81a
Water stress + MLAE 167.00±11.93de 188.33±9.27cd 185.00±5.77cd
Mean 162.92b 173.75b 191.25a
143
0.12
0.1 a
Capsule weight (g) 0.08 b

b
0.06
c
0.04
0.02
0
Control Water stress MLAE MLAE+water stress
Treatments
Figure 4.20.Treatments Means for MLAE effect on capsules weight of linseed varieties
Table 4.21. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on capsule
weight
Control 0.07±0.00d 0.07±0.00cd 0.08±0.00bcd
Water stress 0.05±0.00e 0.05± 0.00e 0.05±0.00e
MLAE 0.09±0.00abc 0.09± 0.00ab 0.10±0.00a
Water stress + MLAE 0.08±0.00bcd 0.07± 0.00d 0.08± 0.00bcd
Mean 0.07a 0.07a 0.08a
144
12
Total number of seeds per capsule 10 a

ab
b
8 c
0
Control Water stress MLAE MLAE+ Water stress
Treatments
Figure 4.21. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on total number of seeds per capsule
of linseed varieties under water stress. Data of two years was pooled together due to
non-significant variations. (LSD: 1.0127)
number of seed per capsule
Control 8.66±0.33abcd 7.66±0.88cde 9.00±0.57abc
Water stress 7.00± 0.57de 6.66±0.88e 8.00± 0.57bcde
MLAE 9.66±0.33ab 9.00 ±0.57abc 10.00±0.57a
Water stress + MLAE 9.00± 0.57abc 8.33±0.66abcde 8.66± 0.33abcd
Mean 8.58ab 7.92b 8.92a
145
6
a
5
b
c
d
Seed length (mm)
0
T0 T1 T2 T3
Treatments
Figure 4.22. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on seed length of linseed varieties
length
Control 4.21±0.04e 4.12± 0.04ef 4.38±0.04d
Water stress 4.02±0.02fg 3.87± 0.02g 4.10± 0.04ef
MLAE 5.24±0.05a 4.97±0.11b 5.18± 0.05a
Water stress + MLAE 4.54± 0.04cd 4.62±0.04c 4.69±0.03c
Mean 4.50b 4.40c 4.59a
146
3
a
2.5
b b
c
Seed width (mm) 2
1.5
0.5
0
Treatments
Figure 4.23. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on seed width of linseed varieties
width
Control 2.20± 0.05cd 2.05±0.04def 2.17±0.07cde
Water stress 2.01 ± 0.07efg 1.86 ±0.03g 1.99±0.03fg
MLAE 2.58 ±0.07a 2.43± 0.04ab 2.40±0.05b
Water stress + MLAE 2.27±0.07bc 2.18±0.04cde 2.10±0.02def
Mean 2.27a 2.13b 2.17b
147
4.2.25 Thousand seed weight of linseed
In non-stressed environment Foliar spray of MLAE increased (4.17 %) thousand seed

weight of linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased
(4.36 %) thousand seed weight of linseed. Foliar spray of MLAE in water deficit stress
condition retained normal value as compared to untreated and irrigated control (Figure
4.24).
The treatments and varieties interactions for thousand seed weight of linseed revealed
that water stress decreased thousand seed weight in all the three varieties of linseed.
However, maximum decrease in thousand seed weight due to water stress was recorded
in BL1 (7.04 %) followed by Chandni (4.38 %) and Roshni (2.54 %) than their
respective untreated and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on thousand seed
weight Roshni had maximum 1000 seed weight (7.12 g) than Chandni (7.07 g) and
BL1 (5.09 g) (Table 4.25).
4.2.26 Seed oil content of linseed
In non-stressed environment MLAE increased (6.88 %) seed oil content of linseed as

compare to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased (6.99 %) seed oil
content of linseed. MLAE in water stress condition retained normal value as compare
to untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.25).
The treatments and varieties interactions for seed oil content of linseed showed that
water stress decreased seed oil content in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
Maximum decreased in seed oil content due to water stress was recorded in Chandni
(7.29 %) followed by Roshni (6.97 %) and BL1 (6.67 %) than their respective untreated
and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on seed oil content, Chandni had
maximum seed oil content (33 %) followed by Roshni (32.97 %) and BL1 (31.13 %)
(Table 4.26).
4.2.27 Total seed yield of linseed
In non-stressed environment MLAE increased (10.10 %) total seed yield of linseed as

compare to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased (12.86 %) total seed
yield of linseed. MLAE in water stress condition increased total seed yield and
ameliorate the adverse effect of water stress (Figure 4.26).
148
The treatments and varieties interactions for total seed yield of linseed was significant
(p<0.05). Water stress decreased in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
Maximum decreased in total seed yield due to water stress was recorded in BL1 (19.51
%) followed by Roshni (10.77 %) and Chandni (8.30 %) than their respective untreated
and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on total seed yield, Roshni had
maximum seed yield (3666.7 kg/hectare) followed by Chandni (3352.5 kg/hectare) and
BL1 (3330.8 kg/hectare) (Table 4.27).
149
6.8 a
6.6
b
b
6.4
6.2 c
5.8
5.6
Treatments
Figure 4.24. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on 1000 seed weight of linseed
thousand seed weight
Control 7.08± 0.04b 5.11±0.06e 7.07 ± 0.04b
Water stress 6.90 ± 0.02c 4.75 ± 0.03f 6.76± 0.02c
MLAE 7.35 ±0.02a 5.43 ± 0.07d 7.32± 0.04a
Water stress + MLAE 7.16± 0.03b 5.06 ± 0.09e 7.15±0.04b
Mean 7.12a 5.09b 7.07a
150
36
a
35
34
Seed oil content (%)
33 b
b
32
31 c
30
29
28
27
Treatments
Figure 4.25. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on seed oil content of linseed varieties
Table 4.26. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on seed oil
content
Control 32.82±0.36de 30.84±0.41g 33.71±0.57bcd
Water stress 30.53± 0.52g 28.78±0.33h 31.25± 0.23fg
MLAE 35.51±0.56a 34.31±0.38abc 34.74 ± 0.57ab
Water stress + MLAE 33.04±0.31cde 30.59±0.50g 32.33 ±0.49ef
Mean 32.97a 31.13b 33.00a
151
4500
4000 a
b
Total seed yield (kg/hectare) c
3500
d
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Treatments
Figure 4.26. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on total seed yield of linseed varieties
seed yield
Control 3556.7±52.06cde 3483.3±44.09ef 3250.0 ±28.86gh
Water stress 3173.3±43.33h 2813.3 ±34.80j 2980.0 ±17.32i
MLAE 4116.7±72.64a 3676.7±40.55c 3653.3± 29.05cd
Water stress + MLAE 3820.0±64.29b 3350.0 ±57.73fg 3526.7±67.65de
Mean 3666.7a 3330.8b 3352.5b
152
4.2.28 Straw yield of linseed
In our studies straw yield of linseed was decreased (22.86 %) by water stress as
compared to untreated and irrigated control. in a non-stress environment foliar spray of
MLAE resulted more straw yield (26.40 %) over untreated and irrigated control. We
noted that MLAE not only remediated water deficit stress effect on straw yield but also
caused production of more straw yield over untreated and irrigated control (Figure 4.
27).
The treatments and varieties interactions for straw yield of linseed was significant
(p<0.05). Water stress reduced straw yield in all the three varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in straw yield due to water stress was recorded in Chandni (37.02
%) followed by Roshni (12.60 %) and BL1 (10.55 %) than their untreated and irrigated
control. Comparing variety effect on straw yield Chandni had greater straw yield
(7241.7 kg/hectare) than that of Roshni (6112.5 kg/hectare) and BL1 (4411.7
kg/hectare) (Table 4.28).
4.2.29 Fiber length of linseed
In non-stress condition MLAE increased (11.87 %) fiber length of linseed as compare

to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased (15.74%) fiber length of
linseed. MLAE in water stress condition retained normal value of fiber length as
The treatments and varieties interactions for fiber length of linseed was significant
(p<0.05). Water stress decreased fiber length in all varieties of linseed. However,
maximum decrease in fiber length due to water stress was recorded in Roshni (24.05
%) followed by BL1 (13.95 %) and Chandni (8.60 %) than their respective untreated
and irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on fiber length Roshni had longest fiber
length (50.67 cm) than that of Chandni (50.33 cm) and BL1 (45.16 cm) (Table 4.29).
4.2.30 Fiber weight of linseed
Foliar spray of MLAE in non-stress condition increased (28.12 %) fiber weight of

linseed as compared to untreated and irrigated control. Water stress decreased (13.91
%) fiber weight of linseed. MLAE in water stress condition increased fiber weight as
153
The treatments and varieties interactions for fiber weight of linseed was significant
(p<0.05). Water stress decreased fiber weight in all the varieties of linseed. However,
maximum reduction in fiber weight due to water stress was recorded in BL1 (33.00 %)
followed by Chandni (5.76 %) and Roshni (4.34 %) than their respective untreated and
irrigated control. Comparing variety effect on fiber weight Roshni had highest fiber
weight (1.60 g) than that of Chandni (1.19 g) and BL1 (0.98 g) (Table 4.30).
154
8000 a
7000 b

6000 c
5000
d
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Treatments
Figure 4.27. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on straw yield of linseed varieties
Table 4.28. Effect of varieties and treatments and varieties interactions on straw
yield
Treatment Roshni BL1 Chandni
Control 4706.7±63.59de 4356.7±58.11f 7193.3±63.59c
Water stress 4113.3 ± 75.35g 3896.7± 54.87h 4530.0±47.25ef
MLAE 8413.3± 116.23b 4853.3±29.05d 8823.3±64.89a
Water stress + MLAE 7216.7±130.17c 4540.0±30.55ef 8420.0±61.10b
Mean 6112.5b 4411.7c 7241.7a
155
60
a
b b
50
Fiber length (cm) c

40
30
20
10
0
Control Water stress MLAE MLAE+Water stress
Treatments
Figure 4.28. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on fiber length of linseed varieties
length
Control 52.67±0.88bc 43.00±0.57f 50.33±0.88cd
Water stress 40.00±1.15g 37.00±0.57h 46.00±1.15e
MLAE 58.00±0.57a 53.00±1.15bc 54.67±0.88b
Water stress + MLAE 52.00±1.15bc 47.67±0.88de 50.33±0.88cd
Mean 50.67a 45.16b 50.33a
156
1.8
a
1.6
1.4
b
c
Fiber weight (g)
1.2
d
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Treatments
Figure 4.29. Treatments Means for MLAE effect on fiber weight of linseed varieties
weight
Control 1.38±0.01d 1.03±0.01g 1.04±0.01g
Water stress 1.32±0.00e 0.69± 0.00j 0.98±0.00h
MLAE 1.97±0.02a 1.34±0.00de 1.50±0.01c
Water stress + MLAE 1.73±0.01b 0.86±0.02i 1.22±0.02f
Mean 1.60a 0.98c 1.19b
157
4.2.31 Pearson correlation of growth and yield parameters
Plant height exhibited significantly positive relationship with leaf gibberellic acid (r =
0.883), leaf Indole acetic acid (r = 0.881), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.821), leaf chlorophyll
a (r = 0.728), leaf chlorophyll b (r = 0.499), fiber length (r = 0.846), fiber weight (r =
0.643), number of tillers (r = 0.842) and seed oil content (r = 0.77). Plant height
exhibited significantly negative relationship with leaf electrolyte leakage (r = 0.501),
root antioxidant (r = -0.341), leaf antioxidant (r = -0.418), and phenolics (r = -0.274).
Seed yield had significantly positive correlation with leaf gibberellic acid (r = 0.743),
leaf Indole acetic acid (r = 0.757), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.738), leaf chlorophyll a (r =
0.624), leaf chlorophyll b (r = 0.788), fiber length (r = 0.825), fiber weight (r = 0.862),
number of tillers (r = 0.664), seed oil content (r = 0.757), plant height (r = 0.683) and
straw yield (r = 0.612). Straw yield had significantly positive correlation with leaf
gibberellic acid (r = 0.700), leaf Indole acetic acid (r = 0.705), leaf carotenoids (r =
0.615), leaf chlorophyll a (r = 0.560), fiber length (r = 0.719) and fiber weight (r =
0.652), number of tillers (r = 0.789), seed oil content (r = 0.720) and plant phenolics (r
= 0.394). Fiber length had significantly positive correlation with leaf gibberellic acid (r
= 0.818), leaf Indole acetic acid (r = 0.825), leaf carotenoids (r = 0.804), leaf chlorophyll
a (r = 0.689) and leaf chlorophyll b (r = 0.610) (Table 4.31).
158
Table 4.31 Pearson correlation of growth and yield parameters
EL GA3 IAA RA SA CAROT CHA CHB FL FW PHL NT OIL PH ST SUG

GA -0.636
0.000
IAA -0.676 0.998

0.000 0.000
RA 0.566 -0.535 -0.524

0.000 0.0000 0.001
SA 0.085 -0.347 -0.3584 0.325
0.624 0.040 0.034 0.056
CARO -0. 478 0.823 0.830 -0.357 -0.326

T 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.055
CHA -0.564 0.809 0.810 -0.426 -0.123 0.818
0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.010 0.480 0.000
CHB -0.432 0.605 0.612 -0.238 -0.016 0.676 0.628
0.009 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.927 0.000 0.000
FL -0.537 0.818 0.825 -0.390 -0.568 0.804 0.689 0.610

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FW -0.080 0.498 0.521 -0.133 -0.633 0.624 0.399 0.558 0.727

0.647 0.002 0.001 0.443 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.000
PHL 0.472 -0.575 -0.575 0.570 -0.395 -0.338 -0.304 -0.348 -0.430 -0.181
0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.046 0.075 0.040 0.009 0.296
NT -0.632 0.814 0.819 -0.376 -0.549 0.709 0.690 0.465 0.823 0.548 -0.399
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.017
OIL -0.464 0.729 0.744 -0.452 -0.418 0.806 0.730 0.557 0.874 0.743 -0.351 0.810
0.004 0.0000 0.000 0.006 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.000
PH -0.501 0.883 0.881 -0.341 -0.418 0.821 0.728 0.499 0.846 0.643 -0.274 0.842 0.777
0.002 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.000 0.000
ST -0.426 0.700 0.705 -0.216 -0.583 0.615 0.560 0.227 0.719 0.652 -0.236 0.789 0.720 0.394
159
0.010 0.000 0.000 0.211 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.188 0.000 0.000 0.171 0.000 0.000 0.019
SUG 0.535 -0.202 -0.175 0.339 -0.405 0.001 -0.267 0.210 0.100 0.619 0.028 -0.113 0.110 -0.177 0.016
0.000 0.242 0.313 0.046 0.015 0.992 0.120 0.225 0.565 0.000 0.869 0.515 0.526 0.307 0.925
SY -0.422 0.743 0.757 -0.385 -0.452 0.738 0.624 0.788 0.825 0.862 -0.417 0.664 0.757 0.683 0.612 0.344
0.011 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042
GA3 : leaf gibberellic acid, IAA : leaf indole acetic acid , RA : root antioxidant , SA : leaf antioxidant , CAROT : leaf carotenoids , CHA: leaf
chlorophyll a, CHB : leaf chlorophyll b, FL : fiber length , FW : fiber weight, PHL : phenolics, NT : number of tillers , OIL : seed oil content ,
PH : plant height , ST : straw yield , SY : total seed yield SUG: leaf total soluble sugars , EL: leaf electrolytic leakage.
160
DISCUSSION
The Moringa leaf aqueous extract showed the presence of natural phenolics and
nutrients like K, Mg, Ca, Fe, Zn and Mn indicating its significance for use in
agriculture as a natural plant growth stimulating substance. Foliar spray of
Moringa extract was found effective in accelerating growth of peanut, tomato,
wheat and corn at vegetative growth stage and resulted in a greater fruit and seed
yield (Fuglie, 2000).
The foliar spray of MLAE completely reversed water stress induced decrease in
plant height and tillers production of all the three linseed varieties. The
ameliorating effect of MLAE on water stress induced decrease in plant height and
number of tillers may be accredited to its phytochemicals composition. The
MLAE contained K which might has played a role in normal flow of water inside
the plant body of linseed as reported in other plant species (Ahmad et al., 2016;
Hasanuzzaman et al., 2018). Previous studies showed that MLAE increased plant
height and yield of maize (Biswas et al., 2016). Plant height and number of tillers
per plant are important attributes having direct association with seed and fiber
yield of linseed. Here we came to conclusion that MLAE application to linseed
both under normal and water stress conditions will be helpful in producing a more
productive crop.
Water stress decreased shoot fresh weight/ dry weight and root fresh weight/ dry
weight oflinseed. Our studies are related with the earlier findings of Khayatnezhad
et al. (2010) that water stress decreases shoot and root fresh weight and dry
weight. The MLAE increased shoot fresh weight/dry weight and root fresh
weight/dry weigh both in non-stress and stress conditions. Our result are
correlated with previous finding of Biswas et al. (2016) that Moringa leaf extract
increased shoot and root fresh weight and dry weight of maize.
In our studies decrease in leaf relative water content due to water stress was
completely reversed to normal by the foliar spray of MLAE at tillering stage.
Tambussi et al. (2000) have reported that water deficit stress decreased relative
water content in different varieties of wheat. The beneficial impact of MLAE on
leaf relative water content under water stress may be credited to its potassium
content which has integral role in the maintenance of water budget of plants under
161
conditions of low soil water availability (Cakmak, 2005; Wang et al. 2013).
The MLAE significantly ameliorated the adverse effect of water stress on

chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids content of linseed. The MLAE has
bioactive compounds of Moringa oleifera like phenolics, amino acids, zeatin,
ascorbic acid and minerals which inhibited the synthesis and activity of enzyme
chlorophyllase and thus protected photosynthetic pigments from degradation by
water stress (Latif & Mohamed 2016). The MLAE contained Mg which is an
essential constituent of chlorophyll and may have contributed in improving
concentration of chlorophyll pigments in leaves of linseed. Azeem & Ahmad
(2011) experimentally proved that foliar spray of K and Fe increased leaf
chlorophyll concentration and fruit yield of tomato.
Electrolyte leakage was higher from leaf cells of water stressed linseed plants.
The MLAE foliar spray significantly minimized water stress effect on leaf cells
electrolyte leakage. The role of MLAE in stabilizing values of electrolyte leakage
under water stress may be because that it improved resistance of linseed plants to
water stress by boosting endogenous level of phenolics and antioxidants in leaves
of linseed. Phenolics have antioxidant functions in plants protecting cells from
reactive oxygen species produced in biotic and abiotic stresses (Valentine et al.,
2003). It is evident from this study that MLAE as a mixture of phenolics,
antioxidants and minerals was highly effective in improving cellular membranes
stability to water stress.
The MLAE application reversed increase in sugars content of all the three linseed
varieties caused by water stress. This indicated that MLAE application assisted
linseed plants in dealing with water stress as higher sugars concentration is used
as a measure of water stress intensity in plants (Prado et al., 2000). The decrease
in sugars content due to MLAE application under water stress indicates that it
improved physiological and biochemical pathways of linseed plants leading to an
improved resistance of this plant species to water deficiency stress.
The MLAE as foliar spray was highly effective in minimizing decreasing effect
of water stress on leaf endogenous level of indole acetic acid and gibberellic acid.
These results resemble with those of Anwar (2007), Latif & Mohammad (2016)
and Abdallah (2013) who have reported beneficial effects of Moringa extract on
162
the production of growth hormones in Phaseolus vulgaris and Eruca sativa plants.
The positive effects of MLAE on growth hormones may be because that it had
essential nutrients, maintained normal leaf relative water content, improved
concentration of photosynthetic pigments and antioxidants in leaves of linseed
leading to greater production of photosynthetic products which contributed in the
higher buildup of phytohormones.
Water stress increased leaf and root phenolics content in all the three varieties of
linseed which were further increased by MLAE application. These results
resemble with earlier studies that Moringa leaf extract application increased
concentration of phenolics in leaves of maize (Bakhtavar et al. 2015; Pervez et al.
2017). We have found that MLAE was a rich source of natural phenolics which
have improved the water deficit tolerance potential of linseed plants by regulating
the metabolism of endogenous phenolics in leaves and roots.
There occurred enhancement in leaf and root antioxidants contents due to foliar
application of MLAE under water stress. These results resemble those of Latif &
Mohamed (2016) who reported that Moringa leaf extract application increased
antioxidants content in leaves of bean plants. The higher production of
antioxidants in leaves of linseed by MLAE application might be because that it
had higher content of phenolics and other phytochemicals.
The MLAE application resulted in a better seed yield of linseed varieties exposed
to water stress at vegetative growth stage. Improvement in seed yield of linseed
varieties due to MLAE application may be mainly due to its chemical makeup
and beneficial effects on plant height, tillers production, photosynthetic pigments,
leaf relative water content and in minimizing leaf electrolytes leakage under water
stress. Moringa leaf extract has been characterized for the presence of zeatin
which is a cytokinin responsible for greater plant growth and yield (Biswas et al.,
2016).
The foliar spray of MLAE was highly effective in minimizing decreasing effect
of water stress on seed oil content. Beneficial effects MLAE on seed oil content
may be due to its role in the prevention of photosynthetic pigments and
endogenous level of IAA and GA from adverse effects of water stress and
improving nutrients availability to linseed plants.
163
The foliar spray of MLAE was beneficial in increasing straw yield of linseed both
under non-stress and water stress. Reduction in straw yield by water stress can be
due to its decreasing effect on the concentration of photosynthetic pigments, level
of IAA and GA. The MLAE had positive effects on leaf green pigments, plant
height, tillers production, stem dry weight and growth hormones of linseed plants
which led to the higher straw yield. In this study straw yield was positively
associated with plant height, chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b which were
improved by MLAE application.
The MLAE application produced lengthy fibers with greater weight. These
beneficial effects of MLAE on fiber quality could be due to its beneficial effects
on plant height and stem dry weight. The MLAE contained K which is a major
solute in single cells of fibers necessary for maintaining turgor pressure crucial
for fiber elongation. It has been found that limited K supply during fiber
elongation period resulted in shorter fibers (Sawan et al., 2008; Oosterhuis,
1994). Moreover, K has been credited for its role in the rapid translocation of
photoassimilates from source to sink (Sangakkara et al. 2000). The application
of nutrients like Mg, Zn and Fe have been reported for their beneficial effects on
the photosynthetic outcomes of plants (Ye et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2016) and
therefore, as MLAE was rich in these nutrients which ultimately assisted in
improving fiber length and weight of linseed. Results of this study provided
evidence that MLAE not only improved vegetative growth but also reproductive
growth of linseed plants, including seed yield and fiber quality.
Organic fertilizers reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers and thus are capable of
mitigating problems caused by synthetic fertilizers. Organic farming is less
vulnerable to the attack of pathogens and weather events. MacRae et al. (2007)
outlined that organic yields on average were less (<10 %) than usual conventional
farming. However, organic farming required shorter chain supply, lower operating
costs and higher weather resilience. Eruca sativa seeds were rich in NPK and other
nutrients. However, the seeds contains huge amount of glucosinolates and have
pungent smell (Das et al., 2001). Glucosinolates upon hydrolysis yields
isothiocynates, thiocyanate and nitrile which are poisonous and cause lower
palatability of feed, depressed function of thyroid glands and goitrogerecity in
cattle (Pailan, 1995). Therefore, after oil extraction the seed cake could be utilized
164
for making organic fertilizers. The M. oleifera is a tall and drought resistant plant
species cultivated for its leaves and fruit as a source of food and natural source of
cytokinin (Pervez et al., 2017). Due to presence of various kinds of plant nutrients
and natural cytokine zeatin this plant species is preferred for use as natural plant
growth regulator. Chicken manure contains NPK and organic matter. Its use in the
production of organic fertilizers has been reported (Eroa, 2015; Adekiya et al.,
2020). Our formulations of organic fertilizers OF3 and OF4 were rich in all major
nutrients required for increasing soil health and stimulating growth of linseed. Due
to easy availability of Eruca sativa seed cake, leaves of Moringa and chicken
manure, their use in the production of organic fertilizers would be environment
friendly, economical and sustainable and could be used as an alternative to reduce
use of conventional/synthetic fertilizers.
165
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, MLAE application minimized water stress induced decrease in plant

height, tillers production, seed yield and straw yield of linseed varieties. The MLAE
showed positive effects on physiological traits like leaf relative water content and
chlorophyll concentration under water stress. Improvements in growth, seed yield and
fiber quality related traits of linseed due to foliar spray of MLAE under water stress
were as a result of enhanced antioxidants defense system, better concentration of IAA
and GA in leaves, stabilization of leaf electrolyte leakage and higher concentration of
photosynthetic pigments. Further studies are required to determine role of MLAE on
the biosynthesis of phenolics and phytohormones in different plant species including
linseed at molecular level.
Due to its effectiveness MLAE application as a foliar spray is recommended for

application in the farmer’s field. It will be more beneficial if combined effect of MLAE
and organic fertilizers produced in experiment No.1 is checked on growth and yield
traits of linseed under water stress.
Out of the three linseed varieties Roshni performed better under water stress and is
therefore recommended for cultivation in arid and semi-arid regions.
166
REFERENCES
Abbas, M., Anwar, J., Zafar-ul-Hye, M., Khan, R. I., Saleem, M., Rahi, A. A., & Datta,
R. (2020). Effect of seaweed extract on productivity and quality attributes of four
onion cultivars. Horticulturae, 6(2), 2-14.
Abdallah, M. M. (2013). The potential of Moringa oleifera extract as a biostimulant in

enhancing the growth, biochemical and hormonal contents in rocket (Eruca
vesicaria subsp. sativa) plants. International Journal of Plant Physiology and
Biochemistery, 5(3), 42-49.
Adekiya, A. O., Ejue, W. S., Olayanju, A., Dunsin, O., Aboyeji, C. M., Aremu, C., &
Akinpelu, O. (2020). Different organic manure sources and NPK fertilizer on soil
chemical properties, growth, yield and quality of okra. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-
9.
Adetutu, A.E., Adewale, A.O., Mbechun, A.J., & Kolajo, A.K. (2018). Comparative
Evaluation of the Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on the Growth of the
Seedlings of Deinbolia pinnata Schum. & Thonn: An Underutilised Multipurpose
Species. Asian Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 1(1), 1-9.
Adnan, M., Fahad, S., Zamin, M., Shah, S., Mian, I. A., Danish, S., & Datta, R. (2020).
Coupling phosphate-solubilizing bacteria with phosphorus supplements improve
maize phosphorus acquisition and growth under lime induced salinity
stress. Plants, 9(7), 900.
Agbede, T. M., Ojeniyi, S. O., & Adeyemo, A. J. (2008). Effect of poultry manure on soil
physical and chemical properties, growth and grain yield of sorghum in southwest,
Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2(1), 72-77.
Ahmad, I., Tanveer, M. U., Liaqat, M., & Dole, J. M. (2019). Comparison of corm soaks
with preharvest foliar application of moringa leaf extract for improving growth and
yield of cut Freesia hybrida. Scientia Horticulturae, 254, 21-25.
Ahmad, P., Abdel Latef, A. A., Abd_Allah, E. F., Hashem, A., Sarwat, M., Anjum, N. A.,
& Gucel, S. (2016). Calcium and potassium supplementation enhanced growth,
osmolyte secondary metabolite production, and enzymatic antioxidant machinery
167
in cadmium-exposed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Frontiers in Plant Science, 7,
513.
Ahmad, T., Shah, S.T., Ullah, F., Ghafoor, F., & Anwar, U. (2017). Effect of organic
fertilizer on growth and yield of coriander. International Journal of Agriculture and
Environmental Research, 3(1), 116-120.
Aina, O. E., Amoo, S. O., Mugivhisa, L. L., & Olowoyo, J. O. (2019). Effect of organic
and inorganic sources of nutrients on the bioactive compounds and antioxidant
activity of tomato. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(2), 3681-
3694.
Al-Huqail, A., El-Dakak, R. M., Sanad, M. N., Badr, R. H., Ibrahim, M. M., Soliman, D.,
& Khan, F. (2020). Effects of climate temperature and water stress on plant Growth
and accumulation of antioxidant compounds in Sweet Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.)
leafy vegetable. Scientifica, 1-12.
Al-Hussaini, M. K., & Alsaadawi, I. S. (2013). Mitigation of drought stress effect on

growth and productivity of mung bean by foliar application of sorghum water
extract. Iraqi Journal of Science, 54(3), 560-568.
Al-Shaheen, M.R., Al-Shaheen, M.A., & Al-Shaheen, M.R. (2018). Effect of Biological
Treatment under Water Stress Conditions on Maize (Zea mays L.). Enzyme
Engineering 7(1), 164. doi:10.4172/2329-6674.1000164.
Amanullah, M. M., Sekar, S., & Muthukrishnan, P. (2010). Prospects and potential of
poultry manure. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 9(4), 172-182.
Angelova, V. R., Akova, V. I., Artinova, N. S., & Ivanov, K. I. (2013). The effect of organic
amendments on soil chemical characteristics. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural
Science, 19(5), 958-971.
Anjum, F., Yaseen, M., Rasul, E., Wahid, A., & Anjum, S. (2003). Water stress in
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). II. Effect on chemical composition and chlorophyll
contents. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 40, 45-49.
Ankenbauer, K. J., & Loheide, S. P. (2017). The effects of soil organic matter on soil water
retention and plant water use in a meadow of the Sierra Nevada, CA. Hydrological
Processes, 31(4), 891-901.
168
Antil, R. S., & Singh, M. (2007). Effects of organic manures and fertilizers on organic
matter and nutrients status of the soil. Archives of Agronomy and Soil
Science, 53(5), 519-528.
Anwar, F., Latif, S., Ashraf, M., & Gilani, A. H. (2007). Moringa oleifera: a food plant
with multiple medicinal uses. Phytotherapy Research: An International Journal
Devoted to Pharmacological and Toxicological Evaluation of Natural Product
Derivatives, 21(1), 17-25.
Arancon, N. Q., Edwards, C. A., & Bierman, P. (2006). Influences of vermicomposts on

field strawberries: Part 2. Effects on soil microbiological and chemical
properties. Bioresource Technology, 97(6), 831-840.
Arif, M., Kareem, S. H. S., Ahmad, N. S., Hussain, N., Yasmeen, A., Anwar, A., & Ansar,
M. (2019). Exogenously applied bio-stimulant and synthetic fertilizers to improve
the growth, yield and fiber quality of cotton. Sustainability, 11(7), 2171.
Arnon, D. I. (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta

vulgaris. Plant Physiology, 24(1), 1-15.
Aschonitis, V. G., Antonopoulos, V. Z., Lekakis, E. H., Litskas, V. D., Kotsopoulos, S. A.,
& Karamouzis, D. N. (2013). Estimation of field capacity for aggregated soils using
changes of the water retention curve under the effects of compaction. European
Journal of Soil Science, 64(5), 688-698.
Ashraf, M., Athar, H. R., Harris, P. J. C., & Kwon, T. R. (2008). Some prospective
strategies for improving crop salt tolerance. Advances in Agronomy, 97, 45-110.
Assefa, S., & Tadesse (2019). The Principal Role of Organic Fertilizer on Soil Properties
and Agricultural Productivity -A Review. Agricultural
Research & Technology, 22(2), 556192.
Association of Official Agriculture Chemists (1960). Official Methods of Analysis, 9th

edition, W. Horwitz (ed.), 832 pp., Washington, DC, USA.
Athar, H. R., & Ashraf, M. (2009). Strategies for crop improvement against salinity and
drought stress: An overview. Salinity and Water Stress, 1-16.
Attarzadeh, M., Balouchi, H., Rajaie, M., Dehnavi, M. M., & Salehi, A. (2020). Improving
growth and phenolic compounds of Echinacea purpurea root by integrating
169
biological and chemical resources of phosphorus under water deficit
stress. Industrial Crops and Products, 154, 112763.
Ayesha, A., Khalil, A. A., Shahid, B., Aadil, R. M., Faiz-ul-Hassan, S., Khan, A. A., &
Amna, B. (2019). Comparison of proximate composition and mineral profiling of
defatted flaxseed cake obtained from three different varieties. Pakistan Journal of
Food Sciences, 29(2), 15-18.
Azeem, M., & Ahmad, R. (2011). Foliar application of some essential minerals on tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum) plant grown under two different salinity
regimes. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 43(3), 1513-1520.
Aziz, S., Siddique, M.A.B., & Begum, M.H.A. (2018). Cotton Seed oil cake as a valuable
Source of Plant Nutrients for Sustainable Agriculture. The Pharmaceutical and
Chemical Journal, 5 (3), 39-45.
Babaee, K., Amini Dehaghi, M., Modares Sanavi, S. A. M., & Jabbari, R. (2010). Water
deficit effect on morphology, prolin content and thymol percentage of Thyme
(Thymus vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants
Research, 26(2), 239-251.
Bajji, M., Kinet, J. M., & Lutts, S. (2002). The use of the electrolyte leakage method for
assessing cell membrane stability as a water stress tolerance test in durum
wheat. Plant Growth Regulation, 36(1), 61-70.
Bakhtavar, M. A., Afzal, I., Basra, S. M. A., & Noor, M. A. (2015). Physiological strategies
to improve the performance of spring maize (Zea mays L.) planted under early and
optimum sowing conditions. Plos One, 10(4), e0124441.
Bakry, B. A., El-Hariri, D. M., Sadak, M. S., & El-Bassiouny, H. M. S. (2012). Drought
stress mitigation by foliar application of salicylic acid in two linseed varieties
grown under newly reclaimed sandy soil. Journal of
Applied Sciences Research, 8(7), 3503-3514.
Bano, A., & Yasmeen, S. (2010). Role of phytohormones under induced drought stress in
wheat. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42(4), 2579-2587.
170
Bano, A., Ullah, F., & Nosheen, A. (2012). Role of abscisic acid and drought stress on the
activities of antioxidant enzymes in wheat. Plant, Soil and Environment, 58(4),
181-185.
Bargaz, A., Lyamlouli, K., Chtouki, M., Zeroual, Y., & Dhiba, D. (2018). Soil microbial
resources for improving fertilizers efficiency in an integrated plant nutrient
management system. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9.1606.
Baud, S., & Lepiniec, L. (2010). Physiological and developmental regulation of seed oil
production. Progress in Lipid Research, 49(3), 235-249.
Bauer, P. J., Stone, K. C., Foulk, J. A., & Dodd, R. B. (2015). Irrigation and cultivar effect
on flax fiber and seed yield in the Southeast USA. Industrial Crops and
Products, 67, 7-10.
Berova, M., Karanatsidis, G., Sapundzhieva, K., & Nikolova, V. (2010). Effect of organic
fertilization on growth and yield of pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.). Folia
Horticulturae, 22(1), 3-7.
Bibi, A., Ullah, F., Mehmood, S., Bibi, K., Khan, S.U., Khattak, A., & Khan, R.U.
(2016). Moringa oleifera Lam. leaf extract as bioregulator for improving growth
of maize under mercuric chloride stress. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section
B — Soil & Plant Science, 66(6), 469–475.
Bibi, K., Mushtaq, N., Mahmood, S., Ullah, F., Khattak, A., Perveen, I., Begum, K., &
Abbas, S. (2018). Pongamia pinnata (L.) Panigrahi aqueous extract alleviates
mercuric chloride induced stress on seedling growth of maize. Applied Ecology and
Environmental Research, 16, 3245-3253.
Biswas, A. K., Hoque, T. S., & Abedin, M. A. (2016). Effects of moringa leaf extract on
growth and yield of maize. Progressive Agriculture, 27(2), 136-143.
Blois, M.S. (1958) Antioxidant Determinations by the Use of a Stable Free Radical.
Nature, 181, 1199-1200.
Blum, A., & Ebercon, A. (1981). Cell membrane stability as a measure of drought and heat
tolerance in wheat 1. Crop Science, 21(1), 43-47.
171
Bolat, I., Dikilitas, M., Ercisli, S., Ikinci, A., & Tonkaz, T. (2014). The effect of water
stress on some morphological, physiological, and biochemical characteristics and
bud success on apple and quince rootstocks. The Scientific World Journal, 1-9.
Bot, A., & Benites, J. (2005). The importance of soil organic matter: Key to drought-
resistant soil and sustained food production (No. 80). Food & Agriculture Org.
Boudet, A. M. (2007). Evolution and current status of research in phenolic

compounds. Phytochemistry, 68(22-24), 2722-2735.
Bouyoucos, G. J. (1962). Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses
of soils 1. Agronomy Journal, 54(5), 464-465.
Bray, E.A., Bailey-Serres, J., & Weretilnyk, E. (2000) .Responses to abiotic stresses. In W
Gruissem, B Buchannan, R Jones, eds, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of
Plants. American Society of Plant Physiologists, 1158–1249.
Bremner, J.M., & Mulvaney, C.S., (1982). Nitrogen-Total. In: Page, A.L., Ed., Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties, American Society
of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, 595-624.
Bulluck III, L. R., & Ristaino, J.B. (2002). Effect of synthetic and organic soil fertility
amendments on southern blight, soil microbial communities, and yield of
processing tomatoes. Phytopathology, 92(2), 181-189.
Cakmak, I. (2005). The role of potassium in alleviating detrimental effects of abiotic

stresses in plants. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 168(4), 521-530.
Campos, M. K. F., de Carvalho, K., de Souza, F. S., Marur, C. J., Pereira, L. F. P.,
Bespalhok Filho, J. C., & Vieira, L. G. E. (2011). Drought tolerance and antioxidant
enzymatic activity in transgenic ‘Swingle’citrumelo plants over-accumulating
proline. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 72(2), 242-250.
Chakraborty, S., & Newton, A. C. (2011). Climate change, plant diseases and food security:
an overview. Plant Pathology, 60(1), 2-14.
Chandio, R. (2012). Thar, other areas may face severe drought”. The Nations.
172
Chauhan, M. P., Singh, S., & Singh, A. K. (2009). Post harvest uses of linseed. Journal of
Human Ecology, 28(3), 217-219.
Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P., & Pereira, J. S. (2003). Understanding plant responses to
drought—from genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology, 30(3), 239-264.
Chun, O. K., Kim, D. O., Moon, H. Y., Kang, H. G., & Lee, C. Y. (2003). Contribution of
individual polyphenolics to total antioxidant capacity of plums. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51(25), 7240-7245.
Citak, S., & Sonmez, S. (2011). Effects of chemical fertilizer and different organic manure
application on soil pH, EC and organic matter content. Journal of Food,
Agriculture & Environment, 9, 739-741.
Claeys, H., Skirycz, A., Maleux, K., & Inzé, D. (2012). DELLA signaling mediates stress-
induced cell differentiation in Arabidopsis leaves through modulation of anaphase-
promoting complex/cyclosome activity. Plant Physiology, 159(2), 739-747.
Cornish, K., & Zeevaart, J. A. (1984). Abscisic acid metabolism in relation to water stress
and leaf age in Xanthium strumarium. Plant Physiology, 76(4), 1029-1035.
Danish, S., Zafar-ul-Hye, M., Fahad, S., Saud, S., Brtnicky, M., Hammerschmiedt, T., &
Datta, R. (2020). Drought stress alleviation by ACC deaminase producing
Achromobacter xylosoxidans and Enterobacter cloacae, with and without timber
waste biochar in maize. Sustainability, 12(15), 6286.
Darko, E., Vegh, B., Khalil, R., Marcek, T., Szalai, G., Pál, M., & Janda, T. (2019).
Metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to osmotic stress induced by various
osmolytes under iso-osmotic conditions. Plos One, 14(12), e0226151.
DAS, S., Tyagi, A. K., & Singhal, K. K. (2001). Chemical composition including amino
acid, fatty acid and glucosinolate profile of taramira (Eruca sativa) oilseed. The
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 71(9), 613-615.
Del Río, L. A. (2015). ROS and RNS in plant physiology: an overview. Journal of
Experimental Botany, 66(10), 2827-2837.
173
Devenport, T. L., Morgan, P. W., & Jordan, W. R. (1980). Reduction of Auxin Transport
Capacity with Age and Internal Water Deficits in Cotton Petioles. Plant
Physiology, 1023-1025.
Deyholos, M. K. (2006). Bast fiber of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): Biological

foundations of its ancient and modern uses. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 54(4),
273-280.
Dhirhi, N., Shukla, R., Patel, N. B., Sahu, H., & Mehta, N. (2015). Extraction method of
flax fiber and its uses. Plant Archives, 15(2), 711-716.
Di Mola, I., Ottaiano, L., Cozzolino, E., Senatore, M., Giordano, M., El-Nakhel, C., &
Mori, M. (2019). Plant-based biostimulants influence the agronomical,
physiological, and qualitative responses of baby rocket leaves under diverse
nitrogen conditions. Plants, 8(11), 522.
Dikinya, O., & Mufwanzala, N. (2010). Chicken manure-enhanced soil fertility and
productivity: Effects of application rates. Journal of Soil Science and
Environmental Management, 1(3), 46-54.
Dittmar, H., Drach, M., Vosskamp, R., Trenkel, M. E., Gutser, R., & Steffens, G. (2009).
Fertilizers, 2. Types. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
do Carmo, D. L., de Lima, L. B., & Silva, C. A. (2016). Soil fertility and electrical
conductivity affected by organic waste rates and nutrient inputs. Revista Brasileira
de Ciencia Do Solo, 40, 1-17.
Dohat, M. P., Patel, R. A., Patel, V. Y., & Patel, H. K. (2017). Effect of Irrigation and
Nitrogen on Growth and Yield of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). Journal of
Pure and Applied Microbiology, 11, 949-951.
Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. T., & Smith, F. (1956). Colorimetric
method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical
Chemistry, 28(3), 350-356.
174
Duncan, J. (2005). Composting chicken manure. WSU cooperative extension. King County
Master Gardner and Cooperative Extension Livestock Advisor, Washington State
University, Pullman.
Egilla, J. N., Davies, F. T., & Boutton, T. W. (2005). Drought stress influences leaf water
content, photosynthesis, and water-use efficiency of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis at three
potassium concentrations. Photosynthetica, 43(1), 135-140.
El-Beltagi, H. S., Salama, Z. A., & El-Hariri, D. M. (2007). Evaluation of fatty acids profile
and the content of some secondary metabolites in seeds of different flax cultivars
(Linum usitatissimum L.). General and Applied Plant Physiology, 33(3-4), 187-
202.
El-Mogy, M. M., Abdelaziz, S. M., Mahmoud, A. W. M., Elsayed, T. R., Abdel-Kader, N.

H., & Mohamed, M. I. (2020). Comparative Effects of Different Organic and
Inorganic Fertilisers on Soil Fertility, Plant Growth, Soil Microbial Community,
and Storage Ability of Lettuce. Agriculture (Pol'nohospodárstvo), 66(3), 87-107.
El-Shimy, G. H., Mostafa, S. H. A., & Abd El-Dayem, M. A. (2002). Effect of NPK
fertilizer levels on yield and its components of some flax genotypes. Annals
of Agricultural Science, Moshtohor, 40(1), 67-79.
Emongor, V. E. (2015). Effects of moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaf extract on growth, yield
and yield components of snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Current Journal of
Applied Science and Technology, 114-122.
Erdogdu, Y., Yaver, S., & Onemli, F. (2018). The Effect of Different Seeding Rates on
Grain Yield and Yield Components in Some Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.)
Varieties. International Journal of Environmental and Agriculture Research, 4(1).
Eroa, M.G. (2015). Production and characterization of organic fertilizer from Jatropha
curcas seed cake and chicken manure. Journal of Asia Pacific Multidisciplinary
Research, 3(4), 9-13.
175
Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D., & Basra, S.M.A. (2009). Plant drought
stress Effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 28, 185-212.
Foidl, N., Makkar, H. P. S., & Becker, K. (2001). The potential of Moringa oleifera for
agricultural and industrial uses. What development potential for Moringa
products, 20.
Frederick, J. R., Camp, C. R., & Bauer, P. J. (2001). Drought-stress effects on branch and
main stem seed yield and yield components of determinate soybean. Crop
Science, 41(3), 759-763.
Fu, J., & Huang, B. (2001). Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the
adaptation of two cool-season grasses to localized drought stress. Environmental
and Experimental Botany, 45(2), 105-114.
Fuglie, L. J. (2000). The Miracle Tree: Moringa oleifera: Natural Nutrition for the Tropics.
The Multiple Attributes of Moringa. International Journal of Advance Research
Ideas Innovative Technology, 3, 172.
Gabiana, C., McKenzie, B. A., & Hill, G. D. (2005). The influence of plant population,
nitrogen and irrigation on yield and yield components of linseed. Agronomy New
Zealand, 35, 44-56.
Galdos, M.V., Maria, D.E.I.C., & Camargo, O.A. (2004). Chemical attributes and corn
production in an eutrophic red latosol treated with sewage sludge. Brazilian Journal
of Soil Science, 23(3), 569-577.
Gámez Guzmán, A. L., Soba Hidalgo, D., Zamarreño, Á. M., García Mina, J. M., Aranjuelo
Michelena, I., & Morales Iribas, F. (2019). Effect of water stress during grain filling
on yield, quality and physiological traits of Illpa and Rainbow quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa willd.) cultivars. Plants, 8(6), 173.
Garg, B. K. (2003). Nutrient uptake and management under drought: nutrient-moisture

interaction. Current Agriculture, 27(1/2), 1-8.
176
Gogus, U., & Smith, C. (2010). n‐3 Omega fatty acids: a review of current
knowledge. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 45(3), 417-436.
Gould, C. M. (2015). Compost increases water holding capacity of droughty

soils. Michigan State University Extension.
Guo, R., Hao, W., & Gong, D. (2012). Effects of water stress on germination and growth
of linseed seedlings (Linum usitatissimum L.), photosynthetic efficiency and
accumulation of metabolites. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(10), 253.
Guo, R., Shi, L., Jiao, Y., Li, M., Zhong, X., Gu, F., & Li, H. (2018). Metabolic responses
to drought stress in the tissues of drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive wheat
genotype seedlings. AoB Plants, 10(2), doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/ply016.
Gutiérrez, C., Rubilar, M., Jara, C., Verdugo, M., Sineiro, J., & Shene, C. (2010). Flaxseed
and flaxseed cake as a source of compounds for food industry. Journal of Soil
Science and Plant Nutrition, 10(4), 454-463.
Hale, B. K., Herms, D. A., Hansen, R. C., Clausen, T. P., & Arnold, D. (2005). Effects of
drought stress and nutrient availability on dry matter allocation, phenolic
glycosides, and rapid induced resistance of poplar to two lymantriid
defoliators. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 31(11), 2601-2620.
Han, S. H., An, J. Y., Hwang, J., Kim, S. B., & Park, B. B. (2016). The effects of organic
manure and chemical fertilizer on the growth and nutrient concentrations of yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera Lin.) in a nursery system. Forest Science and
Technology, 12(3), 137-143.
Harper, C. R., Edwards, M. J., De Filipis, A. P., & Jacobson, T. A. (2006). Flaxseed oil
increases the plasma concentrations of cardio protective (n-3) fatty acids in
humans. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(1), 83-87.
Hasanuzzaman, M., Bhuyan, M. H. M., Nahar, K., Hossain, M., Mahmud, J. A., Hossen,
M., & Fujita, M. (2018). Potassium: A vital regulator of plant responses and
tolerance to abiotic stresses. Agronomy, 8(3), 2-29.
177
Higashikawa, F. S., Silva, C. A., & Bettiol, W. (2010). Chemical and physical properties
of organic residues. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 34(5), 1742-1752.
Hocking, P. J., & Pinkerton, A. (1993). Phosphorus nutrition of linseed (Linum

usitatissimum L.) as affected by nitrogen supply: effects on vegetative development
and yield components. Field Crops Research, 32(1-2), 101-114.
Hocking, P. J., Keerthisinghe, G., Smith, F. W., & Randall, P. J. (1997). Comparison of
the ability of different crop species to access poorly-available soil phosphorus.
In Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Food Production and Environment, 305-308.
Hooper, L., Bartlett, C., Smith, G. D., & Ebrahim, S. (2004). Advice to reduce dietary salt
for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, (1).
Hu, T., Linghu, K., Huang, S., Battino, M., Georgiev, M. I., Zengin, G., & Cao, H. (2019).
Flaxseed extract induces apoptosis in human breast cancer MCF-7 cells. Food and
Chemical Toxicology, 127, 188-196.
Hulme, M. (2016). Concept of climate change. The International Encyclopedia of

Geography. The International Encyclopedia of Geography. Wiley-Blackwell.
Association of American Geographers.
Hura, K., Ostrowska, A., Dziurka, K., & Hura, T. (2017). Photosynthetic apparatus activity
in relation to high and low contents of cell wall-bound phenolics in triticale under
drought stress. Photosynthetica, 55(4), 698-704.
Hura, T., Hura, K., Ostrowska, A., Grzesiak, M., & Dziurka, K. (2013). The cell wall-
bound phenolics as a biochemical indicator of soil drought resistance in winter
triticale. Plant, Soil and Environment, 59(5), 189-195.
Husain, K., Dubey, S. D., Singh, D., & Srivastava, R. L. (2017). Effect of nutrient
management on yield, economics and nutrient status of soil in maize–linseed
cropping system. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 6, 327-330.
Hussain, H. A., Men, S., Hussain, S., Chen, Y., Ali, S., Zhang, S., & Wang, L. (2019).
Interactive effects of drought and heat stresses on morpho-physiological attributes,
178
yield, nutrient uptake and oxidative status in maize hybrids. Scientific
Reports, 9(1), 1-12.
Hussain, M., Malik, M. A., Farooq, M., Ashraf, M. Y., & Cheema, M. A. (2008).
Improving drought tolerance by exogenous application of glycine betaine and
salicylic acid in sunflower. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 194(3), 193-
199.
Indrayan, A. K., Sharma, S., Durgapal, D., Kumar, N., & Kumar, M. (2005). Determination
of nutritive value and analysis of mineral elements for some medicinally valued
plants from Uttaranchal. Current Science, 1252-1255.
Iqbal, H., Yaning, C., Waqas, M., Ahmed, Z., Raza, S. T., & Shareef, M. (2020). Improving
heat stress tolerance in late planted spring maize by using different exogenous
elicitors. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 80 (1), 30-40.
Jaleel, C. A., Riadh, K., Gopi, R., Manivannan, P., Ines, J., Al-Juburi, H. J., &
Panneerselvam, R. (2009). Antioxidant defense responses: physiological plasticity
in higher plants under abiotic constraints. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 31(3),
427-436.
Jaleel, C.A., Manivannan, P., Wahid, A., Farooq, M., Somasundaram, R., &
Panneerselvam, R., (2009). Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological
characteristics and pigments composition.
International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11(1), 100-105.
Kadkhodaie, A., Fatholahi, S., & Ehsanzadeh, P. (2016). Effect of drought and salinity
stresses on growth and yield of linseed genotypes. Journal of Plant Process and
Function, 5(16), 57-70.
Kamran, M. A., Jiang, J., Li, J. Y., Shi, R. Y., Mehmood, K., Abdulaha-Al Baquy, M., &
Xu, R. K. (2018). Amelioration of soil acidity, Olsen-P, and phosphatase activity
by manure-and peat-derived biochars in different acidic soils. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 11(11), 1-15.
179
Kariuki, L. W. (2017). The influence of cultivars, nitrogen supply, location and water stress
on performance and oil quality of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) in
Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, JKUAT).
Kariuki, L. W., Masinde, P., Githiri, S., & Onyango, A. N. (2016). Effect of water stress
on growth of three linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) varieties. SpringerPlus, 5(1),
759.
Kaya, M. D., Okçu, G., Atak, M., Cıkılı, Y., & Kolsarıcı, O. (2006). Seed treatments to
overcome salt and drought stress during germination in sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 24(4), 291-295.
Khan, A. U., Ullah, F., Khan, N., Mehmood, S., Fahad, S., Datta, R., & Hussain, G. S.
(2021). Production of organic fertilizers from rocket seed (Eruca Sativa L.),
chicken peat and Moringa oleifera leaves for growing linseed under water deficit
stress. Sustainability, 13(1), 59.
Khan, N., Bano, A. M., & Babar, A. (2020). Impacts of plant growth promoters and plant
growth regulators on rainfed agriculture. PloS One, 15(4), e0231426.
Khan, N., Bano, A., & Babar, M.A. (2019). The stimulatory effects of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria and plant growth regulators on wheat physiology grown in
sandy soil. Arch. Microbiol, 201, 769–785.
Khayatnezhad, M., Gholamin, R., Jamaatie-Somarin, S. H., & Zabihi-Mahmoodabad, R.

(2010). Effects of peg stress on corn cultivars (Zea mays L.) at germination
stage. World Applied Sciences Journal, 11(5), 504-506.
Kro, A., Amarowicz, R., &Weidner, S. (2014). Changes in the composition of phenolic
compounds and antioxidant properties of grapevine roots and leaves (Vitis vinifera
L.) under continuous of long-term drought stress. Acta Physiologiae Plantanturm,
36, 1491-1499.
Kumar, A., Pramanick, B., Mahapatra, B. S., Singh, S. P., & Shukla, D. K. (2019). Growth,
yield and quality improvement of flax (Linum usitattisimum L.) grown under tarai
180
region of Uttarakhand, India through integrated nutrient management
practices. Industrial Crops and Products, 140, 111710.
Kumar, V., Sharma, A., Kohli, S. K., Bali, S., Sharma, M., Kumar, R., & Thukral, A. K.
(2019). Differential distribution of polyphenols in plants using multivariate
techniques. Biotechnology Research and Innovation, 3(1), 1-21.
Kuromori, T., Miyaji, T., Yabuuchi, H., Shimizu, H., Sugimoto, E., Kamiya, A., &
Shinozaki, K. (2010). ABC transporter AtABCG25 is involved in abscisic acid
transport and responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(5),
2361-2366.
Lachat (1996). Determination of total kjeldahl nitrogen by flow injection analysis

colorimetry. QuikChem Method 13-107-06-2-d. Lachat Instruments USA.
Lan, H. X., & Xia, J. G. (2008). Absorption and Accumulation of Lead and Cadmium in
Mengshan Tea Plant. Jurnal of Agro-Environment Science, 27, 1077-1083.
Latif, F., Ullah, F., Mehmood, S., Khattak, A., Khan, A. U., Khan, S., & Husain, I. (2016).
Effects of salicylic acid on growth and accumulation of phenolics in Zea mays L.
under drought stress. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant
Science, 66(4), 325-332.
Latif, H. H., & Mohamed, H. I. (2016). Exogenous applications of moringa leaf extract
effect on retrotransposon, ultrastructural and biochemical contents of common bean
plants under environmental stresses. South African Journal of Botany, 106, 221-
231.
Lee, J., & Cho, K. (2012). Flaxseed sprouts induce apoptosis and inhibit growth in MCF-
7 and MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental
Biology-Animal, 48(4), 244-250.
Levitt, J.; Levitt, J. (1987) Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses; Academic Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA,; Volume 2.
181
Lewis, K. L., Hons, F. M., & Gentry, T. J. (2019). Beneficial use of white and Indian
mustard seed Meals to enhance plant growth and nutrient uptake. Agrosystems,
Geosciences & Environment, 2(1), 1-10.
Li, J. C., Shi, J., Zhao, X. L., Wang, G., Yu, H. F., Ren, Y. J., & Fenxi, H. (1994).
Separation and determination of three kinds of plant hormone by high performance
liquid chromatography. Fenxi-Huaxue, 22, 801-804.
Lin, W., Lin, M., Zhou, H., Wu, H., Li, Z., & Lin, W. (2019). The effects of chemical and
organic fertilizer usage on rhizosphere soil in tea orchards. Plos One, 14(5), 1-16.
Lisar, S. Y., Motafakkerazad, R., Hossain, M. M., & Rahman, I. M. (2012). Water stress
in plants: causes, effects and responses. In Water stress. Intechopen.
Liu, H., Gan, W., Rengel, Z., & Zhao, P. (2016). Effects of zinc fertilizer rate and
application method on photosynthetic characteristics and grain yield of summer
maize. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 16(2), 550-562.
Liyanage, T. D. P., & Leelamanie, D. A. L. (2016). Influence of organic manure
amendments on water repellency, water entry value, and water retention of soil
samples from a tropical Ultisol. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 64(2),
160-166.
Lopez-Mosquera, M. E., Cabaleiro, F., Sainz, M. J., López-Fabal, A., & Carral, E. (2008).
Fertilizing value of broiler litter: Effects of drying and pelletizing. Bioresource
Technology, 99(13), 5626-5633.
Ma, D., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, C., Qin, H., Ding, H., & Guo, T. (2016). Accumulation
of phenolic compounds and expression profiles of phenolic acid biosynthesis-
related genes in developing grains of white, purple, and red wheat. Frontiers in
Plant Science, 7, 528.
MacRae, R. J., Frick, B., & Martin, R. C. (2007). Economic and social impacts of organic
production systems. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 87(5), 1037-1044.
Mahmood, F., Khan, I., Ashraf, U., Shahzad, T., Hussain, S., Shahid, M., & Ullah, S.
(2017). Effects of organic and inorganic manures on maize and their residual impact
182
on soil physico-chemical properties. Journal of Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, 17(1), 22-32.
Maishanu, H. M., Mainasara, M. M., Yahaya, S., & Yunusa, A. (2017). The Use of
Moringa Leaves Extract as a Plant Growth Hormone on Cowpea (Vigna
Anguiculata). Path of Science, 3(12), 3001-3006.
Malik, S., & Ashraf, M. (2012). Exogenous application of ascorbic acid stimulates growth
and photosynthesis of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under drought. Soil &
Environment, 31(1), 72-77.
Mamia, A., Amin, A. K. M. R., Roy, T. S., & Faruk, G. M. (2018). Influence of inorganic
and organic fertilizers on growth and yield of soybean. Bangladesh Agronomy
Journal, 21(1), 77-81.
Mansori, M., Chernane, H., Latique, S., Benaliat, A., Hsissou, D., & El Kaoua, M. (2015).
Seaweed extract effect on water deficit and antioxidative mechanisms in bean
plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Applied Phycology, 27(4), 1689-1698.
Marinari, S., Masciandaro, G., Ceccanti, B., & Grego, S. (2000). Influence of organic and
mineral fertilisers on soil biological and physical properties. Bioresource
Technology, 72(1), 9-17.
Mcelroy, J. S., & Kopsell, D. A. (2009). Physiological role of carotenoids and other
antioxidants in plants and application to turfgrass stress management. New Zealand
Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 37(4), 327-333.
McLean, E.O. (1982). Soil pH and lime requirement. In Methods of soil analysis. Part 2.
Chemical and microbiological properties 2nd edition), Page AL ed., Am. Soc.
Agronomy., Soil Sci. Soc. Am., 199-224.
McNeil, P. L., & Steinhardt, R. A. (1997). Loss, restoration, and maintenance of plasma
membrane integrity. The Journal of Cell Biology, 137(1), 1-4.
McWilliams, D. (2003). Drought strategies for cotton, cooperative extension service

circular 582, College of Agriculture and Home Economics. New Mexico State
University, USA.
183
Melo, L. C. A., Silva, C. A., & Dias, B. D. O. (2008). Caracterização da matriz orgânica
de resíduos de origens diversificadas. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 32(1),
101-110.
Merwad, A. R. M. (2018). Using Moringa oleifera extract as biostimulant enhancing the

growth, yield and nutrients accumulation of pea plants. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 41(4), 425-431.
Miller, V. S., & Naeth, M. A. (2019). Hydrogel and organic amendments to increase water
retention in anthroposols for land reclamation. Applied and Environmental Soil
Science, 1-12.
Minasny, B., & McBratney, A. B. (2018). Limited effect of organic matter on soil available
water capacity. European Journal of Soil Science, 69(1), 39-47.
Mirshekari, M., Amiri, R., Nezhad, H. I., Noori, S. S., & Zandvakili, O. R. (2012). Effects
of planting date and water deficit on quantitative and qualitative traits of flax
seed. American Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environment Science, 12(7),
901-913.
Mohamed, H. I., & Akladious, S. A. (2014). Influence of garlic extract on enzymatic and
non-enzymatic antioxidants in soybean plants (Glycine max) grown under drought
stress. Life Sciences Journal, 11(3s), 46-58.
Mohammed, A. A., Abbas, J. M., & Al-Baldawi, M. H. K. (2020). Effect of plant source
organic fertilizers on yield and its components of linseed cultivars. The Iraqi
Journal of Agricultural Science, 51, 86-95.
Mohanty, S., Paikaray, N. K., & Rajan, A. R. (2006). Availability and uptake of phosphorus
from organic manures in groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)–corn (Zea mays L.)
sequence using radio tracer technique. Geoderma, 133(3-4), 225-230.
Mokolobate, M. S., & Haynes, R. J. (2002). Increases in pH and soluble salts influence the
effect that additions of organic residues have on concentrations of exchangeable
and soil solution aluminium. European Journal of Soil Science, 53(3), 481-489.
184
Monakhova, O.F., & Chernyadev I.I. (2002). Protective role of kartolin-4 in wheat plants
exposed to soil drought. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 38, 373–380.
Morales, M., & Janick, J. (2002). Arugula: A promising specialty leaf vegetable. Trends in
new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, 418-423.
Morton, J. F. (1991). The horseradish tree, Moringa pterygosperma (Moringaceae)—a

boon to arid lands?. Economic Botany, 45(3), 318-333.
Mvumi, C., Tagwira, F., & Chiteka, A. Z. (2013). Effect of moringa extract on growth and
yield of maize and common beans. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(1),
055-062.
Nadeem, M., Abdullah, M., Hussain, I., Inayat, S., Javid, A., & Zahoor, Y. (2013).
Antioxidant potential of Moringa oleifera leaf extract for the stabilisation of butter
at refrigeration temperature. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 31(4), 332-339.
Nahm, K. H. (2003). Evaluation of the nitrogen content in poultry manure. World's Poultry
Science Journal, 59(1), 77-88.
Natsheh, B., & Mousa, S. (2014). Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers application on
soil and Cucumber (Cucumis sativa L.) plant productivity. International Journal of
Agriculture and Forestry, 4, 166-170.
Negi, J., Matsuda, O., Nagasawa, T., Oba, Y., Takahashi, H., Kawai-Yamada, M., & Iba,
K. (2008). CO 2 regulator SLAC1 and its homologues are essential for anion
homeostasis in plant cells. Nature, 452(7186), 483-486.
Nelson, D.W., & Sommers, L.E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter.
In Methods of soil analysis, part 3, chemical methods, Sparks DL ed. SSSA Book
series no 5, 961-1010.
Nikolaeva, M. K., Maevskaya, S. N., Shugaev, A. G., & Bukhov, N. G. (2010). Effect of
drought on chlorophyll content and antioxidant enzyme activities in leaves of three
wheat cultivars varying in productivity. Russian Journal of Plant
Physiology, 57(1), 87-95.
185
Ogbalu, O. K. (1999). The effects of different traditional sources of nutrients on the
infestation of pepper fruits by the pepper fruitfly, Atherigona orientalis (Schiner),
in Nigeria. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 182(1), 65-71.
Ogbuehi, H.C., & Agbim, J.U. (2018) .Impact of Moringa oleifera leaf extract on
Biochemical Contents and yield of Soybean (Glycine max L.). International
Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 5(2),
5162- 5168.
Oldfield, E. E., Bradford, M. A., & Wood, S. A. (2019). Global meta-analysis of the
relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields. Soil, 5(1), 15-32.
Olsen, S.R., Sommers, L.E. (1982). Phosphorus. In A. L. Page, et al (Eds.), Methods of

Soil Analysis, 2nd ed. Part 2 (pp. 403-430). Madison, WI: Agronomy No. 9.
American Society of Agronomy.
Oosterhuis, D. M. (1997). Potassium nutrition of cotton in the USA with particular

reference to foliar fertilization. REUR Technical Series (FAO).
Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686-
1686.
Osakabe, Y., Osakabe, K., Shinozaki, K., & Tran, L. S. P. (2014). Response of plants to
water stress. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5, 86.
Oskarsson, U. (2015). The efficacy of sunflower seed cake as an organic fertilizer. UNU
Land Restoration Training Programme.
Ouni, Y., Albacete, A., Cantero, E., Lakhdar, A., Abdelly, C., Pérez-Alfocea, F., &
Barhoumi, Z. (2014). Influence of municipal solid waste (MSW) compost on
hormonal status and biomass partitioning in two forage species growing under
saline soil conditions. Ecological Engineering, 64, 142-150.
Pailan, G. H. (1995). Influence of dietary glucosinolates on thyroid status, liver function

and milk production in goats (Doctoral dissertation, NDRI, Karnal).
186
Palm, C. A., Gachengo, C. N., Delve, R. J., Cadisch, G., & Giller, K. E. (2001). Organic
inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: application of an
organic resource database. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 83(1-2), 27-
42.
Pandey, P., Irulappan, V., Bagavathiannan, M. V., & Senthil-Kumar, M. (2017). Impact of
combined abiotic and biotic stresses on plant growth and avenues for crop
improvement by exploiting physio-morphological traits. Frontiers in Plant
Science, 8, 537.
Pandey, V., Patel, A., & Patra, D. D. (2016). Integrated nutrient regimes ameliorate crop
productivity, nutritive value, antioxidant activity and volatiles in basil (Ocimum
basilicum L.). Industrial Crops and Products, 87, 124-131.
Pangaribuan, D. H., Hendarto, K., Elzhivago, S. R., & Yulistiani, A. (2018). The effect of
organic fertilizer and urea fertilizer on growth and yields of sweet corn and soil
health. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 6(3), 335-344.
Pant, A. P., Radovich, T. J., Hue, N. V., & Paull, R. E. (2012). Biochemical properties of
compost tea associated with compost quality and effects on pak choi
growth. Scientia Horticulturae, 148, 138-146.
Papini, R., Valboa, G., Favilli, F., & L’abate, G. (2011). Influence of land use on organic
carbon pool and chemical properties of Vertic Cambisols in central and southern
Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 140(1-2), 68-79.
Parrotta, J.A. (2004). Moringa oleifera. Enzyklopädie der Holzgewächse: Handbuch und
Atlas der Dendrologie, 1-8.
Patel, R. K., Tomar, G. S., & Dwivedi, S. K. (2017). Effect of irrigation scheduling and
nitrogen levels on growth, yield and water productivity of linseed (Linum
usitatissimum L.) under Vertisols. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 9(2),
698-705.
Pervez, K., Ullah, F., Mehmood, S., & Khattak, A. (2017). Effect of Moringa oleifera Lam.
leaf aqueous extract on growth attributes and cell wall bound phenolics
187
accumulation in maize (Zea mays L.) under drought stress. Kuwait Journal of
Science, 44 (4), 110-118.
Petrozza, A., Santaniello, A., Summerer, S., Di Tommaso, G., Di Tommaso, D., Paparelli,
E., & Cellini, F. (2014). Physiological responses to Megafol® treatments in tomato
plants under drought stress: A phenomic and molecular approach. Scientia
Horticulturae, 174, 185-192.
Popa, V. I., Beleca, C., Agache, C., & Popa, M. (1998). Contributions to the study of
polyphenolic compounds extracted from wood bark. Industria Lemnului, 49, 32-
35.
Popa, V.I., Agache, C., Beleca, C., & Popa, M. (2002). Polyphenols from spruce bark as
plant growth regulators. Crop Resources, 24, 398-406.
Prado, F.E., Boero, C., Gallardo, M., & González, J.A. (2000). Effect of NaCl on
germination, growth and soluble sugar content in Chenopodium quinoa Willd
seeds. Botanical Bulletin- Academia Sinica, 41, 27–34.
Rafiullah, R., Khan, M.J., Muhammad, D., Fahad, S., Adnan, M., Wahid, F., Alamri, S.,
Khan, F., Dawar, K., & Irshad, I. (2020). Phosphorus Nutrient Management
through Synchronization of Application Methods and Rates in Wheat and Maize
Crops. Plants, 9, 1389.
Rahimi, A., Siavash Moghaddam, S., Ghiyasi, M., Heydarzadeh, S., Ghazizadeh, K., &
Popović-Djordjević, J. (2019). The influence of chemical, organic and biological
fertilizers on agrobiological and antioxidant properties of Syrian Cephalaria
(Cephalaria syriaca L.). Agriculture, 9(6), 122.
Rahman, K. M., Sattar, M. A., & Rahman, G. M. M. (2014). Effect of Fertilizer and
Manures on Growth and Yield of Tulsi and Pudina Medicinal Plant. Journal of
Environmental Science and Natural Resources, 7(2), 13-16.
Raine, M. (2008), "The last straw: nine ways to handle flax straw", The Western
Producer, archived from the original on 18 May 2015.
188
Rashid, A. (1986). Mapping zinc fertility of soils using indicator plants and soil
analyses (Doctoral dissertation).
Razaq, M., Zhang, P., Shen, H.L., & Salahuddin. (2017). Influence of nitrogen and
phosphorous on the growth and root morphology of Acer mono. Plos One, 12(2), 1-
13.
Reddy, A. R., Chaitanya, K. V., & Vivekanandan, M. (2004). Drought-induced responses

of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant
Physiology, 161(11), 1189-1202.
Rezayian, M., Niknam, V., & Ebrahimzadeh, H. (2018). Positive effects of Penconazole
on growth of Brassica napus under drought stress. Archives of Agronomy and Soil
Science, 64(13), 1791-1806.
Richards, L.A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils.USDA
Handbook. Number, 60, U.S. Government printing office, Washington, DC.
Robertson, J. A., & Morrison, W. H. (1979). Analysis of oil content of sunflower seed by
wide‐line NMR. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 56(12), 961-964.
Rodó, X. (2003). Global climate: current research and uncertainties in the climate system.
University of Bardona climate research group Baldiri Rexac, Torre d08032
Barcelona spain, 3-6.
Rostaei, M., Fallah, S., Lorigooini, Z., & Surki, A. A. (2018). The effect of organic manure
and chemical fertilizer on essential oil, chemical compositions and antioxidant
activity of dill (Anethum graveolens) in sole and intercropped with soybean
(Glycine max). Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 18-26.
Ryan, P. R., Delhaize, E., & Jones, D. L. (2001). Function and mechanism of organic anion
exudation from plant roots. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 52(1), 527-560.
Saadatian, M., Alaghemand, S., Ayyubi, H., Hasanpour, E., Olfati, J. A., Hamidoghli, Y.,
& Karimi, H. (2017). Effects of organic fertilizers on growth and biochemical
characteristics of Fenugreek. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 109(2), 197-203.
189
Sadak, M.S., Bakry, A.B., &Taha, M.H. (2019). Physiological role of trehalose on growth,
some biochemical aspects and yield of two flax varieties grown under drought
stress. Plant Archives, 19(2), 215-225.
Saeidi-Sar, S., Abbaspour, H., Afshari, H., & Yaghoobi, S. R. (2013). Effects of ascorbic
acid and gibberellin A 3 on alleviation of salt stress in common bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) seedlings. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 35(3), 667-677.
Salehi-Lisar, S. Y., & Bakhshayeshan-Agdam, H. (2016). Drought stress in plants: causes,
consequences, and tolerance. In Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants, 1-16.
Salih, R. F., Abdan, K., Wayayok, A., Hashim, N., & Rahman, K. A. (2016). Improve
Quality and Quantity of Plant Products by Applying Potassium Nutrient (A Critical
Review). Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, 18(2), 197-208.
Sangakkara, U. R., Frehner, M., & Nösberger, J. (2000). Effect of soil moisture and
potassium fertilizer on shoot water potential, photosynthesis and partitioning of
carbon in mungbean and cowpea. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 185(3),
201-207.
Sankari, H. S. (2001). Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) cultivars and breeding lines as
stem biomass producers. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 184(4), 225-231.
Sarwar, M., Arshad, M., Martens, D. A., & Frankenberger, W. T. (1992). Tryptophan-
dependent biosynthesis of auxins in soil. Plant and Soil, 147(2), 207-215.
Sawan, Z. M., Mahmoud, M. H., & El-Guibali, A. H. (2008). Influence of potassium

fertilization and foliar application of zinc and phosphorus on growth, yield
components, yield and fiber properties of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense
L.). Journal of Plant Ecology, 1(4), 259-270.
Schroeter, H., Boyd, C., Spencer, J. P., Williams, R. J., Cadenas, E., & Rice-Evans, C.
(2002). MAPK signaling in neurodegeneration: influences of flavonoids and of
nitric oxide. Neurobiology of Aging, 23(5), 861-880.
Sengupta, A., & Gupta, M. P. (1970). Studies on the seed fat composition of Moringaceae
family. Fette, Seifen, Anstrichmittel, 72(1), 6-10.
190
Shafi, M.I., Adnan, M., Fahad, S., Wahid, F., Khan, A., Yue, Z., & Datta, R. (2020).
Application of single superphosphate with humic acid improves the growth, yield
and phosphorus uptake of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in calcareous
soil. Agronomy, 10(9), 1224.
Sharma, A., & Chetani, R. (2017). A review on the effect of organic and chemical fertilizers
on plants. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering
Technology (IJRASET), 5(2), 677-680.
Sharma, H. S., Fleming, C., Selby, C., Rao, J. R., & Martin, T. (2014). Plant biostimulants:
a review on the processing of macroalgae and use of extracts for crop management
to reduce abiotic and biotic stresses. Journal of Applied Phycology, 26(1), 465-490.
Shen, Y., Jin, L., Xiao, P., Lu, Y., & Bao, J. (2009). Total phenolics, flavonoids,
antioxidant capacity in rice grain and their relations to grain color, size and
weight. Journal of Cereal Science, 49(1), 106-111.
Shim, Y. Y., Gui, B., Wang, Y., & Reaney, M. J. (2015). Flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum
L.) oil processing and selected products. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 43(2), 162-177.
Shimizu, A., & Shin, A.B.E. (2012). Verification of performance characteristics of testing
methods for citrate-soluble phosphorus content by ammonium vanadomolybdate
absorption photometry. Research Report of Fertilizer, 5, 180-189.
Siavoshi, M., Nasiri, A., & Laware, S. L. (2011). Effect of organic fertilizer on growth and
yield components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(3),
217.
Siddhuraju, P., & Becker, K. (2003). Antioxidant properties of various solvent extracts of
total phenolic constituents from three different agroclimatic origins of drumstick
tree (Moringa oleifera Lam.) leaves. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 51(8), 2144-2155.
191
Singleton, V.L., & Rossi, J.A. (1965). Colorimetry of total phenolics with
phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagents. American Journal of Enology
and Viticulture, 16, 144-158.
Smirnov, O. E., Kosyan, A. M., Kosyk, O. I., & Taran, N. Y. (2015). Response of phenolic
metabolism induced by aluminium toxicity in Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.
plants. Ukrainian Biochemical Journal, 87(6), 129-135.
Soremi, A. O., Adetunji, M. T., Adejuyigbe, C. O., Bodunde, J. G., & Azeez, J. O. (2017).
Influence of organic manure on phosphorus and potassium fractions in soil planted
with soybean. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 14(2), 1-11.
Specht, J. E., Chase, K., Macrander, M., Graef, G. L., Chung, J., Markwell, J. P., & Lark,
K. G. (2001). Soybean response to water: a QTL analysis of drought
tolerance. Crop Science, 41(2), 493-509.
Steel, R.G., Torrie, J.H., & Dickey, D.A. (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics:
A Biometrical Approach, 3rd ed.; McGraw Hill Book International Co.: Singapore.
Stirk, W.A., & Van Staden, J. (2006). “Seaweed products as biostimulatns in agriculture,”
in World Seaweed Resources, eds A. T. Critchley, M. Ohno, and D. B. Largo
(Amsterdam: ETI Information Services Ltd.), 1–32.
Surendar, K. K., Devi, D. D., Ravi, I., Jeyakumar, P., & Velayudham, K. (2013). Water
stress affects plant relative water content, soluble protein, total chlorophyll content
and yield of Ratoon Banana. International Journal of Horticulture, 3.
Tambussi, E.A., Bartoli, C.G., Beltrano, J., Guiamet, J.J., & Araus, J.L. (2000.). Oxidative
damage to thylakoid proteins in water‐stressed leaves of wheat (Triticum
aestivum). Physiologia Plantarum, 108(4), 398-404.
Tanase, C., Bujor, O. C., & Popa, V. I. (2019). Phenolic natural compounds and their
influence on physiological processes in plants. In Polyphenols in plants (pp. 45-
58). Academic Press.
192
Tavarini, S., Castagna, A., Conte, G., Foschi, L., Sanmartin, C., Incrocci, L., & Angelini,
L. G. (2019). Evaluation of chemical composition of two linseed varieties as
sources of health-beneficial substances. Molecules, 24(20), 3729.
Tejada, M., Garcia, C., Gonzalez, J. L., & Hernandez, M. T. (2006). Use of organic
amendment as a strategy for saline soil remediation: influence on the physical,
chemical and biological properties of soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38(6),
1413-1421.
Thanna, S.H.M., Kassim, N. E., AbouRayya, M. S., & Abdalla, A. M. (2017). Influence of
foliar application with Moringa (Moringa oleifera L.) leaf extract on yield and fruit
quality of hollywood plum cultivar. Journal of Horticulture, 4(193), 2376-0354.
Thomas, C. L., Acquah, G. E., Whitmore, A. P., McGrath, S. P., & Haefele, S. M. (2019).
The effect of different organic fertilizers on yield and soil and crop nutrient
concentrations. Agronomy, 9(12), 776.
Timsina, J., 2018. Can Organic Sources of Nutrients Increase Crop Yields to Meet Global
Food Demand?. Agronomy 8(10), 214.
Tripathy, J. N., Zhang, J., Robin, S., Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2000). QTLs for
cell-membrane stability mapped in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under drought
stress. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 100(8), 1197-1202.
Tu, C., Ristaino, J. B., & Hu, S. (2006). Soil microbial biomass and activity in organic
tomato farming systems: Effects of organic inputs and straw mulching. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry, 38(2), 247-255.
Tucker, M. (2004). Primary nutrients and plant growth. Essential plant nutrients, 126.
North Carolina Department of Agriculturae.
Ullah, A., Ali, M., Shahzad, K., Ahmad, F., Iqbal, S., Rahman, M. H. U., & Datta, R.
(2020). Impact of Seed Dressing and Soil Application of Potassium Humate on
Cotton Plants Productivity and Fiber Quality. Plants, 9(11), 1444.
Ullah, F., Bano, A., & Ali, S. (2013). Optimization of protocol for biodiesel production of
linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) oil. Polish Journal of Chemical
Technology, 15(1), 74-77.
193
Ullah, F., Bano, A., & Nosheen, A. (2012). Effects of plant growth regulators on growth
and oil quality of canola (Brassica napus L.) under drought stress. Journal of
Botany, 44, 1873–1880.
Ullah, F., Bano, A., & Nosheen, A. (2014). Sustainable measures for biodiesel
production. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects, 36(23), 2621-2628.
Ullah, M.A, Aamir, S.S., Haider, H., & Adil, B. (2018). Growth of olive varieties in tunnel
under salinity plus humic acid, biozote and vermicompost. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 5(1), 118-124.
Valentine, I.K., Maria, V.K. & Bruno, B. 2003. Phenolic cycle in plants and environment.
Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, 2, 13-18.
Vasconcelos, A.C.F., Zhang, X., Ervin, E.H., & de Kiehl, J.C. 2009. Enzymatic antioxidant
responses to biostimulants in maize and soybean subjected to drought. Scientia
Agricola, 66(3), 395-402.
Vaughan, M.M., Block, A., Christensen, S.A., Allen, L.H., & Schmelz, E.A. (2018). The
effects of climate change associated abiotic stresses on maize phytochemical
defenses. Phytochemistry Reviews, 17, 37–49.
Vengadaramana, A., & Jashothan, P. T. J. (2012). Effect of organic fertilizers on the water
holding capacity of soil in different terrains of Jaffna peninsula in Sri
Lanka. Journal of Natural Product and Plant Resources 2(4), 500-503.
Verma, R. K., & Totey, N. G. (2000). Effect of varying levels of linseed oil cake and
phosphorus on the growth performance of Albizia procera. Indian Journal of
Forestry, 23(2), 208-211.
Wagner, A., Grillitsch, K., Leitner, E., & Daum, G. (2009). Mobilization of steryl esters
from lipid particles of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochimica et
Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, 1791(2), 118-124.
Wahid, A., & Rasul, E. (2005). Photosynthesis in leaf, stem, flower, and fruit. In
‘Handbook of photosynthesis’.(Ed. M Pessaraki) . 479–497.
Wajid, K., Ahmad, K., Khan, Z. I., Nadeem, M., Bashir, H., Chen, F., & Ugulu, I. (2020).
Effect of organic manure and mineral fertilizers on bioaccumulation and
194
translocation of trace metals in maize. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 104(5), 649-657.
Walkley, A., & Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for
determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid
titration method. Soil Science, 37(1), 29-38.
Wang, C., Yang, A., Yin, H., & Zhang, J. (2008). Influence of water stress on endogenous
hormone contents and cell damage of maize seedlings. Journal of Integrative Plant
Biology, 50(4), 427-434.
Wang, M., Zheng, Q., Shen, Q., & Guo, S. (2013). The critical role of potassium in plant
stress response. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 14(4), 7370-7390.
Wang, W., Vinocur, B., & Altman, A. (2003). Plant responses to drought, salinity and
extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering for stress
tolerance. Planta, 218(1), 1-14.
Wang, Y., Ge, Q., Houston, D., Thorner, J., Errede, B., & Dohlman, H. G. (2003).
Regulation of Ste7 ubiquitination by Ste11 phosphorylation and the Skp1-Cullin-
F-box complex. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 278(25), 22284-22289.
Wang, A. S., Hu, P., Hollister, E. B., Rothlisberger, K. L., Somenahally, A., Provin, T. L.,
& Gentry, T. J. (2012). Impact of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and flax (Linum
usitatissimum) seed meal applications on soil carbon, nitrogen, and microbial
dynamics. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 1-14
Wijewardana, C., Reddy, K. R., Alsajri, F. A., Irby, J. T., Krutz, J., & Golden, B. (2018).
Quantifying soil moisture deficit effects on soybean yield and yield component
distribution patterns. Irrigation Science, 36(4), 241-255.
Williams, D., Verghese, M., Walker, L. T., Boateng, J., Shackelford, L., & Chawan, C. B.
(2007). Flax seed oil and flax seed meal reduce the formation of aberrant crypt foci
(ACF) in azoxymethane-induced colon cancer in Fisher 344 male rats. Food and
Chemical Toxicology, 45(1), 153-159.
Williams, O.A., Ogunwande, O.A., & Amao, A.O. (2018). Potentials of Moringa oleifera
leaf extract in increasing maize (Zea mays L.) Productivity in Nigeria. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 8(12), 279-289.
195
Xie, Z., Jiang, D., Cao, W., Dai, T., & Jing, Q. (2003). Relationships of endogenous plant
hormones to accumulation of grain protein and starch in winter wheat under
different post-anthesis soil water statusses. Plant Growth Regulation, 41(2), 117-
127.
Yadav, S. K., Babu, S., Yadav, M. K., Singh, K., Yadav, G. S., & Pal, S. (2013). A review
of organic farming for sustainable agriculture in Northern India. International
Journal of Agronomy, 2013, 1-9
Yang, J. H., Lin, H. C., & Mau, J. L. (2002). Antioxidant properties of several commercial
mushrooms. Food Chemistry, 77(2), 229-235.
Yaniv, Z., Schafferman, D., & Amar, Z. (1998). Tradition, uses and biodiversity of rocket
(Eruca sativa, Brassicaceae) in Israel. Economic Botany, 52(4), 394-400.
Yasmeen, A., Basra, S. M. A., Farooq, M., ur Rehman, H., & Hussain, N. (2013).
Exogenous application of Moringa leaf extract modulates the antioxidant enzyme
system to improve wheat performance under saline conditions. Plant Growth
Regulation, 69(3), 225-233.
Yasmeen, A., Basra, S.M.A., Ahmad, R., & Wahid, A. (2012). Performance of late sown
wheat in response to foliar application of Moringa oleifera Lam. leaf
extract. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 72(1), 92.
Yasmeen, A., Nouman, W., Basra, S. M. A., Wahid, A., Hussain, N., & Afzal, I. (2014).
Morphological and physiological response of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) to
natural and synthetic cytokinin sources: a comparative study. Acta Physiologiae
Plantarum, 36(12), 3147-3155.
Ye, X., Chen, X. F., Deng, C. L., Yang, L. T., Lai, N. W., Guo, J. X., & Chen, L. S. (2019).
Magnesium-deficiency effects on pigments, photosynthesis and photosynthetic
electron transport of leaves, and nutrients of leaf blades and veins in Citrus sinensis
seedlings. Plants, 8(10), 389.
Zafar, S.A., Noor, M.A., Waqas, M.A., Wang, X., Shaheen, T., & Raza, M. (2018).
“Temperature extremes in cotton production and mitigation strategies,” in In Past,
Present and Future Trends in Cotton Breeding (London, UK: IntechOpen). doi:
10.5772/intechopen.74648.
196
Zafar-ul-Hye, M., Naeem, M., Danish, S., Fahad, S., Datta, R., Abbas, M., & Nasir, M.
(2020). Alleviation of Cadmium Adverse Effects by Improving Nutrients Uptake
in Bitter Gourd through Cadmium Tolerant Rhizobacteria. Environments, 7(8), 54.
Zali, H., Hasanloo, T., Sofalian, O., & Asghari, A. (2020). Evaluation of drought stress
effect on seed oil yield and fatty acid composition in canola (Brassica napus L.)
cultivars. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences, 13(3), 735-747.
Zarei, T., & Danish, S. (2020). Effect of micronutrients foliar supplementation on the
production and eminence of plum (Prunus domestica L.). Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop.
Foods , 12, 32–40,
Zhang, E., Duan, Y., Tan, F., & Zhang, S. (2016). Effects of long-term nitrogen and organic
fertilization on antioxidants content of tomato fruits. Journal of Horticulture, 1-5.
Zhang, P., Yang, F., Zhang, H., Liu, L., Liu, X., Chen, J., & Li, C. (2020). Beneficial
Effects of Biochar-Based Organic Fertilizer on Nitrogen Assimilation, Antioxidant
Capacities, and Photosynthesis of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) under Saline-
Alkaline Stress. Agronomy, 10(10), 1562.
Zhang, J., Li, B., Zhang, J., Christie, P., & Li, X. (2020). Organic fertilizer application and
Mg fertilizer promote banana yield and quality in an Udic Ferralsol. PloS
One, 15(3), e0230593.
Zhen, Z., Liu, H., Wang, N., Guo, L., Meng, J., Ding, N., & Jiang, G. (2014). Effects of
manure compost application on soil microbial community diversity and soil
microenvironments in a temperate cropland in China. Plos One, 9(10), e108555.
Zhu, N., Tan, X., Li, M., Pan, X., & Shi, Q. (2018). Effects of different organic fertilizers
on growth of rice seedlings raised in straw substrates. Acta Agriculturae
Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 40(2), 286-294.
Zupanc, V., & Zupanc, J.M. (2010). Changes in soil characteristics during landfill leachate
irrigation of Populus deltoids. Waste Management, 30, 2130–2136.
197
APPENDIX EXPERIMENT No.1
Statistix 9.0 6/24/2020, 6:41:19 AM
Appendix 1 Analysis of Variance for EC value of organic fertilizers
Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 55.6999 18.5666 560.78 0.0000
Error 8 0.2649 0.0331
Total 11 55.9648
Grand Mean 11.262 CV 1.62
Appendix 2 Analysis of Variance for Fe value of organic fertilizers

Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 2266270 755423 2161.44 0.0000
Error 8 2796 349
Total 11 2269066
Appendix 3 Analysis of Variance for K value of organic fertilizers
Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 32.3045 10.7682 360.44 0.0000
Error 8 0.2390 0.0299
Total 11 32.5435
Appendix 4 Analysis of Variance for P value of organic fertilizers
Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 0.27269 0.09090 4.85 0.0329
Error 8 0.14980 0.01873
Total 11 0.42249
Appendix 5 Analysis of Variance for pH value of organic fertilizers

Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 5.09136 1.69712 30.44 0.0001
Error 8 0.44607 0.05576
Total 11 5.53743

Appendix 6 Analysis of Variance for Zn value of organic fertilizers
Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 31724.3 10574.8 26.80 0.0002
Error 8 3156.7 394.6
Total 11 34880.9
Appendix 7 Analysis of Variance for N value of organic fertilizers

Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 0.65384 0.21795 4.27 0.0448
Error 8 0.40860 0.05108
Total 11 1.06244
Appendix 8 Analysis of Variance for organic matter value of organic fertilizers
Source DF SS MS F P
treatment 3 112.854 37.6180 806.10 0.0000
Error 8 0.373 0.0467
Total 11 113.227

Statistix 9.0 USA TWO WAY ANOVA 6/24/2020, 6:41:19 AM
Appendix 1 Analysis of Variance for Plant height

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 4335.2 481.69 30.82 0.0000
Variety 2 4544.9 2272.47 145.42 0.0000
Treatment*variety 18 365.4 20.30 1.30 0.2213
Error 60 937.6 15.63
Total 89 10183.2
Appendix 2 Analysis of Variance for number of tillers
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 282.667 31.4074 37.19 0.0000
Variety 2 16.956 8.4778 10.04 0.0002
Error 60 50.667 0.8444
Total 89 372.889
Appendix 3 Analysis of Variance for shoot fresh weight

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 1464.98 162.78 26.22 0.0000
Variety 2 6968.80 3484.40 561.27 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 461.71 25.65 4.13 0.0000
Error 60 372.48 6.21
Total 89 9267.97
Appendix 4 Analysis of Variance for shoot dry weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 190.16 21.129 11.47 0.0000
Variety 2 1092.84 546.419 296.60 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 153.92 8.551 4.64 0.0000
Error 60 110.54 1.842
Total 89 1547.45

Appendix 5 Analysis of Variance for root fresh weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 19.3358 2.14842 17.46 0.0000
Variety 2 1.7696 0.88479 7.19 0.0016
Treat*variety 18 2.7849 0.15472 1.26 0.2489
Error 60 7.3843 0.12307
Total 89 31.2746

Appendix 6 Analysis of Variance for root dry weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 2.29870 0.25541 14.36 0.0000
Variety 2 0.95917 0.47959 26.96 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 0.42811 0.02378 1.34 0.1987
Error 60 1.06729 0.01779
Total 89 4.75327
Appendix 7 Analysis of Variance for leaf relative water content

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 471.73 52.415 2.79 0.0084
Variety 2 248.65 124.325 6.62 0.0025
Error 60 1126.64 18.777
Total 89 2485.33
Appendix 8 Analysis of Variance for leaf chlorophyll a
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 100.000 11.1111 14.89 0.0000
Variety 2 11.276 5.6378 7.55 0.0012
Treat*variety 18 22.636 1.2576 1.69 0.0679
Error 60 44.779 0.7463
Total 89 178.691
Appendix 9 Analysis of Variance for leaf chlorophyll b
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 25.564 2.8404 11.00 0.0000
Variety 2 53.057 26.5285 102.73 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 13.045 0.7247 2.81 0.0014
Error 60 15.494 0.2582
Total 89 107.160
Appendix 10 Analysis of Variance for leaf carotenoids
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 18.2993 2.03325 16.15 0.0000
Variety 2 3.4714 1.73569 13.78 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 4.1247 0.22915 1.82 0.0436
Error 60 7.5555 0.12593
Total 89 33.4509

Appendix 11 Analysis of Variance for leaf electrolytic leakage
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 44580.2 4953.35 83.49 0.0000
Variety 2 10291.8 5145.91 86.74 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 14486.6 804.81 13.57 0.0000
Error 60 3559.7 59.33
Total 89 72918.3
Appendix 12 Analysis of Variance for leaf total soluble sugars

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 18964 2107 6.34 0.0000
Variety 2 1039917 519958 1563.41 0.0000
Treatment*variety 18 3339 186 0.56 0.9153
Error 60 19955 333
Total 89 1082175
Appendix 13 Analysis of Variance for indole acetic acid

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 8372.0 930.22 318.33 0.0000
Variety 2 3651.8 1825.90 624.83 0.0000
Error 60 175.3 2.92
Total 89 12508.9
Appendix 14 Analysis of Variance for gibberellic acid
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 8039.3 893.26 233.70 0.0000
variety 2 3909.4 1954.71 511.41 0.0000
Error 60 229.3 3.82
Total 89 12433.1
Appendix 15 Analysis of Variance for leaf phenolics

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 5021.24 557.915 32.51 0.0000
Variety 2 63.78 31.891 1.86 0.1648
Treat*variety 18 332.54 18.475 1.08 0.3965
Error 60 1029.69 17.162
Total 89 6447.25

Appendix 16 Analysis of Variance for root phenolics
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 3071.35 341.261 46.32 0.0000
Variety 2 4.17 2.083 0.28 0.7548
Treat*variety 18 224.49 12.472 1.69 0.0662
Error 60 442.06 7.368
Total 89 3742.06
Appendix 17 Analysis of Variance for leaf antioxidant

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 636.88 70.76 8.71 0.0000
Variety 2 6287.22 3143.61 387.03 0.0000
Treat*variety 18 221.45 12.30 1.51 0.1167
Error 60 487.35 8.12
Total 89 7632.89
Appendix 18 Analysis of Variance for root antioxidant

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 9 730.33 81.1477 6.30 0.0000
Variety 2 19.08 9.5402 0.74 0.4811
Treat*variety 18 480.48 26.6934 2.07 0.0185
Error 60 772.86 12.8809
Total 89 2002.75

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 18964 2107 6.34 0.0000
Variety 2 1039917 519958 1563.41 0.0000
Treatment*variety 18 3339 186 0.56 0.9153
Error 60 19955 333
Total 89 1082175
Appendix 20 Analysis of Variance for total numbers of capsule per plant

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 84042 9338.0 9.00 0.0000
Variety 2 64519 32259.5 31.08 0.0000
Treatment*variety 18 51945 2885.8 2.78 0.0016
Error 60 62269 1037.8
Total 89 262774

Appendix 21 Analysis of Variance for total number of seed per capsule
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 198.489 22.0543 26.82 0.0000
Variety 2 3.289 1.6444 2.00 0.1443
Error 60 49.333 0.8222
Total 89 262.489
Appendix 22 Analysis of Variance for seed length
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 8.50482 0.94498 143.69 0.0000
Variety 2 0.08204 0.04102 6.24 0.0035
Error 60 0.39460 0.00658
Total 89 9.30251
Appendix 23 Analysis of Variance for seed width

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 0.87948 0.09772 9.86 0.0000
Variety 2 0.64149 0.32074 32.38 0.0000
Error 60 0.59440 0.00991
Total 89 2.79381
Appendix 24 Analysis of Variance for thousand seed weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 7.4234 0.8248 231.26 0.0000
Variety 2 38.8353 19.4176 5444.20 0.0000
Error 60 0.2140 0.0036
Total 89 51.4466
Appendix 25 Analysis of Variance for seed oil content

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 239.130 26.5700 61.41 0.0000
Variety 2 17.745 8.8727 20.51 0.0000
Error 60 25.958 0.4326
Total 89 296.765

Appendix 26 Analysis of Variance for total seed yield
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 1.947E+07 2163346 19.72 0.0000
Variety 2 1.672E+07 8359000 76.20 0.0000
Treatment*verity 18 6194222 344123 3.14 0.0005
Error 60 6581667 109694
Total 89 4.896E+07
Appendix 27 Analysis of Variance for Straw yield
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 2.142E+08 2.380E+07 28.70 0.0000
Variety 2 9.050E+07 4.525E+07 54.57 0.0000
Treatment*variety 18 6.977E+07 3876280 4.67 0.0000
Error 60 4.975E+07 829249
Total 89 4.242E+08
Grand Mean 10218 CV 8.91

Appendix 28 Analysis of Variance for fiber length
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 4232.25 470.250 32.40 0.0000
Variety 2 131.33 65.663 4.52 0.0148
Error 60 870.97 14.516
Total 89 6644.43
Appendix 29 Analysis of Variance for fiber weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 9 4.0016 0.44463 3.76 0.0008
Variety 2 3.7949 1.89744 16.05 0.0000
Error 60 7.0927 0.11821
Total 89 22.0081

APPENDIX EXPERIMENT No.2
Statistix 9.0 USA TWO WAY ANOVA 6/24/2020, 6:41:19 AM
Appendix 1 Analysis of Variance for Plant height
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 3020.56 1006.85 98.76 0.0000
var 2 682.72 341.36 33.49 0.0000
Treat*var 6 87.28 14.55 1.43 0.2455
Error 24 244.67 10.19
Total 35 4035.22
Appendix 2 Analysis of Variance for number of tillers

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 60.9722 20.3241 33.26 0.0000
var 2 12.1667 6.0833 9.95 0.0007
Treat*var 6 2.9444 0.4907 0.80 0.5773
Error 24 14.6667 0.6111
Total 35 90.7500
Appendix 3 Analysis of Variance for shoot fresh weight

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 1308.40 436.134 76.61 0.0000
Variety 2 752.70 376.348 66.11 0.0000
Error 24 136.63 5.693
Total 35 2235.04
Appendix 4 Analysis of Variance for shoot dry weight

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 209.505 69.8351 57.15 0.0000
Variety 2 61.546 30.7729 25.18 0.0000
Error 24 29.327 1.2219
Total 35 315.532

Appendix 5 Analysis of Variance for root fresh weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 25.5974 8.53247 84.72 0.0000
Variety 2 5.7854 2.89271 28.72 0.0000
Error 24 2.4170 0.10071
Total 35 40.3818
Appendix 6 Analysis of Variance for root dry weight

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 6.7399 2.24663 39.42 0.0000
Variety 2 1.8297 0.91486 16.05 0.0000
Error 24 1.3678 0.05699
Total 35 11.1831
Appendix 7 Analysis of Variance for leaf relative water content
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 346.570 115.523 38.83 0.0000
var 2 18.376 9.188 3.09 0.0640
Treat*var 6 106.525 17.754 5.97 0.0006
Error 24 71.401 2.975
Total 35 542.872
Appendix 8 Analysis of Variance for leaf chlorophyll a

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 97.005 32.3348 48.55 0.0000
Variety 2 8.202 4.1010 6.16 0.0069
Error 24 15.985 0.6660
Total 35 122.325
Appendix 9 Analysis of Variance for leaf Chlorophyll b

Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 23.8517 7.95055 45.61 0.0000
Variety 2 10.9862 5.49309 31.51 0.0000
Error 24 4.1833 0.17430
Total 35 40.3787

Appendix 10 Analysis of Variance for leaf Carotenoids content
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 9.3501 3.11669 48.19 0.0000
Variety 2 0.3465 0.17327 2.68 0.0891
Treat*variety 6 0.2065 0.03441 0.53 0.7784
Error 24 1.5522 0.06468
Total 35 11.4553
Appendix 11 Analysis of Variance for leaf electrolytic leakage

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 32428.0 10809.3 338.24 0.0000
Variety 2 9315.7 4657.9 145.75 0.0000
Treat*variety 6 11057.4 1842.9 57.67 0.0000
Error 24 767.0 32.0
Total 35 53568.2

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 15990 5330 13.03 0.0000
variety 2 387125 193562 473.28 0.0000
Treat*variety 6 1690 282 0.69 0.6606
Error 24 9815 409
Total 35 414621
Appendix 13 Analysis of Variance for leaf indole acetic acid
Source DF SS MS F P
V001 3 5093.94 1697.98 556.98 0.0000
V002 2 239.63 119.81 39.30 0.0000
V001*V002 6 276.76 46.13 15.13 0.0000
Error 24 73.16 3.05
Total 35 5683.50
Appendix 14 Analysis of Variance for gibberellic acid
Source DF SS MS F P
V001 3 4916.38 1638.79 483.24 0.0000
V002 2 258.04 129.02 38.04 0.0000
V001*V002 6 256.88 42.81 12.62 0.0000
Error 24 81.39 3.39
Total 35 5512.68

Appendix 15 Analysis of Variance for leaf phenolics
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 370.967 123.656 38.11 0.0000
Variety 2 5.885 2.942 0.91 0.4172
Treat*variety 6 41.358 6.893 2.12 0.0876
Error 24 77.873 3.245
Total 35 496.083
Appendix 16 Analysis of Variance for root phenolics

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 318.758 106.253 57.41 0.0000
Variety 2 11.514 5.757 3.11 0.0629
Treat*variety 6 19.054 3.176 1.72 0.1605
Error 24 44.422 1.851
Total 35 393.749

Appendix 17 Analysis of Variance for leaf antioxidant
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 670.04 223.35 29.21 0.0000
Variety 2 2370.99 1185.49 155.04 0.0000
Error 24 183.51 7.65
Total 35 3259.72
Appendix 18 Analysis of Variance for root antioxidant
Source DF SS MS F P
Treatment 3 914.24 304.747 62.31 0.0000
Variety 2 55.49 27.743 5.67 0.0096
Error 24 117.38 4.891
Total 35 1295.07
Appendix 19 Analysis of Variance for number of capsule per plant
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 37037.9 12346.0 45.44 0.0000
var 2 4905.6 2452.8 9.03 0.0012
Treat*var 6 1448.2 241.4 0.89 0.5188
Error 24 6521.3 271.7
Total 35 49913.0

Appendix 20 Analysis of Variance for capsule weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 0.00950 0.00317 31.66 0.0000
var 2 0.00027 0.00014 1.36 0.2755
Treat*var 6 0.00026 0.00004 0.44 0.8480
Error 24 0.00240 0.00010
Total 35 0.01243
Appendix 21 Analysis of Variance for total number of seed per capsule

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 24.9722 8.32407 7.68 0.0009
var 2 6.2222 3.11111 2.87 0.0762
Treat*var 6 1.7778 0.29630 0.27 0.9439
Error 24 26.0000 1.08333
Total 35 58.9722
Appendix 22 Analysis of Variance for Capsule weight

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 0.00950 0.00317 31.66 0.0000
var 2 0.00027 0.00014 1.36 0.2755
Treat*var 6 0.00026 0.00004 0.44 0.8480
Error 24 0.00240 0.00010
Total 35 0.01243
Appendix 23 Analysis of Variance for seed length

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 6.61272 2.20424 259.24 0.0000
var 2 0.22109 0.11054 13.00 0.0001
Treat*var 6 0.12222 0.02037 2.40 0.0589
Error 24 0.20407 0.00850
Total 35 7.16010
Appendix 24 Analysis of Variance for seed width

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 1.24357 0.41452 43.86 0.0000
var 2 0.12096 0.06048 6.40 0.0059
Treat*var 6 0.05620 0.00937 0.99 0.4534
Error 24 0.22680 0.00945
Total 35 1.64752

Appendix 25 Analysis of Variance for thousand seed weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 1.4254 0.4751 60.21 0.0000
var 2 32.3219 16.1610 2047.85 0.0000
Treat*var 6 0.0669 0.0111 1.41 0.2506
Error 24 0.1894 0.0079
Total 35 34.0036
Appendix 26 Analysis of Variance for seed oil content

Source DF SS MS F P
V001 3 99.864 33.2879 53.75 0.0000
V002 2 27.647 13.8233 22.32 0.0000
V001*V002 6 6.638 1.1063 1.79 0.1446
Error 24 14.865 0.6194
Total 35 149.013
Appendix 27 Analysis of Variance for total seed yield

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 3240067 1080022 150.58 0.0000
var 2 847817 423908 59.10 0.0000
Treat*var 6 247783 41297 5.76 0.0008
Error 24 172133 7172
Total 35 4507800
Appendix 28 Analysis of Variance for straw yield

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 5.410E+07 1.803E+07 1152.85 0.0000
var 2 4.871E+07 2.435E+07 1556.96 0.0000
Treat*var 6 1.854E+07 3089484 197.52 0.0000
Error 24 375400 15641.7
Total 35 1.217E+08
Appendix 29 Analysis of Variance for fiber length

Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 931.67 310.556 121.52 0.0000
var 2 228.22 114.111 44.65 0.0000
Treat*var 6 118.00 19.667 7.70 0.0001
Error 24 61.33 2.556
Total 35 1339.22

Appendix 30 Analysis of Variance for fiber weight
Source DF SS MS F P
Treat 3 1.80566 0.60189 853.07 0.0000
var 2 2.39872 1.19936 1699.88 0.0000
Treat*var 6 0.23319 0.03887 55.09 0.0000
Error 24 0.01693 0.00071
Total 35 4.45450

Plate No. 1: Author observing linseed variety BL-1 at flowering stage
Plate No. 1: Linseed varieties Roshni and Chandni at flowering stage
Experiment No. 1 Production of Organic Fertilizers from Rocket Seed (Eruca sativa
L.), Chicken Manure and Moringa Oleifera Leaves for Growing Linseed under
Water Stress.

Response of Linseed (Linum Usitatissimum L.) Varieties To Organic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response of Linseed (Linum Usitatissimum L.) Varieties To Organic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.

Asif Ullah Khan

Asif Ullah Khan

My Parents, Wife, Teachers

My Dear Daughter Ayesha Gul

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14-23

3.2 RESULTS 35-100

3.2.4 DISCUSSION 101-107

4.2 RESULTS 113-160

Table 2.2. Physical and chemical properties of field soil 111

uS/cm Microsiemens per centimeters

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

meq/L Milli equivalents per liter

ASIF ULLAH KHAN

1.1 Climate change

1.1.1 Climate change and its status in Pakistan

1.2.1 Water stress and its effects on plants

Water stress is a multidimensional stress and causes change in morphological,

1.2.2 Water stress and its effect on morphology of plants

1.2.3 Water stress and its effect on physiology of plants

Figure 1.1: Water stress effects on plants

Drought stress significantly affects quantitative and qualitative properties of proteins.

1.2.4 Effect of water stress on plant secondary metabolites

Secondary metabolites are synthesized by plants during environmental stresses. High

1.3 Mitigation of abiotic stresses

1.4 Organic fertilizers

Sustainable agricultural production is a major global issue. Application of chemical

1.4.1 Chicken manure

1.4.2 Eruca sativa Mill.

1.4.3 Moringa oleifera Lam.

Linum usitatissimum is also called common flax or linseed in a family Linaceae. It is

1.6.1 Importance of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.)

1.6.2 Human consumption

1.6.4 Medicinal value

1.6.5 Seed cake are used as Fertilizer

1.6.6 Linseed oil

1.6.7 Stem of linseed

1. Production and characterization of the organic fertilizers from seed cake of

2.1 Effect of water stress on plant

Guo et al. (2012) conducted an experiment on germination and physiology of linseed

2.2 Effect of organic fertilizer on soil fertility and health of plants

Siavoshi et al. (2011) investigated the effect of organic fertilizer on morphological

Abdalla (2013) conducted an experiment on (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa Miller) by

Merwad et al. (2018) performed an experiment to study Moringa extract on nutrients

Ahmad et al. (2019) conducted an experiment on Freesia hybrida by applying Moringa

3 Preparation of Organic Fertilizers and its Effects on Linseed Varieties

3.1.1 Preparation of organic fertilizers

3.1.2.2 Determination of organic matter content of organic fertilizers

3.1.2.3 Determination of phosphorus content of organic fertilizers

3.1.2.5 Determination of K, Zn and Fe content of organic fertilizers

3.1.3. Physico-chemical analysis of soil

3.1.3.1 Determination of Soil texture

Soil texture was determined as described (Bouyoucos, 1962).

3.1.3.2 Determination of pH of soil

3.1.3.3 Determination of EC of soil

3.1.3.4 Determination of carbonates and bicarbonates in soil

3.1.3.5 Determination of Calcium and Magnesium in soil

3.1.3.6 Determination of soil organic matter

3.1.3.9 Determination of soil Nitrogen

3.1.4 Assessment of effects of organic fertilizers on growth of linseed

Rain Fall (mm)

Figure 2.1. Meteorological data of two years

𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙−𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙