Next Article in Journal
Variability in Chemical Profile and Bioactivities of the Flesh of Greek Pumpkin Landraces
Next Article in Special Issue
From Lab to Field: Biofertilizers in the 21st Century
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Zeolite and Deficit Irrigation on Sweet Pepper Growth
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biodegradation Rate of EDTA and IDS and Their Metal Complexes
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Influence of Selenium, Titanium, and Silicon Nanoparticles on the Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Mango under Drought Conditions

Department of Plant Production, College of Food Science and Agriculture, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
The National Institute of Horticultural Research, Konstytucji 3 Maja 1/3, 96-100 Skierniewice, Poland
Plant Production Department (Horticulture-Pomology), Faculty of Agriculture, Saba Basha, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21531, Egypt
Project Management Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute (ALCRI), City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications (SRTA-City), New Borg El-Arab City 21934, Egypt
Plant Production Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications (SRTA-City), New Borg El-Arab City 21934, Egypt
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2023, 9(11), 1231;
Submission received: 13 October 2023 / Revised: 5 November 2023 / Accepted: 10 November 2023 / Published: 15 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Horticultural Plant Nutrition, Fertilization, Soil Management)


Weather fluctuations significantly affect the growth and production of orchard crops such as mango, leading to a substantial decrease in tree growth, flowering rate, yield, and fruit quality. One of these weather factors is drought, which negatively influences multiple physiological processes in plants. It increases the transpiration rate and decreases the cell turgidity, stomatal regulation, osmoregulation, water utilization efficiency, and the development of the deep root system; consequently, it decreases the final production and fruit quality. Therefore, the present study was performed in the 2022–2023 seasons to study the role of the spraying of Selenium (Se), Titanium (Ti), and Silicon (Si) nanoparticles on the growth parameters, yielding, fruit physical and chemical characteristics, and leaf mineral composition of mango cv. Keitt. Mango trees were sprayed during the vegetative season 2022–2023 three times, starting in April with three weeks intervals, by 5, 10, and 20 mg/L Se; 40, 60, and 80 mg/L Ti; and 50, 100, and 150 mg/L Si. The results showed that the extern spray of nanoparticles from these micronutrients improved the growth attributes, yielding and fruit quality of mango trees by reducing the effect of undesirable stressful conditions. The results also indicated that the extern implementation of 150 mg/L Si, 60 mg/L Ti and 20 mg/L Se gave the best increments in the shoot number, length, thickness, leaf area, and leaf chlorophyll contrasted to the else sprayed treatments. Besides, they also improved the fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit physical and chemical characteristics and nutritional status of mango trees in both tested seasons.

1. Introduction

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is a member of the family Anacardaceae, the cultivated area globally 5974.437 and 148.268 hectares and in Egypt, which produced 57,011,282.78 and 1,327,865 tons in the world and Egypt respectively [1]. It is an evergreen tree, and one of the highest substantial fruits in tropical or subtropical zones, and it can also be effectively grown in the irrigated semiarid regions globally [2]. Besides, it is one of the highest famous and favorite fruit in whole the world, and it is the third important crop behind citrus and grape in Egypt [3]. The mango is a fruit that is highly valued for its remarkable nutritional content and delicious taste. It is a popular fruit that is rich in fiber, carbohydrates, antioxidants, polyphenols, carotenoids, vitamins, and minerals [4,5].
Mango trees are quite sensitive to stressful climate factors; drought, salinity, and high temperatures that can passively influence their development and productivity. Besides, these stressors as well cause a great decline in flower possession and fruit set %, and photosynthesis process, however they improve the rates of respiration, and transpiration, which minimize the yearly productivity [6,7].
Drought stress is a significant environmental challenge which causes a reduction in growth attributes such as shoot and root growth, photosynthetic rates, water absorption, fruit set percentages, flower retention, and final yields across various crops, while it increases the respiration and transpiration rates [8,9,10].
Nanoparticles (NPs) are characterized as chemical substances whose dimensions are limited to less than 100 nm, exhibiting distinct physical, chemical, and biological characteristics compared to their larger and dissolved ionic counterparts [11,12]. Additionally, nano fertilizers are distinct by their wide surface area and small size, which allows them to pass through plant cells and boost the availability of nutrients for crop production [13,14,15,16,17]. They have been utilized on a large scale to reduce the deterioration of soil [18], increasing the obtained yield and the efficacy of the cultivated area [19]. Furthermore, they can also assist in reducing soil and water pollution and minimizing the emissions of carbon, as happens in conventional fertilizers that cause large climate change [20,21,22,23].
Despite Selenium (Se) is not essential for higher plants, its careful utilization can promote plant growth and enhance stress resistance [24,25,26]. Additionally, Se plays a crucial role in diverse plant functions, improving the crop yield by accumulating chloroplast starch, improving resilience to oxidative stress, delaying leaf senescence, and regulating water status under stressful conditions [27]. At lower concentrations, Se has been found to promote the synthesis of chlorophyll precursors [28,29]. Additionally, its application has beneficial effects on mitigating various abiotic stresses such as salt stress [30,31], heavy metals [32,33], and drought [34]. Additionally, Se can affect amino acid biosynthesis by enhancing the accumulation of nitrogen in plants [35]. Furthermore, the application of Se at 50, 100, and 150 mg/L has been shown to promote the production of soluble solids, enhance fruit growth, and increase the total chlorophyll content [36].
Although Titanium (Ti) is an uncommon element, it serves as a biostimulant in plant cultivation, where it exerts a positive influence on biochemical processes that accelerate and improve crop performance [37]. Ti is considered advantageous for plant growth, particularly in enhancing photosynthesis through increased iron ion activity, improving pollen vigor, and augmenting nutrient uptake by plants [38]. In addition, the application of Ti at low concentrations, whether through roots or leaves, has been shown to enhance crop performance by increasing enzyme activity, photosynthesis process, nutrient intake, and stress toleration such as for cold and drought, ultimately improving the crop yield and its quality [39]. Additionally, the utilization of Ti in plant nutrition positively affects various crop phonological processes such as root prolongation, vegetative growth, maturation, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, contributing to overall crop health [40]. Moreover, Ti has been demonstrated to enhance the build up of photosynthetic pigments in strawberries [41] and supports the uptake of vital nutrients like nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and, notably, iron [42].
Silicon (Si) occupies the second arrangement between the most plentiful nutrients in the Earth’s crust, following oxygen [43,44]. It is recognized as a helpful element for plant growth and progress [45]. In addition, it contributes various positive effects such as increasing nutrient and water intake, promoting cell division and plant pigments, and enhancing plant tolerance to abiotic stresses such as lodging, nutrient imbalance, and drought [46,47,48,49]. Additionally, Si has demonstrated its ability to mitigate both abiotic and biotic stresses, such as drought in plants, by maintaining water balance, enhancing photosynthesis, facilitating the absorption of macro and micronutrients, and influencing phytohormones [50,51]. Furthermore, it impacts the organization of xylem vessels, especially during periods of high transpiration rates [47,52,53,54], thereby enhancing both plant growth and final yield [54,55]. Application of Si on avocado plants has been observed to reduce respiration and ethylene production rate, leading to increased growth [56,57]. Moreover, Si has been demonstrated to improve pollen fertility, increase fruit yield, enhance fruit sugar content, and prolong shelf life in strawberries [58].
Thus, the present study was assessed to evaluate the effects of administering Se, Ti, and Si nanoparticles in mitigating the negative consequences of drought stress and improving the performance of Keitt mango cultivar.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Description and Its Design

The current study was performed to test the efficiency of the foliar spraying of Selenium (Se) at 5, 10, and 20 mg/L; Titanium (Ti) was used as TiO2 at 40, 60 and 80 mg/L; Silicon (Si), which was used as SiO2 at 50, 100 and 150 mg/L as compared to unsprayed trees as a control. The trial was carried out on mango trees cv. Keitt, which was at eight years old in the Nubaria region, El Beheira governorate, Egypt under drip irrigation during the 2022–2023 seasons. Each treatment consisted of six trees/replicates, and the used treatments were arranged in a randomized block design (RCBD) in 60 trees that were of the same size, development, and vigor. The physical and chemical advantages of the experimental soil are shown in Table 1.
The trees were sprayed three times in April, mid-April, and the start of the May 2022–2023 seasons. The impact of the above-mentioned treatments was testing by measuring their effects on the subsequent parameters.

2.2. Vegetative Growth Parameters

In mid-September and after picking the fruits in the 2022–2023 seasons, the shoot length and diameter were measured in cm and the shoot number was accounted. Leaf total chlorophyll content was measured by using a chlorophyll meter (SPAD- 502, Zhejiang Nade Scientific Instrument Co. Yuhang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China) by registering 10 readings from each replicate (tree). Leaf area (cm2) was measured in August of studying seasons, by taking twenty leaves by using the following equation [59].
LA = 0.70 (L × W) − 1.06
where LA = leaf area (cm2), L = maximum length of leaf (cm), and W = maximum width of leaf (cm).

2.3. Fruit Set Percentages, Fruit Drop Percentages and Fruit Yield

Fruit set and fruit drop percentages were calculated according to Equations (1) and (2), respectively, according to El-Hady et al. [60].
F r u i t   s e t   % = N u m b e r   o f   f r u i t   s e t t i n g T o t a l   n u m b e r   o f   f l o w e r s × 100
F r u i t   d r o p   % = N u m b e r   o f   f r u i t   s e t t i n g N u m b e r   o f   m a t u r e   f r u i t s N u m b e r   o f   f r u i t   s e t t i n g × 100
Fruit yield: Assessment involved calculating the yield for each replicate/tree in kilograms, and then the yield in tons per hectare was determined by multiplying the yield of each tree* number of trees per hectare.

2.4. Fruit Quality

2.4.1. Fruit Physical Characteristics

Over the harvesting period (September 2022–2023), ten fruits were randomly selected from each replicate. The average fruit weight, size, pulp weight, and seed weight were recorded. The dimensions of the fruits, including length and thickness, were measured using a digital Vernier caliper from Cangxian Sanxing Hose Clamp Co., Ltd., China. Additionally, fruit firmness was gauged using a Magness and Taylor pressure tester equipped with a 7/18-inch plunger [61].

2.4.2. Fruit Chemical Characteristics

Total soluble solids (TSS%) were gauged using a handheld refractometer (ATAGO Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The fruit’s acidity was quantified calorimetrically, relying on the estimation of citric acid. This was achieved by employing five millilitres of fruit juice, which was titrated with a known normality of 0.1 N NaOH while using phenolphthalein as an indicator [62]. The vitamin C content (mg/100 mL juice) was assessed using 3% oxalic acid and 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenols [63]. Total and reducing sugars percentages were determined through calorimetric methods involving phenol and sulfuric acid, which were extracted from 5 grams of fresh pulp [64]. Non-reducing sugar content was calculated by deducing the value of reducing sugars from the total sugar content.

2.5. Mineral Content

At the end of the season, a total of twenty leaves were collected in September 2022–2023 [65] to analyze their mineral contents, including nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus. The collected leaves were first cleansed with tap water followed by distilled water, then dried in an oven at 70 °C until a consistent weight was achieved, and subsequently crushed. The samples were digested with a mixture of H2SO4 and H2O2. Nitrogen content was determined using the micro-Kjeldahl method described by Wang et al. [66], while phosphorus content was measured using the vanado-molybdate method as detailed by Wieczorek et al. [67] by using a spectrophotometer (Shanghai Measuretech Instrument Co., Xujing Town, Shanghai, China) at a wavelength of 405 nm. Additionally, potassium content was assessed using a flame photometer (SKZ International Co., Ltd., Jinan Shandong, China) [68].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically analyzed using One-Way ANOVA in a randomized complete block design (RCBD). Duncan’s test was used at 0.05 to compare between the means of the treatments [69] using CoHort Software 6.311 (Pacific Grove, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Vegetative Growth Parameters

The results in Table 2 show that the foliar application of Se, Ti, and Si had a beneficial effect on vegetative growth in terms of total chlorophyll in the leaves, leaf area, shoot length, and shoot thickness, as opposed to control. Moreover, the highest significant increments in leaf chlorophyll and leaf area were as a result of the surface spraying of Si at 150 mg/L, and then by the exterior splash of 60 mg/L Ti in 2022 and 2023 seasons. Concerning the shoot length and shoot diameter, the most substantial increments were achieved through the utilization of 150 mg/L of Si, 60 of Ti, and 20 mg/L of Se through experimental seasons, surpassing the outcomes from other treatments.

3.2. Shoot Number, Fruit Set and Drop Percentage, and Yield

Table 3 showed that, in comparison to unsprayed trees, spraying nanoparticles from each of the Si, Ti, and Se had a significant impact on increasing the shoots numbers, fruit set percentage, and the productivity even in kg or in ton. The results indicate that the most substantial increases in shoot number and fruit set percentages were notably attained through foliar splash of 60 mg of Ti and 20 mg/L of Se, while the most significant enhancements were observed with the spraying of 150 mg/L of Si in the 2022–2023 period. Additionally, the final fruit yields in the two seasons were resulted from the surface spraying of 150 mg/L Si, and then by the spraying of 60 mg/L Ti, and the difference between them were insignificant in 2022 and 2023 seasons. Besides, the fruit drop percentages were markedly minimized by the enforcement of nanoparticles from the three applied micronutrients. The least remarkable and significant values for the fruit drop percentages in the two seasons were noticed with the external spray of 150 mg/L Si and also with 60 mg/L Ti and 20 mg/L Se.

3.3. Fruit Quality

3.3.1. Physical Fruit Characteristics

Data in Table 4 indicated that fruit weight, size, length and diameter were markedly ameliorated by the surface spray of nanoparticles from Se, Ti and Si contrasted to untreated trees in the 2022–2023 period. Moreover, the results indicated that the positive impact of Si and Se increased proportionally with the rising concentration. Specifically, the highest values were observed at concentrations of 20 mg/L form Se and 150 mg/L form Si, surpassing the performance of untreated trees. In the case of Ti application, the most favorable results were noticed with the exterior spray of 60 mg/L of Ti during experimental time.
Fruit physical attributes such as fruit firmness, and pulp and seed weights were positively improved by the spraying of nanoparticles from Si, Ti and Se compared with not sprayed trees in the 2022–2023 seasons (Table 5). Furthermore, the use of 150 mg/L of Si gave the most notable increases in seed weight compared to other applied treatments. It was observed that the variations between the foliar splash effects of 150 mg/L Si and 60 mg/L Ti were minimal and not significant concerning fruit firmness and pulp weight. Additionally, the influence of Si or Se was increased in parallel to increasing the used doses in both experimental time.

3.3.2. Fruit Chemical Characteristics

Concerning the chemical characteristics of the fruit, total soluble solids content and vitamin C, there was a notable increase through foliar application of nanoparticles from Si, Ti, and Se compared to untreated trees in the 2022–2023 period (Table 6). The optimal results in terms of TSS percentage and VC were achieved with the extern splash of 150 mg/L Si, 60 mg/L Ti, and 20 mg/L Se, surpassing the effectiveness of other applied treatments, and 100 mg/L Si was as the upper treatment. Additionally, the TSS-acidity ratio was saliently ameliorated as a result of the spraying of 20 mg/L Se, and 80 mg/L Ti, while at the same time, the most notable increment was obtained by the exterior spraying of 150 mg/L Si in both trial seasons. The fruit acidity content was raised with control treatment compared with sprayed mango trees in the 2022–2023 seasons. Additionally, the least significant values from fruit acidity were noticed by the extern implementation of 150 mg/L Si as compared to the other sprayed treatments.
Total, reduced and non-reduced sugars and carotene content were highly enhanced by the extern spray of Si, Ti and Se nanoparticles in mango fruits as compared to the unsprayed trees (Table 7). Additionally, the highest fruit content from total, reduced and non-reduced sugars and carotene was accompanied by the splash of 150 mg/L Si and then by the exogenous applying of 60 mg/L Ti and then 20 mg/L Se in the two seasons. Additionally, the higher influences from the applied nanoparticles from the three nutrients were more effective than the lower concentrations.

3.4. Mineral Content from Macronutrients

Comparing to unsprayed trees, the data displayed in Table 8 clearly demonstrated an increase in the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content of the leaves as a result of the application of nanoparticles from Se, Ti, and Si. Notably, spraying with 150 mg/L Si resulted in distinct increments in the leaf content of these macronutrients, outperforming other applied treatments. Furthermore, the exterior applying of 60 mg/L Ti and 20 mg/L Se also contributed to an improvement in the nutritional status of mango trees in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, surpassing the impact of other applied concentrations in the 2022–2023 period.

4. Discussion

It is clear from the results of the present study that the extern spraying of Se enhanced vegetative growth, yield, physical and chemical measurements of fruits, and nutrient content from N, K, and P of Keitt mango cultivar.
This was interpreted by the previous studies of many authors, who reported that Se could increase the uptake and balance of essential nutrient elements [70,71]. Yu et al. [72] that Se has a beneficial effect in increasing the growth of crops, stress resistance, photosynthesis, and antagonistic effects against heavy metals. The role of Se in increasing leaf pigments by delaying the tissue senescence and raising the leaf chlorophyll content [73]. Moreover, the leafy spraying of Se markedly raised the iron concentration in roots [74], and absorption of different elements [75]. Additionally, it has been shown that Se can organize the water balance in the plants under drought [76]. The foliar spraying of Se on orange trees increased the leaf area, growth parameters, nutritional status, productivity, and the advantages of fruit quality [71,77,78]. When applied via foliar spraying on apple trees, Se has demonstrated the capacity to elevate both leaf and fruit Se concentrations, resulting in enhanced flesh firmness, and soluble solid content in the fruit [79]. The utilization of Se has demonstrated positive impacts on the nutritional quality of table grapes, contributing to heightened levels of soluble solids, sugars, vitamin C, protein, and leaf mineral content, specifically potassium and calcium. This application has also been effective in diminishing organic acid levels and reducing the accumulation of heavy metals [80]. The surface spray of Se on pomegranate at 0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/L, led to enhancements in shoot length, leaf chlorophyll, fruit set, and fruit yield contrasted to not treated trees. Additionally, this treatment also improved the fruit weight, and length, along with increased the soluble solids as well as total, reduced, and non-reduced sugars in fruits. Simultaneously, it resulted in a reduction in juice acidity on opposite to not sprayed trees [81]. Additionally, the extern application of Se on blueberry at a complete flowering time and one month later, has been found to significantly enhance fruit quality, as well as the nutritional content of the trees [82].
Regarding the result of the present study, Ti remarkably ameliorated the mango growth, yield, fruit quality advantages and its content from elements. These results were earlier illustrated by Grenda [83], who stated that Ti promotes the activity of iron ions, the synthesis of pigments, and leaf chlorophyll content, vegetative growth and the resistance to stressful environmental conditions. Furthermore, Bacilieri et al. [40] reported that Ti can improve the absorption of both macro and micronutrients, which ultimately leads to increased yield. Additionally, it can improve fruit pollination, fertilization, and growth [84]. Moreover, Ti may raise the role of iron, copper, and zinc in leaf cell chloroplasts and cytoplasm [85], so it increases chlorophyll biosynthesis and enzymatic effectiveness, as well as photosynthesis and nutrient uptake rates, and frequently it can raise plant growth and yield [86]. Additionally, the surface spraying of TiO2 NPs increased nitrogen assimilation, thereby boosting amino acids and protein production and growth [87]. Mustafa et al. [88] demonstrated that TiO2 NPs raised IAA and GA, proline, and carbohydrate rates under drought stress conditions. Doklega et al. [89] documented that the spraying of TiO2 at 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L on red cabbage plants led to enhancement of plant growth and yield contrasted to trees that were not sprayed. Additionally, the application of 1 mg Ti L−1 on tomato markedly raised the nitrogen uptake, the weights of shoots and roots, flowering level, number of flowers, chlorophyll content, and photosynthetic rate [90]. The extern spraying of Ti on apple trees led to an extreme increase in fruit yield of around 10–20% [91].
The results show the beneficial role of Si in improving the performance of Keitt mango cultivar under the experimental conditions, and this was previously explained by many authors, who reported that Si can enhance the uptake and transport of water and nutrients by stimulating root system development [92,93]. Further, Kleiber et al. [94] documented that the application of Si fertilizer led to a simultaneous increase in both leaf water content and the fresh weight of plant organs. Additionally, it was reported that Si can alleviate water stress by reducing transpiration [95], improving water retention, and raising photosynthetic rates [96,97,98,99] and chlorophyll content, thereby increasing both crop yield and quality [100,101]. In addition, Si plays a beneficial role in preserving the stability of plant cell membranes, increasing the cellular structure, regulating the intake of the plant elements, and promoting overall growth attributes under abiotic stresses like drought, salinity, and acidity [96,102,103]. The application of SiO2 NPs enhanced the growth and yield of strawberry under water stress [8]. Moreover, applying Si increased fig fruit content from N, K, P, and Ca [104] and Ca content in apple leaves [105]. Additionally, the extern spraying of SiO2 at 100, 200, and 300 mg on apple cvs. Gala Schniga, Ligol, and Topaz markedly raised the fruit yield, fruit weight and size, red blush percentage, and fruit content from silicon, zinc, and copper, as well as leaf content from iron and copper [106]. Al-Hamadani and Joody [107] reported that the application of Si at 50 mL L−1 on peach remarkably increased the number of lateral shoots. The leafy spray of Si increased the content from various micronutrients and fruit weight in mango, pomegranate, and strawberry [81,108,109]. Spraying of K2SiO3 at 0.2% on mango cv. Kesar greatly raised the fruit number and fruit set percentages, and consequently increased the fruit number, while it minimized the fruit drop percentages [110]. In another study, it was documented that the leafy spraying of Si NPs on mango at 50, 100, and 150 mg L−1 throughout the complete flowering time and one month later raised the leaf NPK content, total carbohydrates, and proline under salinized drainage water [111]. The leafy application of K2SiO3 NPs on mango trees markedly increased the flowering rate, chlorophyll content, fruit set percentages, panicle length, and the fruit yield, while it decreased the floral malformation in mango [112].

5. Conclusions

The results of this study cleared that under stressful conditions as drought, it was found that the surface spraying of Se, Ti, and Si NPs effectively improved the performance of mango trees under drought conditions. They increased the shoot length, diameter, number, leaf chlorophyll content, and leaf area; increased the fruit set percentages; and reduced the fruit drop percentages, which consequently ameliorated the final yield and fruit quality parameters in contrast to the unsprayed trees during the experimental seasons. Besides, the application of 150 mg/L Si, gave the highest and significant values in growth, yielding, and fruit quality, and after that was 60 mg/L Ti and 20 mg/L Se in both experimental seasons.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.F.A.M., H.S.A., A.A. and R.M.A.; methodology, W.F.A.M., H.S.A. and R.M.A.; software, W.F.A.M., R.M.A., K.F.A., A.A. and K.G.; validation, W.F.A.M. and K.G.; formal analysis, W.F.A.M., H.S.A., K.F.A., A.A. and R.M.A.; investigation, W.F.A.M., R.M.A. and H.S.A.; resources, W.F.A.M., R.M.A., A.A. and K.F.A.; data curation, W.F.A.M., K.G., A.A. and H.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, W.F.A.M., K.F.A., K.G. and R.M.A.; writing—review and editing, W.F.A.M., K.F.A. and K.G.; supervision, K.F.A. and R.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2023R561), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

All the required data are available in the manuscript.


The authors extend their appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2023R561), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  2. Helaly, M.N.; El-Hoseiny, H.; El-Sheery, N.I.; Rastogi, A.; Kalaji, H.M. Regulation and physiological role of silicon in alleviating drought stress of mango. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 118, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Haseeb, G.M.; Ghounim, I.E.-S.; Hmmam, I.; Mustafa, M.R. Evaluation of four newly introduced mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars grown under El-Giza conditions. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 9405–9410. Available online: (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  4. Hussain, S.Z.; Naseer, B.; Qadri, T.; Fatima, T.; Bhat, T.A. Mango (Mangifera Indica L.)- Morphology, Taxonomy, Composition and Health Benefits. In Fruits Grown in Highland Regions of the Himalayas; Springer: Cham, Switzerlands, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Divya, G.; Arunachalam, R. A study on adoption level of mango growers on the recommended technologies in Krishnagiri district of Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric.J. 2020, 107, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Laxman, R.; Annapoornamma, C.; Biradar, G. Mango. In Abiotic Stress Physiology of Horticultural Crops; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 169–181. [Google Scholar]
  7. Almutairi, K.F.; Górnik, K.; Ayoub, A.; Abada, H.S.; Mosa, W.F.A. Performance of mango trees under the spraying of some biostimulants. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zahedi, S.M.; Moharrami, F.; Sarikhani, S.; Padervand, M. Selenium and silica nanostructure-based recovery of strawberry plants subjected to drought stress. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gholami, R.; Zahedi, S.M. Identifying superior drought-tolerant olive genotypes and their biochemical and some physiological responses to various irrigation levels. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 2057–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Harfouche, A.; Meilan, R.; Altman, A. Molecular and physiological responses to abiotic stress in forest trees and their relevance to tree improvement. Tree Physiol. 2014, 34, 1181–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jaberzadeh, A.; Moaveni, P.; Moghadam, H.R.T.; Zahedi, H. Influence of bulk and nanoparticles titanium foliar application on some agronomic traits, seed gluten and starch contents of wheat subjected to water deficit stress. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobo. 2013, 41, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mousavi Kouhi, S.M.; Lahouti, M.; Ganjeali, A.; Entezari, M.H. Comparative phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles, ZnO microparticles, and Zn2+ on rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): Investigating a wide range of concentrations. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2014, 96, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Raliya, R.; Nair, R.; Chavalmane, S.; Wang, W.-N.; Biswas, P. Mechanistic evaluation of translocation and physiological impact of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles on the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plant. Metallomics 2015, 7, 1584–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kolenčík, M.; Nemček, L.; Šebesta, M.; Urík, M.; Ernst, D.; Kratošová, G.; Konvičková, Z. Effect of TiO2 as plant growth-stimulating nanomaterial on crop production. In Plant Responses to Nanomaterials. Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences; Singh, V.P., Singh, S., Tripathi, D.K., Prasad, S.M., Chauhan, D.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerlands, 2021; pp. 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Reddy, M.P.; Shakoor, R.; Parande, G.; Manakari, V.; Ubaid, F.; Mohamed, A.; Gupta, M. Enhanced performance of nano-sized SiC reinforced Al metal matrix nanocomposites synthesized through microwave sintering and hot extrusion techniques. Prog. Nat. Sci. Mater. 2017, 27, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Valizadeh; Pavithra, G.J.; Rajashekar Reddy, B.; Salimath, M.; Geetha, K.; Shankar, A. Zinc oxide nano particles increases Zn uptake, translocation in rice with positive effect on growth, yield and moisture stress tolerance. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 22, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Valizadeh, M.; Milic, V. The effects of balanced nutrient managements and nano-fertilizers effects on crop production in semi-arid areas. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2016, 5, 31. Available online: (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  18. Rai, M.K.; Deshmukh, S.; Ingle, A.; Gade, A. Silver nanoparticles: The powerful nanoweapon against multidrug-resistant bacteria. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 112, 841–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kashyap, P.L.; Xiang, X.; Heiden, P. Chitosan nanoparticle based delivery systems for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 77, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Subramanian, K.S.; Manikandan, A.; Thirunavukkarasu, M.; Rahale, C.S. Nano-fertilizers for balanced crop nutrition. In Nanotechnologies in Food and Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sekhon, B.S. Nanotechnology in agri-food production: An overview. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2014, 7, 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Roosta, H.R.; Jalali, M.; Ali Vakili Shahrbabaki, S.M. Effect of nano Fe-chelate, Fe-EDDHA and FeSO4 on vegetative growth, physiological parameters and some nutrient elements concentrations of four varieties of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in NFT system. J. Plant Nutr. 2015, 38, 2176–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shang, Y.; Hasan, M.K.; Ahammed, G.J.; Li, M.; Yin, H.; Zhou, J. Applications of nanotechnology in plant growth and crop protection: A review. Molecules 2019, 24, 2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Luo, Y.; Wei, Y.; Sun, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, W.; Han, D.; Shao, H.; Jia, H.; Fu, Y. Selenium modulates the level of auxin to alleviate the toxicity of cadmium in tobacco. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, Q.; Wang, D.; Jiang, X.; Cao, Z. Effects of the interactions between selenium and phosphorus on the growth and selenium accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa). Environ. Geochem. Health 2004, 26, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ríos, J.; Blasco, B.; Cervilla, L.; Rosales, M.; Sanchez-Rodriguez, E.; Romero, L.; Ruiz, J. Production and detoxification of H2O2 in lettuce plants exposed to selenium. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 154, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Alam, M.M.; Nahar, K.; Ahamed, K.U.; Fujita, M. Exogenous salicylic acid alleviates salt stress-induced oxidative damage in Brassica napus by enhancing the antioxidant defense and glyoxalase systems. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 8, 631–639. [Google Scholar]
  28. Babaei, A.; Ranglová, K.; Malapascua, J.R.; Masojídek, J. The synergistic effect of Selenium (selenite,–SeO3 2−) dose and irradiance intensity in Chlorella cultures. AMB Express 2017, 7, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Feng, R.; Wei, C.; Tu, S. The roles of selenium in protecting plants against abiotic stresses. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 87, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Djanaguiraman, M.; Devi, D.D.; Shanker, A.K.; Sheeba, J.A.; Bangarusamy, U. Selenium–an antioxidative protectant in soybean during senescence. Plant Soil 2005, 272, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hawrylak-Nowak, B. Beneficial effects of exogenous selenium in cucumber seedlings subjected to salt stress. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2009, 132, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cartes, P.; Jara, A.; Pinilla, L.; Rosas, A.; Mora, M. Selenium improves the antioxidant ability against aluminium-induced oxidative stress in ryegrass roots. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2010, 156, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mroczek-Zdyrska, M.; Wójcik, M. The influence of selenium on root growth and oxidative stress induced by lead in Vicia faba L. minor plants. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2012, 147, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yao, X.; Chu, J.; Wang, G. Effects of selenium on wheat seedlings under drought stress. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2009, 130, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Puccinelli, M.; Pezzarossa, B.; Rosellini, I.; Malorgio, F. Selenium enrichment enhances the quality and shelf life of basil leaves. Plants 2020, 9, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Y.; Yi, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Effects of selenium fertilizer on fruit quality and plant resistance of blueberry. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. IOP Publ. 2018, 199, 032071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Radkowski, A.; Radkowska, I. Effect of foliar application of growth biostimulant on quality and nutritive value of meadow sward. Ecol. Chem. Eng. A 2013, 20, 1205–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gómez-Merino, F.C.; Trejo-Téllez, L.I. The Role of Beneficial Elements in Triggering Adaptive Responses to Environmental Stressors and Improving Plant Performance. In Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants; Vats, S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lyu, S.; Wei, X.; Chen, J.; Wang, C.; Wang, X.; Pan, D. Titanium as a beneficial element for crop production. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bacilieri, F.S.; Pereira de Vasconcelos, A.C.; Quintao Lana, R.M.; Mageste, J.G.; Torres, J.L.R. Titanium (Ti) in plant nutrition-A review. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2017, 11, 382–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Choi, H.G.; Moon, B.Y.; Bekhzod, K.; Park, K.S.; Kwon, J.K.; Lee, J.H.; Cho, M.W.; Kang, N.J. Effects of foliar fertilization containing titanium dioxide on growth, yield and quality of strawberries during cultivation. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2015, 56, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kleiber, T.; Markiewicz, B. Application of Tytanit in greenhouse tomato growing. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2013, 12, 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  43. Broadley, M.; Brown, P.; Cakmak, I.; Ma, J.F.; Rengel, Z.; Zhao, F. Chapter 8—Beneficial Elements. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants (Third Edition); Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 249–269. [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu, B.; Feng, S.; Yang, L.; Li, C.; Luo, Z.; Wang, T.; Gong, J. Bifacial passivation of n-silicon metal–insulator–semiconductor photoelectrodes for efficient oxygen and hydrogen evolution reactions. Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. López-Pérez, M.C.; Pérez-Labrada, F.; Ramírez-Pérez, L.J.; Juárez-Maldonado, A.; Morales-Díaz, A.B.; González-Morales, S.; García-Dávila, L.R.; García-Mata, J.; Benavides-Mendoza, A. Dynamic modeling of silicon bioavailability, uptake, transport, and accumulation: Applicability in improving the nutritional quality of tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Coskun, D.; Britto, D.T.; Huynh, W.Q.; Kronzucker, H.J. The role of silicon in higher plants under salinity and drought stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghorbanpour, M.; Hatami, M.; Khavazi, K. Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on antioxidant enzyme activities and tropane alkaloid production of Hyoscyamus niger under water deficit stress. Turkish J. Biol. 2013, 37, 350–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Haghighi, M.; Pessarakli, M. Influence of silicon and nano-silicon on salinity tolerance of cherry tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) at early growth stage. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 161, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eraslan, F.; Inal, A.; Pilbeam, D.J.; Gunes, A. Interactive effects of salicylic acid and silicon on oxidative damage and antioxidant activity in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L. cv. Matador) grown under boron toxicity and salinity. Plant Growth Regul. 2008, 55, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hussain, S.; Shuxian, L.; Mumtaz, M.; Shafiq, I.; Iqbal, N.; Brestic, M.; Shoaib, M.; Sisi, Q.; Li, W.; Mei, X.; et al. Foliar application of silicon improves stem strength under low light stress by regulating lignin biosynthesis genes in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Song, A.; Li, P.; Fan, F.; Li, Z.; Liang, Y. The effect of silicon on photosynthesis and expression of its relevant genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under high-zinc stress. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ahmad, S.U.; Szilvási, T.; Irran, E.; Inoue, S. An NHC-stabilized silicon analogue of acylium ion: Synthesis, structure, reactivity, and theoretical studies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 5828–5836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liang, Y.; Nikolic, M.; Bélanger, R.; Gong, H.; Song, A. Silicon-Mediated Tolerance to Salt Stress. In Silicon in Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Patil, A.; Durgude, A.; Pharande, A.; Kadlag, A.; Nimbalkar, C. Effect of calcium silicate as a silicon source on growth and yield of rice plants. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2017, 5, 545–549. [Google Scholar]
  55. Eneji, A.E.; Inanaga, S.; Muranaka, S.; Li, J.; Hattori, T.; An, P.; Tsuji, W. Growth and nutrient use in four grasses under drought stress as mediated by silicon fertilizers. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kaya, C.; Tuna, A.L.; Guneri, M.; Ashraf, M. Mitigation effects of silicon on tomato plants bearing fruit grown at high boron levels. J. Plant Nutr. 2011, 34, 1985–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kaluwa, K.; Bertling, I.; Bower, J. Effect of postharvest silicon application on “hass” avocado fruit physiology. Acta Hortic. 2011, 911, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Peris-Felipo, F.J.; Benavent-Gil, Y.; Hernández-Apaolaza, L. Silicon beneficial effects on yield, fruit quality and shelf-life of strawberries grown in different culture substrates under different iron status. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 152, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Demirsoy, H. Leaf area estimation in some species of fruit tree by using models as a non-destructive method. Fruits 2009, 64, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. El-Hady, S.; Eman, L.; Haggag, M.; Abdel-Migeed, M.; Desouky, I. Studies on sex compatiblity of some olive cultivars. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2007, 3, 504–509. Available online: (accessed on 1 January 2007).
  61. Magness, J.R.; Taylor, G.F. An Improved Type of Pressure Tester for the Determination of Fruit Maturity; Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1925; p. 1982. [Google Scholar]
  62. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, A. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Analytical Chemists International; Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC): Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  63. Nielsen, S.S. Vitamin C Determination by Indophenol Method. In Food Analysis Laboratory Manual; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nielsen, S.S. Phenol-Sulfuric Acid Method for Total Carbohydrates. In Food Analysis Laboratory Manual; Nielsen, S.S., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Arrobas, M.; Afonso, S.; Rodrigues, M.Â. Diagnosing the nutritional condition of chestnut groves by soil and leaf analyses. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 228, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, H.; Pampati, N.; McCormick, W.M.; Bhattacharyya, L. Protein nitrogen determination by Kjeldahl digestion and ion chromatography. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 105, 1851–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Wieczorek, D.; Żyszka-Haberecht, B.; Kafka, A.; Lipok, J. Determination of phosphorus compounds in plant tissues: From colourimetry to advanced instrumental analytical chemistry. Plant Methods 2022, 18, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Asch, J.; Johnson, K.; Mondal, S.; Asch, F. Comprehensive assessment of extraction methods for plant tissue samples for determining sodium and potassium via flame photometer and chloride via automated flow analysis. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. 2022, 185, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Snedecor, G.; Cochran, W. Statistical Methods. In Analysis and Book; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1990; pp. 129–131. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chauhan, R.; Awasthi, S.; Srivastava, S.; Dwivedi, S.; Pilon-Smits, E.A.; Dhankher, O.P.; Tripathi, R.D. Understanding selenium metabolism in plants and its role as a beneficial element. Crit. Rev. Environm. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 1937–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Djanaguiraman, M.; Prasad, P.V.; Seppanen, M. Selenium protects sorghum leaves from oxidative damage under high temperature stress by enhancing antioxidant defense system. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 999–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yu, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, W.; Fan, C.; Chen, T. Positive surface charge enhances selective cellular uptake and anticancer efficacy of selenium nanoparticles. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 51, 8956–8963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhong, Y.; Cheng, J.J. Effects of selenite on unicellular green microalga Chlorella pyrenoidosa: Bioaccumulation of selenium, enhancement of photosynthetic pigments, and amino acid production. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 10875–10883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Broadley, M.R.; Alcock, J.; Alford, J.; Cartwright, P.; Foot, I.; Fairweather-Tait, S.J.; Hart, D.J.; Hurst, R.; Knott, P.; McGrath, S.P. Selenium biofortification of high-yielding winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by liquid or granular Se fertilisation. Plant Soil 2010, 332, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sajedi, N.A.; Ardakani, M.R.; Madani, H.; Naderi, A.; Miransari, M. The effects of selenium and other micronutrients on the antioxidant activities and yield of corn (Zea mays L.) under drought stress. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2011, 17, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kuznetsov, V.V.; Kholodova, V.; Kuznetsov, V.V.; Yagodin, B. Selenium regulates the water status of plants exposed to drought. Dokl. Biol. Sci. 2003, 390, 266–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Haghighi, M.; Abolghasemi, R.; da Silva, J.A.T. Low and high temperature stress affect the growth characteristics of tomato in hydroponic culture with Se and nano-Se amendment. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 178, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ibrahim, H.; Al-Wasfy, M. The promotive impact of using silicon and selenium with potassium and boron on fruiting of Valencia orange trees grown under Minia region conditions. World Rural Observ. 2014, 6, 28–36. [Google Scholar]
  79. Babalar, M.; Mohebbi, S.; Zamani, Z.; Askari, M.A. Effect of foliar application with sodium selenate on selenium biofortification and fruit quality maintenance of Starking Delicious apple during storage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 5149–5156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhu, S.; Liang, Y.; Gao, D.; An, X.; Kong, F. Spraying foliar selenium fertilizer on quality of table grape (Vitis vinifera L.) from different source varieties. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 218, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mosa, W.F.; Behiry, S.I.; Ali, H.M.; Abdelkhalek, A.; Sas-Paszt, L.; Al-Huqail, A.A.; Ali, M.M.; Salem, M.Z. Pomegranate trees quality under drought conditions using potassium silicate, nanosilver, and selenium spray with valorization of peels as fungicide extracts. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, M.; Zhao, Z.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, D.; Chen, B.; Huang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, X. Effects of a foliar spray of selenite or selenate at different growth stages on selenium distribution and quality of blueberries. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 4700–4706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Grenda, A. Activator of metabolism processes. Chemicals in sustainable agriculture. Czech Republic 2003, 4, 263–269. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ertani, A.; Cavani, L.; Pizzeghello, D.; Brandellero, E.; Altissimo, A.; Ciavatta, C.; Nardi, S. Biostimulant activity of two protein hydrolyzates in the growth and nitrogen metabolism of maize seedlings. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wojcik, P.; Klamkowski, K. Szampion apple tree response to foliar titanium application. J. Plant Nutr. 2005, 27, 2033–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cigler, P.; Olejnickova, J.; Hruby, M.; Csefalvay, L.; Peterka, J.; Kuzel, S. Interactions between iron and titanium metabolism in spinach: A chlorophyll fluorescence study in hydropony. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 1592–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Yuan, S.-J.; Chen, J.-J.; Lin, Z.-Q.; Li, W.-W.; Sheng, G.-P.; Yu, H.-Q. Nitrate formation from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen photocatalysed by nano-sized titanium dioxide. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Mustafa, H.; Ilyas, N.; Akhtar, N.; Raja, N.I.; Zainab, T.; Shah, T.; Ahmad, A.; Ahmad, P. Biosynthesis and characterization of titanium dioxide nanoparticles and its effects along with calcium phosphate on physicochemical attributes of wheat under drought stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 223, 112519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Doklega, S.M.; El-Ezz, S.F.A.; Mostafa, N.A.; Dessoky, E.S.; Abdulmajeed, A.M.; Darwish, D.B.E.; Alzuaibr, F.M.; El-Yazied, A.A.; El-Mogy, M.M.; Mahmoud, S.F.; et al. Effect of titanium and vanadium on antioxidants content and productivity of red cabbage. Hortic. 2022, 8, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Haghighi, M.; Heidarian, S.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A. The effect of titanium amendment in N-withholding nutrient solution on physiological and photosynthesis attributes and micronutrient uptake of tomato. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2012, 150, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Prusiński, J.; Kaszkowiak, E. Effect of titanium on yellow lupin yielding (Lupinus luteus L.). Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. 2005, 8, 36–45. Available online: (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  92. Hattori, T.; Inanaga, S.; Araki, H.; An, P.; Morita, S.; Luxová, M.; Lux, A. Application of silicon enhanced drought tolerance in Sorghum bicolor. Physiol. Plant. 2005, 123, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. El-Kareem, M.G.; Aal, A.A.; Mohamed, A. The synergistic effects of using silicon and selenium on fruiting of Zaghloul date palm (Phoenix dectylifera L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng 2014, 8, 259–262. Available online: (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  94. Kleiber, T.; Krzesinski, W.; Przygocka-Cyna, K.; Spizewski, T. The response of hydroponically grown lettuce under Mn stress to differentiated application of silica sol. J. Elem. 2015, 20, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Luyckx, M.; Hausman, J.-F.; Lutts, S.; Guerriero, G. Silicon and plants: Current knowledge and technological perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Liang, Y.; Sun, W.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Christie, P. Mechanisms of silicon-mediated alleviation of abiotic stresses in higher plants: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 147, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Maghsoudi, K.; Emam, Y.; Ashraf, M. Influence of foliar application of silicon on chlorophyll fluorescence, photosynthetic pigments, and growth in water-stressed wheat cultivars differing in drought tolerance. Turk. J. Bot. 2015, 39, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ibrahim, H.I.; Sallam, A.M.; Shaban, K.A. Impact of irrigation rates and potassium silicate fertilizer on seed production and quality of Fahl Egyptian clover and soil properties under saline conditions. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2015, 15, 1245–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. El-Naggar, M.E.; Abdelsalam, N.R.; Fouda, M.M.; Mackled, M.I.; Al-Jaddadi, M.A.; Ali, H.M.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Kandil, E.E. Soil application of nano silica on maize yield and its insecticidal activity against some stored insects after the post-harvest. Nanomater. 2020, 10, 739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Balakhnina, T.; Borkowska, A. Effects of silicon on plant resistance to environmental stresses. Review. Int. Agrophys. 2013, 27, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Guntzer, F.; Keller, C.; Meunier, J.-D. Benefits of plant silicon for crops: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Deshmukh, R.K.; Ma, J.F.; Bélanger, R.R. Role of silicon in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Maghsoudi, K.; Emam, Y.; Pessarakli, M. Effect of silicon on photosynthetic gas exchange, photosynthetic pigments, cell membrane stability and relative water content of different wheat cultivars under drought stress conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 1001–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Saleem, Q.T.S.; Joody, A.T. Effect of silicon, calcium and boron on apple leaf minerals content. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 50, 296–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wang, B.; Chu, C.; Wei, H.; Zhang, L.; Ahmad, Z.; Wu, S.; Xie, B. Ameliorative effects of silicon fertilizer on soil bacterial community and pakchoi (Brassica chinensis L.) grown on soil contaminated with multiple heavy metals. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Świerczyński, S.; Zydlik, Z.; Kleiber, T. The influence of foliar nutrition of apple trees with silicon on growth and yield as well as mineral content in leaves and fruits. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Al-Hamadani, Z.; Joody, A. Effect of sewage and silicon fertilization on the growth of peach trees. Plant Arch. 2021, 21, 1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rahmani, N.; Ahlawat, T.; Kumar, S.; Mohammadi, N. Improving productivity in Mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Kesar through foliar sprays of silicon and salicylic acid. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2017, 5, 1440–1443. [Google Scholar]
  109. Soppelsa, S.; Kelderer, M.; Casera, C.; Bassi, M.; Robatscher, P.; Matteazzi, A.; Andreotti, C. Foliar applications of biostimulants promote growth, yield and fruit quality of strawberry plants grown under nutrient limitation. Agronomy 2019, 9, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Aal, J.; Karetha, K. Effect of foliar application of biostimulants and silicon on fruit set and drop of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Kesar. J. Pharm. Innov. 2022, 11, 591–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Elsheery, N.I.; Helaly, M.N.; El-Hoseiny, H.M.; Alam-Eldein, S.M. Zinc oxide and silicone nanoparticles to improve the resistance mechanism and annual productivity of salt-stressed mango trees. Agronomy 2020, 10, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Gad, M.; Abdel-Mohsen, M.; Zagzog, O. Improving the yield and fruiting characteristics of Ewais mango cultivar by spraying with Nano-chitosan and Nano-potassium silicate. Sci. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 3, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Physical and chemical composition of the trial soil.
Table 1. Physical and chemical composition of the trial soil.
ParameterSoil Depth (cm)
Mechanical analysis %
Textural classSandySandy
CaCO3 (%)4.25.4
Organic matter (%)0.350.20
EC, dS/m (Soil extraction 1:5)0.8010.823
Available nutrients (mg/kg)
Soluble cations (meq/L)
Soluble anions (meq/L)
Table 2. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on leaf total chlorophyll, leaf area, shoot length, and shoot thickness of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 2. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on leaf total chlorophyll, leaf area, shoot length, and shoot thickness of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
TreatmentsTotal Chlorophyll
Leaf Area
Shoot Length
Shoot Thickness (mm)
Control040.706 g43.37 e71.47 g73.47 h37.12 f41.25 e6.22 f6.58 f
Se5 mg/L41.60 fg43.68 e74.52 f75.92 g39.7343.45 de6.45 e6.85 e
10 mg/L44.05 e46.20 d80.01 d83.47 d40.49 e44.05 d7.07 c7.31 d
20 mg/L53.16 c55.02 c82.12 c87.60 c46.57 c49.46 b8.04 a8.37 a
Ti40 mg/L43.39 ef43.20 e77.07 e77.87 f39.69 e41.76 de6.83 d6.90 e
60 mg/L55.70 b57.49 b85.85 b90.28 b49.11 b51.82 a8.16 a8.53 a
80 mg/L48.11 d45.96 d79.65 d83.54 d43.87 d46.66 c7.40 b7.64 c
Si50 mg/L42.13 fg44.80 de77.80 e80.68 e41.24 e43.77 d6.91 cd7.28 d
100 mg/L51.832 c54.31 c82.10 c84.01 d44.47 d47.37 bc7.59 b7.98 b
150 mg/L58.76 a61.92 a88.22 a92.32 a52.02 a52.82 a8.12 a8.42 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Table 3. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on shoot number, fruit set %, and fruit yields of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 3. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on shoot number, fruit set %, and fruit yields of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
TreatmentsShoot NumberFruit Set %Fruit Drop %Fruit Yield (kg/Tree)Fruit Yield (ton/h)
ControlControl38.55 h38.24 f7.87 h8.65 f82.97 a80.90 a32.07 d35.70 d51.35 d57.15 d
Se5 mg/L40.58 g44.29 de8.35 g8.79 ef81.59 b79.12 b32.88 d37.03 cd52.64 d59.28 cd
10 mg/L45.08 e46.08 d9.71 de10.20 c76.87 d73.59 d34.90 bc37.66 c55.87 bc60.29 c
20 mg/L49.58 c52.88 b10.37 c10.69 b73.31 f68.75 f36.56 b40.85 b58.53 b65.39 b
Ti40 mg/L42.83 f44.48 de9.18 f9.07 e80.50 b76.64 c32.69 d36.79 cd52.32 d58.89 cd
60 mg/L53.44 b55.67 a10.66 b11.19 a70.32 g65.75 g39.88 a43.90 a63.84 a70.27 a
80 mg/L44.62 e48.47 c9.91 d10.28 c75.59 e72.94 d34.97 bc38.33 c55.97 bc61.50 c
Si50 mg/L43.62 ef43.22 e9.52 e9.64 d78.22 c75.52 c33.11 cd37.71 c53.00 cd60.37 c
100 mg/L47.08 d48.85 c10.23 c10.52 bc74.43 ef70.67 e36.38 b40.19 b58.23 b64.33 b
150 mg/L56.04 a57.76 a10.96 a11.42 a65.68 h62.50 h41.66 a44.70 a66.66 a71.52 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Table 4. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit weight, size, length, and diameter of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 4. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit weight, size, length, and diameter of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
TreatmentsFruit Weight (g)Fruit Size (cm3)Fruit Length (cm)Fruit Diameter (cm)
Control0449.01 f458.63 h460.21 f477.63 h9.85 f10.12 f8.22 f8.26 f
Se5 mg/L467.83 e477.33 g486.03 e497.53 g10.39 e10.44 ef8.28 f8.47 e
10 mg/L493.80 d513.42 e514.20 d532.42 e11.28 d11.70 d8.70 e9.32 d
20 mg/L539.69 b542.09 c560.29 b562.09 c12.38 c12.47 c9.86 c10.37 b
Ti40 mg/L468.42 e488.49 f488.42 e510.87 f10.50 e10.76 e8.44 ef8.63 e
60 mg/L566.53 a566.10 b586.73 a584.50 b13.26 b13.43 b10.26 b10.96 a
80 mg/L513.47 c516.46 e533.47 c536.86 e12.05 c12.05 cd9.15 d9.46 d
Si50 mg/L476.93 e495.53 f497.13 e514.33 f10.78 e10.78 e8.64 e8.66 e
100 mg/L530.22 b525.08 d550.62 b551.68 d12.31 c12.31 c9.60 c9.81 c
150 mg/L571.00 a584 a589.10 a603.00 a14.59 a15.12 a10.82 a11.10 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Table 5. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit firmness, pulp weight, and seed weight of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 5. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit firmness, pulp weight, and seed weight of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
TreatmentsFruit Firmness (kg/cm2)Pulp Weight (g)Seed Weight (g)
Control01.21 e1.22 e363.03 e367.22 f42.07 f43.23 g
Se5 mg/L1.30 d1.30 d379.94 cd382.26 e42.91 ef44.70 fg
10 mg/L1.40 c1.47 c394.24 c406.42 c44.55 ef49.31 e
20 mg/L1.55 b1.59 b428.48 ab422.54 b53.67 c54.94 c
Ti40 mg/L1.26 de1.31 d377.22 d391.25 d43.79 ef44.86 fg
60 mg/L1.73 a1.70 a442.96 a437.22 a60.34 b62.26 b
80 mg/L1.51 b1.48 c416.13 b408.76 c45.22 de50.54 de
Si50 mg/L1.31 d1.38 d384.93 cd396.47 d42.93 ef46.44 f
100 mg/L1.55 b1.49 c428.29 ab412.99 c47.17 d52.25 d
150 mg/L1.77 a1.69 a438.04 a443.74 a65.80 a69.32 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Table 6. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit content from TSS and acidity percentages, TSS-Acidity ratio, and fruit content from vitamin C of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 6. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit content from TSS and acidity percentages, TSS-Acidity ratio, and fruit content from vitamin C of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
TreatmentsTSS%Acidity%TSS-AcidityVC (mg/100 mL Juice)
Control012.88 f13.65 e1.41 a1.40 a9.13 g9.72 f33.80 e35.18 d
Se5 mg/L13.30 ef13.60 e1.38 b1.37 b9.67 f9.94 f34.85 de36.10 d
10 mg/L14.51 c15.63 c1.32 cd1.30 c10.98 d11.99 d36.62 c37.86 bc
20 mg/L15.62 b16.26 b1.29 de1.25 e12.10 b12.97 b37.24 c38.67 b
Ti40 mg/L13.48 de14.19 e1.40 ab1.34 b9.62 f10.57 e34.54 e36.10 d
60 mg/L15.88 b16.36 b1.27 e1.30 cd11.64 bc12.42 cd39.91 b41.71 a
80 mg/L14.73 c16.12 bc1.32 cd1.22 f12.07 b13.37 b36.92 c38.758 b
Si50 mg/L13.82 d14.84 d1.33 c1.35 b10.39 e11.01 e36.07 cd36.64 cd
100 mg/L14.96 c16.36 b1.31 cd1.27 de11.44 c12.87 bc36.76 c39.33 b
150 mg/L16.42 a17.28 a1.23 f1.19 g13.37 a14.58 a41.54 a42.12 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Table 7. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit content from total, reduced, and non-reduced sugars percentages and carotene of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 7. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on fruit content from total, reduced, and non-reduced sugars percentages and carotene of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
TreatmentsTotal Sugars %Reduced Sugars %Non Reduced Sugars %Carotene (mg/100 g)
Control09.32 e9.64 h5.34 e5.25 f3.98 d4.39 e1.26 c1.28 e
Se5 mg/L9.45 e9.66 h5.52 de5.22 f3.93 d4.44 e1.27 c1.294 e
10 mg/L10.37 d10.49 e5.80 cd5.86 de4.58 bc4.63 de1.35 b1.37 c
20 mg/L11.16 c12.07 c6.32 b6.79 b4.84 b5.28 c1.36 b1.44 b
Ti40 mg/L9.36 e9.92 gh5.41 e5.54 ef3.95 d4.37 e1.27 c1.31 de
60 mg/L12.22 b12.77 b6.59 b7.12 a5.63 a5.65 b1.42 a1.44 b
80 mg/L10.57 d10.44 ef5.83 c5.96 d4.74 b4.48 e1.35 b1.43 b
Si50 mg/L9.62 e10.17 fg5.37 e5.65 de4.24 cd4.52 e1.28 c1.34 d
100 mg/L11.04 c11.39 d6.32 b6.47 c4.72 b4.92 d1.40 a1.45 ab
150 mg/L13.02 a14.06 a7.10 a7.14 a5.92 a6.92 a1.44 a1.48 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Table 8. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on leaf mineral content from nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Table 8. Spraying effect of Se, Ti, and Si NPs on leaf mineral content from nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium of mango cv. Keitt during 2022–2023.
Control01.29 g1.39 g0.45 f0.50 f2.25 f2.30 g
Se5 mg/L1.33 g1.44 f0.48 ef0.52 ef2.27 f2.32 g
10 mg/L1.46 ef1.49 e0.51 d0.58 d2.41 d2.36 f
20 mg/L1.57 c1.61 c0.55 c0.62 c2.38 d2.41 e
Ti40 mg/L1.41 f1.44 f0.48 def0.52 ef2.33 e2.35 f
60 mg/L1.64 b1.67 b0.62 b0.64 b2.47 c2.49 c
80 mg/L1.50 de1.53 d0.54 c0.60 cd2.45 c2.43 de
Si50 mg/L1.426 f1.47 ef0.51 de0.54 e2.46 c2.46 cd
100 mg/L1.54 cd1.57 cd0.54 c0.61 c2.52 b2.56 b
150 mg/L1.75 a1.80 a0.70 a0.71 a2.63 a2.66 a
When comparing treatments with identical letters in the same column, there are not any obvious differences.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Almutairi, K.F.; Górnik, K.; Awad, R.M.; Ayoub, A.; Abada, H.S.; Mosa, W.F.A. Influence of Selenium, Titanium, and Silicon Nanoparticles on the Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Mango under Drought Conditions. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1231.

AMA Style

Almutairi KF, Górnik K, Awad RM, Ayoub A, Abada HS, Mosa WFA. Influence of Selenium, Titanium, and Silicon Nanoparticles on the Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Mango under Drought Conditions. Horticulturae. 2023; 9(11):1231.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Almutairi, Khalid F., Krzysztof Górnik, Rehab M. Awad, Ahmed Ayoub, Hesham S. Abada, and Walid F. A. Mosa. 2023. "Influence of Selenium, Titanium, and Silicon Nanoparticles on the Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Mango under Drought Conditions" Horticulturae 9, no. 11: 1231.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop