## 3 Results
### Foliar Nutrient Concentrations and Total Plant Nutrient Content  
Significantly lower leaf N concentrations were determined for both the basal and apical leaves in the EBLS and the control compared to the SM + EBLS (Table 4). With regard to K, significantly lower leaf K concentrations were recorded in the control compared only to the SM treatment. Similarly, insignificant differences among the four treatments were determined for both Ca and Mg (Table 4). Concerning the micronutrients, a significantly lower leaf Fe concentration was determined for the basal leaves in the SM + EBLS. Similarly, for Zn, a significantly lower foliar Zn was found in the SM + EBLS and the control (Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**N**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**P**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**K**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ca**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mg**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{\% D.W.} \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{SM} & Basal leaves & Apical leaves & Basal leaves & Apical leaves & Basal leaves & Apical leaves & Basal leaves & Basal leaves & Apical leaves \\  & & leaves & leaves & leaves & leaves & leaves & leaves & leaves & leaves \\ \hline SM & 2.23 ab & 2.31 ab & 0.16 a & 0.15 a & 1.64 a & 1.89 a & 1.33 a & 0.87 a & 0.18 a & 0.15 a \\ \hline EBLS & 1.86 b & 1.87 b & 0.15 a & 0.13 a & 1.31 ab & 1.42 ab & 1.24 a & 0.84 a & 0.15 a & 0.13 a \\ \hline SM + EBLS & 2.50 a & 2.55 a & 0.18 a & 0.17 a & 1.53 ab & 1.63 ab & 1.38 a & 0.88 a & 0.17 a & 0.14 a \\ \hline CONTROL & 1.88 b & 1.81 b & 0.17 a & 0.16 a & 1.19 b & 1.23 b & 1.10 a & 0.77 a & 0.14 a & 0.13 a \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Leaf macronutrient concentrations of the olive plants among the treatments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Main**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Apical Leaves\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Basal Leaves\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Apical Steps\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Basal Steps\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Basal Steps\({}^{\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Root Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Shot/Root**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Length**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Biomass (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Root Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Shot/Root**} \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{SM} & FW. & D.W. & F.W. & D.W. & F.W. & D.W. & F.W. & D.W. & F.W. & D.W. & F.W. & D.W. & D.W. \\ \cline{2-11}  & 121.33 & 54.08 & 17.84 a & 8.91 b & 2.99 b & 11.25 a & 4.18 a & 5.03 b & 1.79 b & 11.00 a & 4.60 b & 17.89 a & 4.28 a & 3.09 b \\ \cline{2-11}  & 114.83 & 60.55 a & 21.37 a & 13.84 a & 5.21 & 9.58 a & 3.77 a & 6.78 a & 2.75 a & 11.37 a & 5.12 & 3.96 a \\ \cline{2-11}  & 116.58 & 58.57 a & 20.27 a & 12.61 a & 5.17 & 10.22 a & 3.86 a & 6.49 a & 2.48 ab & 11.52 a & 4.97 b & 17.73 a & 4.44 a & 3.50 ab \\ \cline{2-11}  & 113.50 & 60.57 a & 21.33 a & 10.29 & 4.53 a & 10.16 a & 4.06 a & 6.61 a & 2.98 a & 12.87 a & 6.68 a & 21.03 a & 5.07 a & 3.67 a \\ \cline{2-11}  & & a & & ab & a & 10.16 a & 4.06 a & 2.98 a & 12.87 a & 6.68 a & 21.03 a & 5.07 a & 3.67 a \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Growth parameters of the olive plants among the treatments.