Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 6(3): 349-355, 2010

© 2010, INSInet Publication

Enhancement of Sweet Pepper Crop Growth and Production by Application of

Biological, Organic and Nutritional Solutions

Ghoname, A.A, M.A. El-Nemr; A.M.R Abdel-Mawgoud and W. A. El-Tohamy

Dept. Vegetable Res., National Research Center, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt.

Abstract: An experimental trial was carried out in the two successive seasons of 2008 and 2009 to
investigate and compare the enhancing effects of three different biostimulation compounds on growth and
production of sweet pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.) cv. California W onder. Three weeks after
transplanting, plants were sprayed with any of the individual three solutions of Stimufol (multi nutrients
solution) (1, 2 and 3 g/l), Chitosan (2, 4 and 6 cm3 /l); and Yeast (1, 2 and 3 g/l). Data showed that all
applied solutions promoted plant vegetative growth i.e. plant height, number of leaves and branches, fresh
and dry weights. Individual fruit weight and number of fruits were also improved. Fruit quality in terms
of Total Soluble Solids (TSS), total acidity and ascorbic acid contents showed also similar positive
responses compared to untreated ones. Stimufol was superior in its effect compared to all other treatments
followed by Chitosan and the lowest effect was recorded with yeast treatments. W ithin each solution
treatments, there was a positive relationship between the applied concentration and the response of all
plant growth parameters.

Key words: sweet pepper, Capsicum annuum, Chitosan, dry yeast, Stimufol, growth, yield.

INTRODUCTION tomato trials, no significant difference in yield of

High cash crops such as sweet pepper have
occupied an important rank in Egyptian and world
agriculture due to its high profit and nutritional values
for human health[1] . This crop has attracted many
agricultural investors particularly in the new reclaimed
lands for export-oriented production for Gulf and
European markets. W ith the high human health and
environmental concerns of those markets, the
production process must incorporate environmental
friendly materials. Some environmental-friendly
products that have been widely used in agricultural
applications is chitosan mainly for stimulation of plant
defense[2 -4 ] . It is a polysaccharide called 2-Amino-2-
deoxybeta-D-glucosasmine[5 ] . Chitosan is a natural
polymer derived from deactylation of chitin which is
readily available from shellfish waste from food
processing. Generally in agriculture, chitosan has been
used in seed, leaf, fruit and vegetable coating [6 ] , as
fertilizer and in controlled agrochemical release [7 ], to
increase plant product[8 -10 ] , to stimulate the immunity of
plants[1 1 ] and to stimulate plant growth [1 2 ] . Chibu and
Shibayama,[1 3 ] observed a positive effect of chitosan on
the growth of roots, shoots and leaves of several crop
plants. However, some trials on chitosan were
conducted in organic and conventional crops with
variable results[1 4 ] . W hile chitosan application resulted
in yield increases of nearly 20% in two out of three
treatments in the organic carrot trial[1 4 ] or in average
weight of individual carrots. They found also no
significant differences among cucumber, capsicum,
beet-root or peas plants from any treatment, however
the chitosan foliar treatment had a tendency for greater
yield than the yield from other treatments. Other
products such as yeast were applied aiming at
improving plant productivity through the enhancement
of fruit set of different vegetable crops. Yeast is a
natural source of cytokinins and has stimulatory effects
on bean plants[1 5 -1 6 ] . Yeast is considered as a natural
source of cytokinins that stimulates cell division and
enlargement as well as the synthesis of protein, nucleic
acid and chlorophyll[1 7 -2 0 ] . On the other hand foliar
supplements of fertilizers can compensate for the
constraining effects on nutrient availability and uptake
usually presented in the new reclaimed lands [2 1 ].
Therefore, this study is designed to investigate the
response of growth and yield of sweet pepper plants to
the application of different doses of chitosan, yeast and
S tim ufol (m ulti nutrients solutio n) re ga rd ing
enhancement of growth and productivity in the new
reclaimed lands.
M ATERIAL AND M ETHODS
The present work was carried out during the two
successive seasons of 2008 and 2009 at the

Corresponding Author: Ghoname, A.A, Dept. Vegetable Res., National Research Center, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt.

349
 Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 6(3): 349-355, 2010
experimental station of the National Research Center in
Nubaria region (Behira Governorate), aiming to study
the effect of some biological (Yeast), organic
(Chitosan) or nutritional (Stimufol) solutions as foliar
sprays on the growth, productivity and quality of sweet
pepper (Capsicum annuumn L) cv. California wonder.
Solutions were sprayed in rates of (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 cm/l);
(2.0, 4.0, 6.0 g/l) and (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 cm/l) for Stimufol,
Chitosan and yeast respectively. Stimufol is a
commercial product containing macro nutrients such as
N (25%), P (16%), K (12%), Mg (0.2%) and micro
nutrients such as B (0.044%), Fe (0.17%), Mo
(0.001%), Zn (0.03%), Cu (0.085% ), Co (0.01%), Mn
(0.085%) as well as amino acids (0.2%). Chitosan was
obtained by using the local commercial product of
ChitoCare® meanwhile bread yeast was obtained from
the local market. All compounds were dissolved in tap
water to obtain the targeted concentrations. Active dry
yeast were dissolved in water followed by adding sugar
at ratio 1:1 and kept for two days for activation and
reproduction of yeast before application on the plants.
Foliar spraying took place after 30 days from
transplanting.
Seedlings of sweet pepper were transplanted in the
field at age of 55 days in the second week of April in
2008 and 2009. Seedlings of sweet pepper were
planted on ridges of 100 cm width and 8 m length and
25 cm apart. Each plot included 4 ridges. Standard
agricultural practices common in the area were
followed.
Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis: The
treatments were arranged in a randomized complete
block design with four replicates. The obtained data
were statistically analyzed and means separation was
carried out using Least Significant Difference (LSD) at
P < 0.05 according to the method described by Gomez
and Gomez [22 ].
The Physical properties and chemical analysis of
the experimental soil are presented in Table (1).
Sampling and Data Recording: Three plants from
each treatment were chosen randomly at 90 days after
transplanting and the following data were recorded:
A- Vegetative Growth: Different vegetative growth
parameters were recorded such as plant height (cm),
number of leaves/plant, number of branches/plant, fresh
and dry weights of leaves/ plant (g).
B- Fruit Yield and Quality: Pepper fruits at
marketable stage were harvested twice weekly. At
harvest time the fruit length, fruit diameter, average
fruit weight and total weight of fruits in each treatment
350
were recorded and the total yield per plant was
calculated.
C- Chemical Content: Total chlorophyll content in
leaves was measured as SPAD units using Monitor
chlorophyll meter (SPAD 501). Random samples of
harvested fruits were chosen for chemical analysis.
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and total acidity were
determined as mg/100gm fresh weight according to
A.O.A.C. [2 3 ].
Samples of leaves were oven dried at 70° C for
three cycles each of 12 hours then fine grounded and
wet digested. Total nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
concentrations in leaves were determined according to
the methods described by FAO [2 4 ] , Troug and Mayer [2 5]
and Brown and Lilleland [2 6 ] , respectively.
Results: Table (2) shows the effect of all foliar applied
solutions in different concentrations on the vegetative
growth parameters of sweet pepper plants in the two
tested seasons. It was clear that all applied compounds
have positive and significant effects on those
parameters compared to control treatment. Stimufol was
superior in its effect on vegetative growth followed by
Chitosan and the lowest effect recorded with yeast
application treatments. Those effects were consistent on
all measured vegetative parameters such as plant
height, number of leaves, number of branches and fresh
and dry weights. W ithin each foliar applied material,
there was a positive relationship between the response
of all vegetative parameters and the applied
concentrations (Table 3).
Yield parameters also responded positively to the
application of different rates of foliar sprayed solutions
(Table 4). Number and weight of individual fruits as
well as total fruit yield per plant were strongly affected
by Stimufol application rate followed by Chitosan then
yeast applications. Yield quality in terms of Total
soluble Solids (TSS), total acidity and ascorbic acid
content showed also similar positive responses (Table
4). As was observed in the vegetative growth, all yield
and quality parameters showed positive relationships
with the applied concentrations of all applied
substances (Table 5).
Chemical analysis of the leaves showed also
positive responses to the applied treatments. Nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium contents in the leaves
recorded the highest significant values under treatments
of Stimufol followed by Chitosan then yeast compared
to control treatments (Table 6). Similar to all measured
growth parameters, nutrient contents were positively
correlated to the applied concentrations of each
substance (Table 7).
 Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 6(3): 349-355, 2010

Table 1: Physical properties and chem ical analysis of the experim ental soil.
Physical properties
Sand Clay Silt Texture F.C.% W .P.%
90.08 9.26 0.66 Sandy 16.57 5.25
Chem ical analysis
E.C.dS/m PH M eq./L
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ca Mg Na K H CO 3 Cl
1.7 8.2 7.02 0.527 0.982 0.31 1.3 0.566

Table 2: Vegetative growth param eters of sweet pepper plants in response to different application rates of Stim ufol, Chitosan and yeast.
Treatm ents Plant height N um ber of N um ber of Leaves FW / Leaves D W /
(cm ) leaves/plant Branches/plant plant (g) plant (g)
Control 30.840 78.000 5.333 219.797 16.660
Stim ufol 1 gm 42.230 145.275 9.500 247.570 27.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 50.500 224.250 11.000 337.223 43.943
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 58.150 243.750 13.000 384.243 55.007
Chitosan 2 cm 39.530 126.750 8.500 240.437 25.563
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 cm 44.450 160.875 9.500 331.257 41.120
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 cm 52.100 201.825 11.000 335.333 40.670
Y east 1 gm 37.930 122.850 6.500 234.720 24.517
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 42.125 146.250 7.667 291.743 35.507
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 46.950 156.975 8.500 318.870 39.913
L.S.D at 0.05 3.427 32.547 1.309 27.664 6.447
Second season
Control 34.13 86.32 6.04 242.62 18.56
Stim ufol 1 gm 46.81 160.66 10.57 273.25 30.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 55.86 247.31 12.56 372.04 48.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 64.18 268.88 15.10 424.24 60.95
Chitosan 2 cm 43.36 139.89 9.46 265.72 28.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 cm 49.21 177.42 10.57 332.09 45.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 cm 57.50 222.57 12.46 370.11 45.25
Y east 1 gm 41.80 135.84 7.47 259.19 27.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 46.48 161.66 8.54 322.01 39.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 52.02 173.47 9.66 351.64 44.07
L.S.D at 0.05 3.52 35.49 1.32 42.47 6.91

Table 3: Linear regression Constance’s of the relationships betw een foliar applied concentrations of different com pounds and different
vegetative growth param eters. (Y = aX+b), S.E.= Standard Error.
Treatm ents Plant height N um ber of N um ber of Fresh weight D ry weight
(cm ) leaves branches /plant (g) /plant (g)
Stim ufol a+S.E. 9.02+0.62 57.62+9.07 2.45+0.41 58+7.99 13.19+0.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 31.9 86.39 6.03 209.7 15.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.99 0.95 0.94 0.96 0.99
Chitosan A 3.43+0.24 20.28+0.97 0.9+16 21.87+5.7 4.37+1.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 31.42 81.02 5.88 216.09 17.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.88 0.89
Y east A 5.25+0.43 26.03+5.43 1.067+0.057 35.42+5.44 8.075+0.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 31.5 86.9 5.4 213 17.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.98 0.91 0.99 0.95 0.97

351
 Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 6(3): 349-355, 2010

Table 4: Y ield and fruit quality param eters in response to different concentration of different foliar applications of Stim ufol, C hitosan and yeast.
Treatm ents N um ber of M ean weight M ean weight T.S.S Acidity Ascorbic acid
fruits /plant of fruit (g) of fruits /plant (g) (% ) m g./100g m g./100g
Control 5.0 34.04 172.86 3.73 105.79 52.75
Stim ufol 1 gm 10.5 69.95 734.16 5.90 127.68 73.47
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 13.0 76.01 985.94 6.10 130.81 78.66
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 15.0 84.72 1267.38 6.50 134.26 84.12
Chitosan 2 cm 8.3 53.83 448.87 5.07 121.71 65.07
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 cm 9.67 59.74 577.91 5.20 123.56 69.31
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 cm 12.0 66.19 794.28 5.63 126.91 71.61
Y east 1 gm 6.5 50.23 326.48 4.00 112.83 59.99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 8.0 53.02 424.13 4.33 117.58 62.70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 9.3 60.98 569.61 4.80 120.07 65.03
L.S.D at 0.05 0.952 4.25 54.56 0.28 2.80 2.95
Second Season
Control 5.71 37.70 217.26 4.38 117.08 58.74
Stim ufol 1 gm 11.90 77.58 922.85 6.70 141.10 81.36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 14.75 84.38 1244.23 6.94 144.48 87.36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 17.07 94.27 1604.53 7.48 148.69 93.24
Chitosan 2 cm 9.45 59.80 564.61 5.82 134.44 72.20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 cm 10.98 67.18 739.64 5.93 136.49 76.75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 cm 13.88 74.02 1028.37 6.39 140.14 79.29
Y east 1 gm 7.46 56.06 418.08 4.68 124.74 66.69
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 9.09 60.14 547.07 5.01 130.05 69.70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 10.50 68.35 718.07 5.60 133.03 72.24
L.S.D at 0.05 1.29 4.89 106.27 0.47 2.94 3.73

Table 5: Linear regression Constance’s of the relationships between foliar applied concentrations of different com pounds and different yield
and fruit quality param eters. (Y= aX+b), S.E.= Standard Error.
Treatm ents N um ber of M ean weight M ean weight T.S.S Acidity Ascorbic acid
fruits /plant of fruit (g) of fruit /plant (g) (% ) m g./100g m g./100g
Stim ufol a+S.E. 3.25+0.58 15.8+4.87 353.53+50.3 0.85+0.31 8.85+3.21 9.93+2.66
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 1.08 42.46 259.78 4.2 111.35 57.35
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.93 0.84 0.96 0.78 0.79 0.87
Chitosan A 1.11+0.13 5.11+1.17 99.66+9.53 0.29+0.08 3.26+1.13 3.04+0.82
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 5.4 38.09 199.48 4.03 109.71 55.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.97 0.9 0.98 0.84 0.8 0.87
Y east a+S.E. 1.45+0.02 8.36+1.84 128.79+7.44 0.35+0.03 4.7+0.718 3.95+0.83
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 5.03 37 180.08 3.6 106.93 54.18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.99 0.91 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.91

Discussion: No doubts that any given additional
fertilization supplements has significant impact on plant
growth in new reclaimed lands which is characterized
with infertility. In this work, all foliar applied
substances showed positive and significant effects on
sweet pepper plants compared to untreated ones. The
three applied substances have promoted plant growth
and production in one way or another. Stimufol with
all its high contents of macro and micro nutrients give
the strongest push to plant growth. This is probably
due to providing the plants with required nutrients
which may one or more of them were insufficiently
supplied through the root system in such low fertile
soil. Meanwhile the positive effects of Chitosan may
come from providing some amino compounds required
for plant growth[13 ] . The latter authors reported that

352
 Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 6(3): 349-355, 2010

Table 6: N utrient contents in the leaves of sweet pepper plants sprayed with different concentrations of Stim ufol, Chitosan and Y east.
Treatm ents First season Second Season
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
N (% ) P (% ) K (% ) N (% ) P (% ) K (% )
Control 1.623 0.193 1.280 1.80 0.24 1.43
Stim ufol 1 gm 2.722 0.419 2.166 3.08 0.49 2.45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 2.892 0.476 2.273 3.25 0.55 2.52
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 3.035 0.520 2.374 3.36 0.61 2.75
Chitosan 2 cm 2.167 0.318 1.759 2.42 0.36 2.01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 cm 2.307 0.364 1.843 2.55 0.41 2.10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 cm 2.473 0.402 1.909 2.76 0.45 2.18
Y east 1 gm 1.837 0.249 1.332 2.11 0.29 1.54
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 gm 1.953 0.276 1.653 2.20 0.33 1.88
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 gm 2.233 0.316 1.719 2.51 0.36 1.94
L.S.D at 0.05 0.131 0.021 0.131 0.15 0.04 0.13

Table 7: Linear regression Constance’s of the relationships betw een foliar applied concentrations of different com pounds and nutrient contents
in the leaves of sweet pepper. (Y = aX+b), S.E.= Standard Error.
Treatm ents N (% ) P (% ) K (% )
Stim ufol a+S.E. 0.44+0.16 0.104+0.03 0.34+0.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b 1.9 0.24 1.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.78 0.85 0.75
Chitosan a 0.134+0.03 0.033+0.007 0.098+0.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b 1.73 0.218 1.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2 0.88 0.91 0.79
Y east a 0.19+0.02 0.039+0.003 0.16+0.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b 1.62 0.199 1.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
R 0.97 0.98 0.9

Chitosan application proved to stimulate early growth
stages of lettuce, soybean and upland rice. More
recently, Abdel-M awgoud et al., [ 1 2 ] found an
improvement effects on strawberry growth and
production as a result of Chitosan application.
Nevertheless, the exact mechanism(s) of Chitosan
effects on plant growth and production is not yet
determined. On the other hand, the positive effects of
dry yeast application has been repeatedly reported on
many vegetable crops [2 0 , 2 7 -3 2 ] . Moreover, Gomaa et.al[3 3 ]
reported that, foliar treatment with yeast significantly
increased vegetative growth and tuber yield of potato
plants. The positive effects of dry yeast application
were referred to its contents of proteins, amino acids,
vitamins and hormones as well as some micro
nutrients. N.R.P [3 4 ] stated that, the analysis of dry yeast
was protein (47.2%), arginine (2.6%), glycin (2.6%),
histidin (1.4%), islysine (2.9%), lauicine (3.5%), Lysine
(3.8%), methionine systine (0.6%), phenyl-alanine (3%),
tyrosine (2.1%), threonine (2.6%), tryptophan (0.5%)
and vitamin B (2.9%). All these compounds work as
a readily available growth supplements to plants which
eventually improve plant growth and production.
Generally, all applied materials improved plant
vegetative growth such as number of leaves and
branches which must have been reflected on total plant
leaf area. This means higher light interception and
more assimilate production which appeared in the form
of high fresh and dry weights of the plants. Since fruit
yield is a fraction of total plant biomass, yield was also
improved by the applied treatments. As each treatment
differed regarding its contents and concentration, the
degree of response differed according to the type of
contents and was also positively related to the
concentration of the applied substances. Apparently,
Stimufol contains higher concentrations of many
nutrients required by the plants and this is probably the
reason for its superior effects observed in this study.
However, the positive effect of Chitosan cannot be less
important particularly if organic farming or a more
environmentally sound agricultural systems is being
considered.
Conclusion: It could be concluded that all applied
materials have positive and growth promoting effects
on sweet pepper plants by providing supplemental

353
 Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 6(3): 349-355, 2010
doses of nutrients to the plants and in some cases to
provide plants with some promoting growth regulators
as well (yeast). However, the decision of which
product to be applied is relative to the grower
depending on which agricultural system (conventional
or environmental) he is willing to follow.
REFERENCES
1. Deepaa, N., Charanjit Kaura, Balraj Singhb, H.C.
Kapoor, 2006. Antioxidant activity in some red
sweet pepper cultivars. Jo urnal of Food
Composition and Analysis, 19: 572-578.
2. Roby, D., A. Gadelle and A. Toppan, 1987. Chitin
oligosaccharides as elicitors of chitinase activity in
melon plants. Biochemical and Biophysical
Research Communications, 143: 885-892.
3. Siegrist, B., D. Glenewinkel, C. Kiolle and H.
Schmidtke, 1997. Chemically induced resistance in
green bean against bacterial and fungal pathogens.
Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 104: 599-
610.
4. Y u , G. and G. M euhlbauer, 2001.
Benzothiadiazole-induced gene expression in wheat
spikes does not provide resistance to Fusarium
head blight. Physiological and Molecular Plant
Pathology, 59: 129- 139.
5. Peniston, Q.P., E. Johnson, 1980. Process for the
manufacture of chitosan. US Patent, pp: 4, 195,
175, 5.
6. Devlieghere, F., A. Vermeulen, J. Debevere, 2004.
Chitosan: antimicrobial activity, interactions with
food components and applicability as a coating on
fruit and vegetables. Food Microbiol., 703-714.
7. Sukwattanasinitt, M., A. Klaikherd, K. Skulnee,
and S. Aiba, 2001. Chitosan as a releasing device
for 2,4-D herbicide, In: T. Uragami, K. Kurita, T.
Fukamizo (Eds.), Chitin and Chitosan, Chitin and
Chitosan in Life Science, Yamaguchi, pp: 142-143.
8. W anic h p o n gp an, P ., K. Suriyachan, S.
Chandrkrachang, 2001. Effects of chitosan on the
growth of Gerbera flower plant (G erbera
jamesonii). In: T. Uragami, K. Kurita, T. Fukamizo
(Eds.), Chitin and Chitosan in Life Science,
Yamaguchi, pp: 198-201.
9. Chandrkrachang, S., 2002. The applications of
chitin and chitosan in agriculture in Thailand. In:
K. Suchiva, S. Chandrkrachang, P. Methacanon,
M.G. Peter (Eds.), Advances in Chitin Science,
vol. 5, Bangkok, pp: 458-462.
10. Nwe, N., S. Chandrkrachang, W .F. Stevens, 2004.
Application of chitosan in Myanmar’s agriculture
sector, In: Proceedings of the Sixth Asia Pacific
Chitin and Chitosan Symposium, May 23-26, The
National University of Singapore, Singapore.
354
11. Hadwiger, L.A., S.J. Klosterman, J.J. Choi, 2002.
The mode of action of chitosan and its oligomers
in inducing plant promoters and developing disease
resistance in plants, In: K . Suchiva, S.
Chandrkrachang, P. Methacanon, M.G. Peter
(Eds.), Advances in Chitin Science, Bangkok, 5:
452-457.
12. Abdel-Mawgoud, A.M.R., A.S. Tantawy, M.A. El-
Nemr and Y.N. Sassine, 2010. Growth and yield
Responses of strawberry plants to Chitosan
application. European Journal of Scientific
Research, 39(1): 170-177.
13. Chibu, H. and H. Shibayama, 2001. Effects of
chitosan applications on the growth of several
crops, in: T. Uragami, K. Kurita, T. Fukamizo
(Eds.), Chitin and Chitosan in Life Science,
Yamaguchi, pp: 235-239.
14. W alker, R., S. Morris, P. Brown and A. Gracie,
2004. Evaluation of potential for chitosan to
enhance plant defense. Publication No. 04.of
Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation. Australia, pp: 55.
15. Amer, S.S.A., 2004. Growth, green pods yield and
seeds yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) as affected by active dry yeast, salicylic acid
and their interaction. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura
Univ., 29(3): 1407-1422.
16. El-Tohamy, W .I.A. and 2N.H.M. El-Greadly, 2007.
Physiological Responses, Growth, Yield and
Quality of Snap Beans in Response to Foliar
Application of Yeast, Vitamin E and Zinc under
Sandy Soil Conditions. Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences, 1(3): 294-299.
17. Kraig, E. and J.E. Haber, 1980. Messenger
ribonucleic acid and protein metabolism during
sporulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J.
Bacterial., 144: 1098-1112.
18. Spencer, T.F.T., S.M . Dorothy and A.R.W . Smith,
1983. Yeast genetics fundamental and applied
aspects. pp: 16-18. Springer-Verlag, New York,
USA.
19. Castelfranco, P.A. and S.I. Beale, 1983.
Chlorophyll biosynthesis recent advances and areas
of current interest. Ann. Rev. Plant Physio., 34:
241-278.
20. Fathy, S.L. and S. Farid, 1996. Effect of some
chemical treatments, yeast preparation and Royal
Jelly on some vegetable crops growing in late
summer season to induce their ability towards
better thermal tolerance. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura
Univ., 25(4): 2215-2249.
21. Ghoname, A.A, M.G. Dawood, G.S. Riad and
W .A. El-Tohamy, 2009. Effect of Nitrogen Forms
and Biostimulants Foliar Application on the
Growth, Yield and Chemical Composition of Hot
 Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 6(3): 349-355, 2010
Pepper Grown under Sandy Soil Conditions.
Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological
Sciences, 5(5): 840-852.
22. Gomez, K.A. and A.A. Gomez, 1984. Statistical
Procedures for Agriculture Research. Second Ed.
W iely Interscience Publ. John W iley & Sons, New
York, USA.
23. A.O.A.C., 1990. Official methods of analysis.
Association of official analytical chemists. 15 th ed.
W ashington D.C., USA.
24. F.A.O., 1980. Soils and Plant Analysis. Soils
Bulletin, 38(2): 250.
25. Troug, E. and A.H. Meyer, 1939. Improvement in
deiness colormetic method for phosphorus and
aresnic. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed., 1: 136-139.
26. Brown, J.D. and O. Lilleland, 1946. Rapid
determination of potassium, calcium and sodium in
plant material and soil extracts flaw phosphorus.
Proc.Amer.Soc. Hort. Sci., 48: 341-346.
27. Abdel-Aziz, M.A., 1997. Response of tomato
plants to nitrogen fertilizer levels and growth
regulators. M.Sc. Thesis Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ.
Egypt.
28. Abou El-Nasr, M.E., R.A. El-Shabrawy and M.M.
Abd El-Rahman, 2001. Effect of Bread yeast
application and some nutrient elements on squash
(Cucurbita pepo L.) plant growth, yield and fruit
quality under conditions of the early summer
planting .J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 26(7):
4451-4464.
355
29. Fathy, E.S.L., S. Farid and S.A. El Desouky, 2002.
Induce cold tolerance of outdoor tomatoes during
early summer season by using triphsphate (ATP),
yeast, other natural and chemical treatments to
improve their fruiting and yield. Agric. Sci.
Mansoura Univ., 25(1): 377-401.
30. Khedr, Z M.A. and S. Farid, 2002. Response of
naturally virus infected tomato plants to yeast
extract and phosphoric acid application. Annals of
Agric. Sci. Moshtohor. Egypt, 38(2): 927-939.
31. Tarek, F.A.A., 2003. The effect of some organic
and inorganic fertilizers on plant growth and fruit
quality of cucumber plant under plastic houses.
M.Sc. Thesis , Faculty of Agric. Ain Shams Univ.,
pp: 66.
32. Mona, M., S.M.A. Kabeel and M.A. Fayza, 2005.
Effect of organic and biofertilizer on growth, yield
and fruit quality of cucumber grown under clear
polyethelene low tunnels. J. Agric . Sci. Mansoura
Univ., 30(5): 2827 - 2841.
33. Gomaa A.M ., S.S. Moawad, I.M.A. Ebadah and
H.A. Salim, 2005. Application of Bio-Organic
Farming and its Influence on certain Pests
Infestation, grpwth and productivity of potato
plants. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(2):
205-211.
34. N.R.P., 1997. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic
Animals, (Rabbits), No. 1 7th Rev. Ed., pp: 16-26.
National Academy of Science, W ashington, D.C.