Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Enhancing nanofertilizers’ performance for improved yield and quality of cotton

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12373
Submitted
21 October 2025
Published
24-12-2025

Abstract

Nanofertilizers have shown promise in enhancing nutrient use efficiency, yield and fiber quality in cotton, however, the performance of foliar applied nanofertilizers still requires improvement. Therefore, a two-year field experiment (2016-17 and 2018-19) was conducted at the Central Institute for Cotton Research, Regional Station, Coimbatore, to evaluate the effects of foliar application of different dosages of commercially available nanofertilizers, with and without surfactant, on cotton growth and yield. The ten treatments included T1-control, T2-recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF), T3-100 % Nualgi without surfactant, T4-200 % Nualgi without surfactant, T5-100 % Nualgi with surfactant, T6-200 % Nualgi with surfactant, T7-100 % Nanomol without surfactant, T8-200 % Nanomol without surfactant, T9-100 % Nanomol with surfactant and T10-200 % Nanomol with surfactant were replicated thrice and laid out in randomized block design (RBD). Nanofertilizers (T3-T10) were foliar sprayed at 45 and 90 days after sowing (DAS), i.e., at both vegetative and flowering stage of cotton (var. Suraj). The results revealed that the
foliar application of Nualgi nanofertilizer with surfactant significantly increased nitrate reductase (NR) activity, total chlorophyll content, reducing sugar, total potassium content, the number of opened bolls per plant, boll weight and seed cotton yield. Similarly, foliar spraying of Nanomol nanofertilizer without surfactant significantly enhanced the reducing sugar, total nitrogen (N), number of opened bolls per plant, boll weight and seed cotton yield. On average, a 28 % increase in seed cotton yield was recorded with 100 % Nualgi nanofertilizer with surfactant (15.4 q ha-1) and 100 % of Nanomol nanofertilizer without surfactant (15.4 q ha-1) compared to RDF (12.0 q ha-1). However, fibre quality parameters were not significantly affected by the foliar application of nanofertilizers.

References

  1. 1. Kaur L, Sharma S. Socio-economic status of cotton growers in western zone of Punjab, India. Arch Curr Res Int. 2025;25(1):124-33. https://doi.org/10.9734/acri/2025/v25i11044
  2. 2. Ministry of Textiles (India). Annual report: cotton (Annexure VII). New Delhi: Government of India; 2025.
  3. 3. Norman S, Hongda C. IB in depth. Special section on nanobiotechnology, part 2. Ind Biotechnol. 2013;9:17-8.
  4. 4. Ghormade V, Deshpande MV, Paknikar KM. Perspectives for nanobiotechnology enabled protection and nutrition of plants. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29:792-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.06.007
  5. 5. Kanjana D. Potential applications of nanotechnology in major agricultural divisions - a review. Int J Agric Environ Bio. 2015;8:699-714.
  6. 6. Kanjana D. Advancement of nanotechnology applications on plant nutrients management and soil improvement. In: Prasad R, Kumar V, Kumar M, editors. Nanotechnology. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p. 209-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4678-0_12
  7. 7. Sadasivam S, Manickam A. Biochemical methods. 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age International; 1996.
  8. 8. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India; 1973.
  9. 9. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  10. 10. Rohilla P, Yadav JP. Nitrate reductase structure, role and factors affecting its regulation: a review. Plant Arch. 2020;20(2):5787-93.
  11. 11. Liang Y, Cossani CM, Sadras VO, Yang Q, Wang Z. The interaction between nitrogen supply and light quality modulates plant growth and resource allocation. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:864090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.864090
  12. 12. Peirce CAE, McBeath TM, Priest C, McLaughlin MJ. Timing of application and inclusion of a surfactant affect absorption and translocation of foliar phosphoric acid by wheat leaves. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:1532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01532
  13. 13. Januszkiewicz K, Mrozek-Niecko A, Rozanski J. Effect of surfactants and leaf surface morphology on evaporation time and coverage area of ZNIDHA droplets. Plant Soil. 2019;434:93-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3785-4
  14. 14. Ueda Y, Konish M, Yanagisawa S. Molecular basis of nitrogen response in plants. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2017;63(4):329-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1360128
  15. 15. El-Metwally IM, Doaa MR, Abo-Basha AEAM, Abd El-Aziz M. Response of peanut plants to different foliar applications of nano-iron, manganese and zinc under sandy soil conditions. Middle East J Appl Sci. 2018;8:474-82.
  16. 16. Verma KK, Song XP, Joshi A, Rajput VD, Singh M, Sharma A, et al. Nanofertilizer possibilities for healthy soil, water and food in future: an overview. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:865048. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.865048
  17. 17. Liu X, Nadeem M, Yukui R. Effects of nanofertilizers on the mechanism of photosynthetic efficiency in plants: a review. Phyton Int J Exp Bot. 2024;93:3197-216. https://doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2024.059281
  18. 18. Kanjana D. Evaluation of foliar application of different types of nanofertilizers on growth, yield and quality parameters and nutrient concentration of cotton under irrigated condition. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2020;9(7):429-4. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.907.048
  19. 19. Yan G, Fan X, Zheng W, Gao Z, Yin C, Li T, Liang Y. Silicon alleviates salt stress-induced potassium deficiency by promoting potassium uptake and translocation in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J Plant Physiol. 2021;258-9:153379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2021.153379
  20. 20. dos Santos Sarah MM, de Mello Prado R, Teixeira GCM, de Souza Júnior JP, de Medeiros RLS, Barreto RF. Silicon supplied via roots or leaves relieves potassium deficiency in maize plants. Silicon. 2021;14(4):773-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-020-00908-1
  21. 21. Khaitov B, Abdualimov S, Allanov K, Khalikov B, Avliyakulov M, Islamov S, et al. Efficiency of silicious nano nutrition on cotton productivity in arid regions. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2024;8:1362369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1362369
  22. 22. Sawan ZM. Cottonseed yield and its quality as affected by mineral nutrients and plant growth retardants. Cogent Biol. 2016;2(1):1245938. https://doi.org/10.1080/23312025.2016.1245938
  23. 23. Gourkhede PH, Patil VD, Narle SH. Influence of chelated plant nutrition on yield, nutrient concentration and uptake of Bt-cotton under vertisols. J Agric Res Technol. 2022;47(1):109-22. https://doi.org/10.56228/JART.2022.47121
  24. 24. Hatami M, Kariman K, Ghorbanpour M. Engineered nano material mediated changes in metabolism of terrestrial plants. Sci Total Environ. 2016;571:275-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.184
  25. 25. de Souza Júnior JPS, Prado RM, Campos CNS, Oliveira DF, Cazetta JO, Detoni JA. Silicon foliar spraying in the reproductive stage of cotton is equivalent to boron for yield increase and combined B-Si without polymerization improves fiber quality. Ind Crops Prod. 2022;182:114888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114888
  26. 26. Rabeh HA, El-Motaium RA, Badawy SH. Nano-silicon and boron foliar applications promote growth, yield and fiber quality of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). J Plant Nutr. 2023;46(15):3617-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2023.2209114
  27. 27. Sekhon BS. Chelates for micronutrient nutrition among crops. Resonance. 2003;8(7):46–53.
  28. 28. Tariq A, Anjum SA, Randhawa MA, Ullah E, Naeem M, Qamar R, et al. Influence of zinc nutrition on growth and yield behaviour of maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Am J Plant Sci. 2014;5:2646-54. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.518279
  29. 29. Gobi R, Vaiyapuri V. Effect of sulphur, zinc and boron fertilization on growth, yield, quality and economics of irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Int J Agric Sci. 2012;3(3):279-82.
  30. 30. Abdallah AM, Mohamed HFY. Effect of foliar application of some micronutrients and growth regulators on some Egyptian cotton cultivars. J Appl Sci Res. 2013;9(6):3497-507.
  31. 31. Sankaranarayanan K, Praharaj CS, Nalayini P, Bandyopadhyay K, Gopalakrishnan N. Effect of magnesium, zinc, iron and boron application on yield and quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Indian J Agric Sci. 2010;80(8):699-703.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.