D

June 2014, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 504-510

Journal of Life Sciences, ISSN 1934-7391, USA

DAVID PUBLISHING

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

Disciglio G., Frabboni L., Tarantino A. and Tarantino E.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment of University of Foggia, Foggia 70122, Italy
Received: April 01, 2014 / Accepted: May 29, 2014 / Published: June 30, 2014.
Abstract: Four separate agronomic trials in different years and areas of Capitanata (Southern Italy) were carried out in order to
evaluate the application of natural fertilizers (biostimulants) to processing tomato crops (cv Docet and Messapico on organic crop
system and cv Docet on conventional crop system), durum wheat (cv Quadrato in the year) and lettuce (cv Canastra OR/ROS). The
applied formulations were suspension-solutions containing humic and fulvic acids, amino acids and macro elements or amino acids
and peptides obtained by chemical hydrolysis of animal epithelium. The following parameters of the quantitative-qualitative of crops
were determined: marketable yield, mean weight, dry matter, pH, soluble solids, and color for tomato; grain yield, protein content,
gluten content, yellow index and hectoliter weight, for durum wheat; marketable weight, number and surface, dry matter, nitrate
content, thickness of leaves for lettuce. The results obtained were generally quite variable.
Key words: Biostimulant, processing tomato, durum wheat, lettuce.

1. Introduction
Recently, pursuant to the Legislative Decree
217/2006 [1], together with traditional mineral
and organic fertilizers, new and mostly natural
fertilizers have been marketed, they are called
biostimulants. These cover a wide range of synthetic
organic-molecule-based materials (derived from
vegetable extracts, seaweed, fungi or bacteria),
oligosaccharides, vitamins, humic substances,
microelements, protein hydrolysates (relatively long
chain peptides and free amino acids). In the latter
compounds, biostimulant properties for the plants
seem to be basically related to fractions of smaller
molecular size (< 5 kDa) as well as to free amino
acids [2, 3].
As reported in some research works carried out in
these last years, biostimulants are substances that
when applied to plants through foliar applications
or fertigation in addition to other fertilizer substances
can promote and enhance plant growth and
development [4, 5]. However the mechanism of

Corresponding author: Grazia Disciglio, research field:

agronomic trials. E-mail: grazia.disciglio@unifg.it.

biostimulant action is different from fertilizers

(nutrient suppliers); their activity is to improve
nutrient absorption efficiency, similar to hormonal
activity that allows having low concentration effects.
Their use can thus allow reducing mineral fertilization
doses and related fertilization costs as well as
environmental impact [6-10].
However, information on their activity is only
fragmentary and stems from trials conducted with
different criteria and for different purposes, which are
then hardly comparable to each other and whose
results are quite variable.
In some cases, agronomic experimentation on
selected herbaceous crops has shown an increase in
yield quality and quantity by improving nutrient use
efficiency or enhancing biotic and abiotic stress
resistance (drought, transplant, frost and hail) [11-13].
In some other cases, authors report no effect or even
negative ones on yield quantity [14].
Information about the activity of biostimulants on
herbaceous crops is still scanty and of some of them is
reported in the following.
Supplying
foliar
fertilizer
containing
seaweed-origin biostimulant (Fertileader 954) to soft

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

wheat at the boot stage gave a very positive

quali-quantitative yield results [15]. The supply of two
protein-hydrolysate-based products to maize seedlings
increased leaf growth and induced morphological
changes in root architecture [16]. On the contrary, the
use of biostimulants caused no effect on golf course
turf grass [17]. In another research, the use of
protein-hydrolysate-based biostimulant (Siapton 10
L) on tomato (cv Marmande) grown in high salinity
conditions induced greater root growth as compared
with both untreated plants and those grown in
non-saline conditions [18].
On potato crop, the use of different types of organ
mineral products rich in amino acids caused a
marketable yield increase of about 1.15 t/ha as
compared with the control, due to a greater and more
homogenous tuber size and a smaller percentage of
rejected tubers. Instead, no influence was observed on
the tuber dry matter content. Also the melon crop
treated with the same products showed a 33% increase
in yield and in degree Brix of sugar as compared to
the control [19]. In a three-year period of trials on
zucchini (cv Verde di Milano) and savoy cabbage (cv
Savoy Nace and Savoy King) treated with two types
of vegetable-extract-based products with the addition
of aminoacids (BF 200 and Fitocell), they generally
produced varying results between years. Only in one
year out of three there was an increase in plant growth
and yield of the treated crop compared with the
control [20].
On some border flower species (Coleus blumei,
Impatiens wallerana, Salvia spendens) grown in the
greenhouse, supplying the biostimulant (Actiwave)
through foliar application showed to induce a more
rapid plant growth as expressed by larger leaf area, an
increase in leaf dry and fresh weight and earlier and
more abundant flowering compared with the control
[21]. On seedlings of Arabidopsis thaliana treated
with various concentrations of protein-hydrosylate
(Siapton 10 L), increased expression of a gene pool
known to be correlated to strengthening plant defense

505

mechanisms against biotic stress was observed, thus

allowing referring these effects to a molecular basis
[18].
The use of root biostimulant (Radifarm) on
nursery-grown vegetable species increased root
growth and improved root/shoot ratio [22].

2. Materials and Methods

Starting from 2008, at the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Environment of University of
Foggia-Italy, agronomic research activities have been
carried out to evaluate the use of some types of
biostimulants on selected herbaceous crops both in
the field and in pots. In this paper the authors
report the results of four trials carried out over
three years in Capitanata (Province of Foggia in
southern Italy), on organically and conventionally
grown processing tomato, wheat and lettuce, by
testing biostimulant products available on the
market all of them being allowed also in organic
farming.
The data surveyed in each experimental trial were
statistically analyzed through the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and the mean values were compared using
Tukey test.
Trial no. 1-Organically grown processing tomato:
In 2009, two elongated-fruit processing tomato
cultivars (Docet and Messapico), organically grown in
the field after durum wheat, were subject to treatments
with biostimulants compared with an untreated control
under standard growing techniques. The trial was
carried out in the area of Rignano Garganico (FG)
(413508 N, 153013 E 42 m above the sea level),
on a predominantly sandy-clay soil with skeleton
(USDA) having the following characteristics: total N
(Kieldahl = 0.82; assimilable P2O5 (Olsen) = 24
ppm; exchangeable K2O (Schollemberger) = 1010
ppm; pH (water) = 7.23; organic matter (Walkley and
Black) = 1.71%.
Organomineral formulations of ERGOFITO were
used. They are suspension-solutions containing

506

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

humic, fulvic and crenic acids, enzymes, amino acids,

micro and macro elements and growth factors.
Application time and doses of the products during the
growing cycle were established following the
indications provided by the supplier. The first
application was performed at transplanting, by
soaking the seedlings into a 6% biostimulant
solution: subsequently, during the growing cycle,
formulations were applied through fertigation (no. 11
events with Ergofito Alghe at a dose of 2 kg/ha each)
and by foliar application (no. 4 events with Ergofito
Stim at a dose of 2 kg/ha).
Plant transplanting was performed in double rows
on April 16, 2009, on a previously ploughed, rotary
tilled soil fertilized with 1 t/ha of guanito and 150
kg/ha of soft ground rock phosphate uniformly
distributed on the trial surface. At transplanting, plants
were spaced in double rows 150 cm apart; plant
spacing was 50 cm within the double rows and 30 cm
between plants in the row, resulting in a theoretical
plant density of 4.2 plants m2.
A split plot experimental design with three
replicates was adopted, placing the fertilizer
treatments in the whole plots of 100 m2 and varieties
in the subplots of 50 m2 with a test area of 6 m2.
During the growing cycle, 11 irrigation events were
performed totaling a seasonal volume of 3,750 m3/ha
distributed through drip irrigation. Upon harvesting,
on July 25, 2009, the major yield quantity components
were determined (plants m2, marketable yield, mean
weight, dry matter, pH, soluble solids and color of
fruits).
Trial no. 2-Conventionally grown processing
tomato:
In 2011 another field trial was performed in the area
of Ortanova (FG) (411734 N, 154314 E and 104
m above the sea level) on conventionally grown
processing tomato (cv Docet) in a silty-clay soil
(USDA) having the following characteristics: total N
(Kieldahl) = 0.63; assimilable P2O5 (Olsen) = 212
ppm; exchangeable K2O (Schollemberger) = 1598

ppm; pH (water) = 8.36; organic matter (Walkley and

Black) = 1.52%.
Transplanting to the field was performed on 15
April, 2011 on previously rotary tilled soil fertilized
with 200 kg/ha of biammonium phosphate (18-46);
the same as in the previous trial, plant density was 4.2
plants m2. The agronomic practices usually applied in
the area were subsequently followed.
During the growing cycle, the crop was subject to
biostimulant treatment by foliar application at three
growing stages (flowering-beginning, fruit setting and
breaker color) compared with the untreated control. A
formulation based on amino acids and peptides
obtained by chemical hydrolysis of animal epithelium
(Siapton 10 L) was supplied at the doses
recommended by the supplier (250 mL/hL per
application). The randomized block design with 3
replicates was adopted.
At harvesting, on August 1st, the major
quantity-quality yield parameters were determined
(plants m2, marketable yield, mean weight, dry matter,
pH, soluble solids and color of fruits).
Trial no. 3-Durum wheat:
In the year 2010-2011, in the territory of Foggia
(Pietrafitta area) (412644N, 152934E and 95 m
above the sea level) a trial on durum wheat (cv
Quadrato) after fallow was performed on a silty-clay
(USDA) soil having the following characteristics:
total N (Kieldahl) = 1.3; assimilable P2O5 (Olsen) =
31 ppm; exchangeable K2O (Schollemberger) = 1103
ppm; pH (water) = 7.7; organic matter (Walkley and
Black) = 2.0%.
The crop was sown in open field on 23 December,
2010, with 300 germinable seeds/m2 on 18 m2 plots.
The biostimulant product consisting of amino acids
and peptides, obtained by chemical hydrolysis from
animal epithelium (Siapton 10 L), was administered
through foliar application in two treatments (at
tillering and tillering + heading) compared with an
untreated control. The applied doses were established
following the suppliers indications (4 L/ha). A

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

randomized block design with three replicates was

adopted.
During the growing cycle, the standard practices
applied in the area were followed. At harvesting,
performed on June 18, 2011 using a mini combine
harvester over a trial area of 9 m2, grain yield was
determined and, subsequently, quality parameters
(hectoliter weight), proteins, gluten and yellow index
were measured in the laboratory.
Trial no. 4-Lettuce:
In 2011 a trial was performed on lettuce (cv
Canasta/OR/ROS) grown in pots, at the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of
Foggia (412727N, 153156E and 75 m above
the sea level). The crop was transplanted on April 7,
2011 on a sandy-clay soil (USDA) having the
following characteristics: total N (Kieldahl) = 0.81;
asssimilable P2O5 (Olsen) = 86 ppm; exchangeable
K2O (Schollemberger) = 1430 ppm; pH (water) = 8.14;
organic matter (Walkley and Black) = 1.30%, after
basic mineral fertilization equivalent to 100 kg/ha of
N; 60 kg/ha of P2O5 and 20 kg/ha of S. Afterwards,
top dressing was performed with 70 kg/ha of N.
A crop receiving the same biostimulant product
(Siapton 10 L) by foliar application (250 mL/hL) at
three different time periods of the growing cycle (on
April 18, 1 and 15 May) was compared with the
untreated control.
The randomized block design with 5 replicates was
adopted. At harvesting, on June 8, 2011, the
quantity-quality yield components were determined:
marketable head weight, number and surface (cm2) of
total and edible leaves, dry matter (%), nitrate content
(% and mg/kg of dry leaves) and leaf thickness as
specific leaf area per dry leave weight (cm2/g).
The climate at the locations of Capitanata where
trials were carried out is generally of the
thermomediterranean accenturated type according to
FAO Climesco Maps, with temperatures that can drop
below 0 C in winter and exceed peaks of 40 C in
summer. Rainfall is unevenly distributed over the year

507

(540 mm/year) and predominantly concentrated in the

period from November through February.
In 2009 trial, during the growing cycle of tomato in
the area of Rignano Garganico, daily average
temperatures gradually increased in the second
ten-day period of April (13.8 C) until the end of July
(26.3 C), except a sudden drop occurring in the third
ten-day period of June (19.3 C), also characterized by
abundant rainfall (83 mm). Moreover, significant
rainfall was also recorded at the early stages of the
growing cycle, especially in the third ten-day period
of April (71 mm).
In 2011 trial, in the area of Ortanova, during the
growing cycle of tomato, daily average temperatures
gradually increased from about 14.2 C in the second
ten-day period of April until 25.1 C in the last
ten-day period of July. Total monthly rainfall was
equal to 52, 28, 6.5 and 74.5 mm, respectively in the
months of April, May, June and July.
In the year 2010-2011, in Foggia area, during the
growing cycle of wheat ten-day period daily average
temperature decreased from 7.1 C at the beginning of
the cycle in December 2010 to 5.9 C as an average in
January 2011, and then gradually increased up to
21.3 C in the early ten-day period of June. Total
rainfall during the whole cycle was equal to 430 mm
with peaks of about 110 and 109 mm, respectively, in
the third ten-day period of January and in the first
ten-day period of March 2011. Also for lettuce, grown
in Foggia area, daily average temperatures during the
growing cycle increased from 14.8 C in the first
ten-day period of April to 26.4 C at the end of the
cycle early in June. Total rainfall during the whole
cycle was 48 mm.

3. Results and Discussion

Yields of the investigated crops (processing tomato
on organic and conventional crop systems, durum
wheat and lettuce), are reported in tables 1, 2, 3 and 4,
respectively.
In 2009 trial on two cultivars (Docet and Messapico)

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

508

of processing tomato under organic grown system

(Table 1), the supply of biostimulants compared with
the untreated control showed no significant difference
in yield quantity and quality both between treatments
and cultivars. As an average (of cultivars and
treatments) at the field level, marketable yield was
very low, equal to 55.8 t/ha, while fruit weights was
55.8 g, dry matter 7.6%, pH 4.3 and soluble solids
4.6%, with values generally quite variable between
treatments and cultivars. This data are in agreement
with results obtained in other experimental trial
carried out in the previous year (2008) in Capitanata
area on the same tomato varieties, using organomineral
formulations of the Ergofito line that did not show any
difference between treated crops compared with the
control. However, some quality parameters (average
weight, dry matter and soluble salts of tomato fruits),
though not being significantly different showed
slightly greater mean values in the treated crop [23].
In 2011 trial on conventionally grown tomato (cv
Docet) (Table 2) the marketable yield, as the field
average, was very higher than that obtained in the
previous trial under organic conditions. The supply of
biostimulants gave higher values of marketable yield
(200 t/ha), mean weight of fruit (87.4 g) and dry
matter (7.3%) than the control (165.5 t/ha, 80.9 g and
6.6% respectively) This result is agreement with
another research on processing tomato, using a
commercial product based on seaweed extracts and
some trace elements (Algaren mc) applied by soaking
at transplanting and by foliar application and
fertigation during the growing cycle.
Table 1

Simeto) when granular biostimulant (Actiwave)

applied to the soil at selected growing stages gave
higher protein and gluten content in grain, in
particular, for the treatment performed at the tillering
stage [24].
In 2011 trial on lettuce grown in pots (cv Canasta
OR/ROS) (Table 4), all yield characters were not
significantly different between treatment subject to
biostimulant and the control. The parameters of yield
(marketable weight, number and surface of leaves)
tended to smaller values in the biostimulant treatment
than the control, while in the biostimulant treatment
characters, tended to have positive effect for the
highest value of dry matter (15.6%) and the lowest
values of nitrate content (7951.2 mg/kg of dry leaves)
and thickness of edible leaves (60.0 cm2/g) respect to
the control crop (which values were 14.7%, 8197.8
mg/kg and 62.5 cm2/g respectively). This data are
partially in agreement with Alberici et al., [25] who
assessed that the use of vegetable-extract-based
biostimulants with the addition of aminoacids
(Actiwave) at different concentrations on lettuce
grown under plastic tunnels caused an increase in
marketable yield and lower leaf nitrate content.

Processing tomato under organic crop system (year 2009).

Treatments
Biostimulants
Control

The 2010-2011 trial on durum wheat (cv Quadrato)

(Table 3), the two treatments subject to biostimulants
by foliar application (at the tillering and tillering +
heading stages) gave no positive response in terms of
yield quantity (grain yield) and quality (protein
content, gluten content, yellow index and hectoliter
weight) compared with the control. These results were
different from another study for durum wheat (cv

Cultivar

Plants m2
(no.)

Marketable yield
(t/ha)

Red fruits
Dry matter
Soluble solids
pH
(%)
(Brix)
7.4
4.22 4.76

Color
(a/b)
1.15

Docet

3.8

55.2

Mean weight
(g)
55.8

Messapico

3.9

56.1

56.3

8.4

4.26

4.80

1.15

Docet

3.2

49.0

54.1

7.7

4.24

4.47

1.14

Messapico

3.7

62.8

56.5

7.1

4.35

4.40

1.15

All data were not significantly different according to ANOVA.

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

Table 2

509

Processing tomato (cv Docet) under conventional crop system (year 2011).
Plants m2
(no.)

Treatments

Red fruits

Marketable yield
(t/ha)

Biostimulants

4.0

200.1 a

Mean weight
(g)
87.4 a

Control

3.8

165.5 b

80.9 b

Dry matter
(%)
7.3 a
6.6 b

4.49

Soluble solids
(Brix)
5.1

Color
(a/b)
1.20

4.44

5.2

1.14

pH

Statistical differences among mean values are indicated by different letters (0.01 P) according to ANOVA and Tukey test.
Table 3

Durum wheat (cv Quadrato) (year 2010-2011).

Biostimulant applied to tillering stage

Grain yield Protein content Gluten content Yellow Index Hectolitre weight
(t/ha)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(kg)
4.30
13.3
10.1
18.4
83.5

Biostimulant applied to tillering and heading stage

4.44

13.2

10.1

18.4

83.5

Control

4.78

13.5

10.1

18.5

83.5

Treatments

All data were not significantly different according to ANOVA.

Table 4

Lettuce (cv Canasta OR/ROS) grown in pots (year 2011).

Head values

Biostimulants 311.3

272.1

Total
number
of leaves
(no.)
28.6

Control

282.7

31.6

Treatments

Total
weight
(g)
343.5

Marketable
weight
(g)

Surface
of
total
leaves
(cm2)
2999

Number
of
edible
leaves
(no.)
24.6

Edible leveas
Surface
Nitrate
of edible Dry matter content
leaves
(%)
(mg/kg
of
(cm2)
dry leaves)
2532
15.6
7951.2

Leaf
thickness
(cm2/g of dry
leaves)
60.0

3187

26.6

2599

62.5

14.7

8197.8

All data were not significantly different according to ANOVA.

4. Conclusions
Results from four agronomic trials carried out in
Capitanata on supplying biostimulants to processing
tomato crop (cv Docet and Messapico under organic
crop system and cv Docet under conventional system),
durum wheat (cv Quadrato) and lettuce (cv Canasta
OR/ROS), were generally quite variable.
In processing tomato under organic system, both
Docet and Messapico cultivars gave in general very
low yields. In addition, no significant difference in
yield quantity and quality parameters between
biostimulant treatment compared with the untreated
control were shown. On the contrary the biostimulant
treatment on processing tomato (cv Docet) under
conventional system gave significantly higher values
of marketable yield, mean fruit weight and dry matter
than the control. On durum wheat and lattuce no
significant difference was observed in the treatments
subject to biostimulants compared to controls.

However, in particular, in lattuce the biostimulant

treatment tended to have positive effect on some
characteristics of leaves (lowest nitrate content and
highest dry matter).
The present study, on the whole, seems to confirm
that biostimulants could be effectively applied in
primary production activity. Undoubtedly, research on
the supply of biostimulants to crops is rather complex
because of the numerous variables involved.
Therefore, further experimentation is needed to
determine optimal doses and frequency of application
for various crops and cultivar, also depending on
climate and soil conditions.

References
[1]

[2]

Decreto Legislativo n. 217 del 29 aprile 2006. Revisione

della disciplina in materia di fertilizzanti. Supplemento
ordinario alla Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n. 141.
Quartieri, M., Cavani, L., Lucchi, A., Marangoni, B., and
Tagliavini, M. 2002. Effects of the rate of protein
hydrolysis spray concentration on growth of potted

510

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]

Applying Natural Fertiliers to Herbaceous Crops

kiwifruit (Actinidia deliziosa) plants. Acta Horticulturae
594: 341-347.
Cavani, L., and Ciavatta, C. 2007. Attivit biostimolante
negli idrolizzanti proteici. LInformatore Agrario 44:
46-52.
Russo, R. O., and Berlyn G. P., 1990. The use of organic
biostimulants to help low input sustainable agriculture.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 1: 19-43.
Vernieri, P., and Mugnai, S. 2003. Luso dei
biostimolanti nella produzione di piante fiorite annuali da
bordura. LInformatore Agrario 24: 51-54.
Rea, E., Di Monte, G., and Benedetti, A. 1998.
Biostimolanti. In Sequi P. I fertilizzanti organici.
201-206: LInformatore Agrario.
Nardi, S., Pizzeghello, D., and Tosoni, M. 2005. I
biostimolanti azione e propriet agronomiche.
Phytomagazine 36: 2-3.
Vercesi, A., Presutto, P., and Pezzato, S. 2005.
Limpiego
dei
biostimolanti
in
viticoltura.
Phytomagazine 36: 25-32.
Maini, P. 2006. The experience of the first biostimulant,
based on amino acids and peptides: a short retrospective
review on the laboratory researches and the practical
results. Fertilitas Agrorum 1 (1): 29-43.
Sahain, M. F. M., Elham, Z., Motty, A., and El-Shiek
Hagagg, L. F. 2007. Research Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Sciences 3 (5): 422-429.
Filippini, L., and Bonfiglioli, M. 2005. I biostimolanti
contro gli stress abiotici. Phytomagazine 36: 47-54.
Vernieri, P., Ferrante, A., Borghesi, E., and Nagnani, G.
2005. Application of biostimulant in floating system for
improving rocket quality. Journal of Food Agriculture
and Environment 3 (3 & 4): 86-88.
Marco, S. Di, and Osti, F. 2009. Effect of biostimulant
sprays on Phaeomoniella chlamydospora and esca proper
infected vines under greenhouse and field conditions.
Phytopathol. Mediterr 48: 47-58.
Garcia-Mina, J. Ma. 2004. The relationships among
mineral nutrition, biostimulation and plant defense
mechanisms: An example in citrus plant. Fertilitas

Agrorum 1 (1): 83-88.

[15] Sacco, S. 2007. Biostimolanti, una spinta per le piante.
Terra. e Vita 30: 60-61.
[16] Ertani, A., Altissimo, A., Franceschi, C., and Nardi,
S. 2009. Biostimulant activity of two protein
hidrolysates in peroxidase and esterase activity on maize
seedlings. Presented at the 18 C Simposium of the
International Scientific Centre of Fertilizers, Rome, Italy,
pp. 442-448.
[17] Helliot, M. L., and Prevatte, M. 1996. Response of
tigdwarf
bermudagrass
to
seaweed-derived
biostimulants. Hort Tecnology 6: 261-263.
[18] Apone, F., Arciello, S., Colucci, G., Filippini, L., and
Portoso, D. 2006. Alle radici della biostimolazione:
Indagini scientifiche a supporto. Fertilitas Agrorum 1:
55-63.
[19] Tagliavini, S., and Kubiskin, C. 2006. Effetti della
biostimolazione in Ortofrutticoltura: Alcune esperienze a
confronto. Fertilitas Agrorum 1: 23-28.
[20] Gamba, U., Spagnolo, S., Pinna, M., and Nervo, G. 2001.
Impiego di biostimolanti in orticoltura biologica.
available online at: http://www.regionepiemonte.it/
agri/ita/agriservice/../cavolozucchino.pdf.
[21] Vernieri, P., Ferrante, A., Borghesi, E., and Mugnai, S.
2006. I biostimolanti: uno strumento per migliorarne la
qualit delle produzioni. Fertilitas Agrorum 1: 17-22.
[22] Vernieri, P., Malorgio, F., and Tognani, F. 2002. Uso di
biostimolanti nella produzione di piantine da orto.
Colture Protette 1: 75-79.
[23] Disciglio, G., and Depellegrino, F. 2009. Application of
organic mineral fertilizers on processing tomato crop. in
Proceedings of the XXXIII CIOSTA CIGR V Conference,
Reggio Calabria 1247-1251.
[24] Petrozza, A., Lacertosa, G.,
Devita, P., and Di
Tommaso, G., 2007. I biostimolanti migliorano la
qualit del frumento duro. Terra. e Vita. 5: 95-97.
[25] Alberici, A., Valagussa, M., Piaggesi, A., and Ferrante, A.
2009. Effects of biostimulants on quality of baby leaf
lettuce grown under plastic tunnel. Acta Horticulturae
807: 407-412.