Effects of foliar boron and zinc applications on potato yield and marketability in semi-arid calcareous soils


Abstract

Boron (B) and zinc (Zn) deficiencies constrain potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) productivity in semi-arid, calcareous soils; yet cultivar-specific responses remain insufficiently resolved. We conducted a split-plot field trial in Şanlıurfa (Türkiye) during the 2022–2023 winter season to quantify foliar B–Zn effects across eight cultivars spanning early (Lady Olimpia), mid-early (Agria, Alegria, Kafkas, Petek, Turaç, Yaprak), and late-maturing (Bahar) classes. Main plots were cultivars; subplots received foliar B–Zn at 0.0 (control), 0.5 (0.5 g L ⁻ ¹ boric acid + 1.0 g L ⁻ ¹ zinc sulfate), or 1.0 (1.0 + 2.0 g L ⁻ ¹) with four weekly sprays beginning 90 days after planting. Mixed-effects models (random: block, block×cultivar; fixed: cultivar, dose, cultivar×dose) generated estimated marginal means; we further applied Derringer–Suich desirability to jointly optimize decare yield and plot-level marketable yield. Pre-plant soil tests indicated very low plant-available B and Zn, providing a strong context for response. Both dose and cultivar×dose were significant for yield (α = 0.05), with a clear maturity-linked pattern in effect sizes. Within the mid-early group, the 1.0 dose delivered the largest gains: Petek +29.5% (4014 vs. 3100 kg da ⁻ ¹), Kafkas +28.2% (4262 vs. 3323), Yaprak +21.4% (4251 vs. 3502), Turaç +13.7%, Agria +14.4%, and Alegria +11.2%. By contrast, the early cultivar Lady Olimpia showed a limited increase (+4.4%), and the late cultivar Bahar rose +6.0%. Component traits corroborated these patterns: marketable tuber number and total tuber weight per plant increased most in responsive mid-early entries (e.g., Petek, Kafkas, Turaç), whereas several less-responsive cultivars plateaued at the 0.5 dose. Multi-criteria optimization identified Yaprak (0.5 or 1.0) and Kafkas (1.0) as Pareto-efficient choices, jointly maximizing total and marketable yield; Petek (1.0) ranked just behind. Collectively, foliar B–Zn improved productivity under B–Zn-poor conditions, but benefits were maturity-class and cultivar specific: mid-early cultivars captured the largest yield and marketability gains, whereas early and late entries showed modest responses. These findings support diagnostics-led micronutrient management and cultivar-tailored dosing, with 0.5–1.0 rates preferred for responsive mid-early types to co-optimize total and marketable yield in similar semi-arid environments.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].