Table 5.
Nutrient composition of tomato leaves in different treatments in the microplot experiment.
| Element/Parameter | Concentration in Different Treatments | ANOVA Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | PC | BfH | ||
| Relative chlorophyll content | 46.12 ± 2.07 a | 49.89 ± 4.23 a | 59.72 ± 6.42 b | F2, 9 = 9.34, p = 0.0064 |
| N, % | 2.48 ± 0.46 a | 1.82 ± 0.26 b | 2.77 ± 0.23 a | F2, 9 = 8.57, p = 0.0083 |
| P, % | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 0.19 ± 0.06 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | F2, 9 = 1.68, p = 0.2401 |
| K, % | 2.07 ± 0.51 | 1.70 ± 0.41 | 2.27 ± 0.20 | F2, 9 = 2.16, p = 0.1708 |
| Ca, % | 3.74 ± 0.75 a | 3.02 ± 0.72 ab | 2.18 ± 0.27 b | F2, 9 = 6.34, p = 0.0191 |
| Mg, % | 0.55 ± 0.17 | 0.57 ± 0.13 | 0.55 ± 0.09 | F2, 9 = 0.04, p = 0.9616 |
| S, % | 0.77 ± 0.14 a | 0.65 ± 0.21 ab | 0.41 ± 0.04 b | F2, 9 = 6.39, p = 0.0188 |
| Na, µg g−1 | 496.25 ± 199.16 | 460.35 ± 246.00 | 751.68 ± 193.44 | F2, 9 = 2.20, p = 0.1667 |
| Cu, µg g−1 | 8.84 ± 1.43 a | 5.40 ± 1.09 b | 8.62 ± 1.05 a | F2, 9 = 10.33, p = 0.0047 |
| Fe, µg g−1 | 145.44 ± 21.49 | 155.10 ± 48.69 | 125.73 ± 23.32 | F2, 9 = 0.80, p = 0.4803 |
| Mn, µg g−1 | 49.60 ± 17.34 | 44.83 ± 11.31 | 41.95 ± 10.76 | F2, 9 = 0.33, p = 0.7279 |
| Mo, µg g−1 | 3.78 ± 0.91 a | 3.16 ± 0.84 ab | 2.21 ± 0.21 b | F2, 9 = 4.75, p = 0.0391 |
| Zn, µg g−1 | 19.82 ± 3.29 ab | 16.15 ± 1.56 a | 23.14 ± 2.87 b | F2, 9 = 6.83, p = 0.0157 |
Dataset size for each analysis, n = 12. Data presented as averages with the standard deviation (±SD); ANOVA statistic (Fdf, df—F-statistic with degrees of freedom (df) between groups, and df within groups; p—p-value); and Tukey’s HSD results. Means sharing a letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05. NC—negative control; PC—positive control (nematicide); BfH—high B. firmus inoculum.