WELCOME

Department of SSAC, College of Agriculture, Latur.

Vasantrao Naik Marathawada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani.

Master Seminar On

Research GuideDr. V. G. Takankhar

Asso. Prof. Department of SSAC, College of Agriculture, Ambajogai.

Presented ByMr. Shantanu Madhukar Jadhav

Reg. No. 2015A/43ML

Foliar Nutrition in Pulses

Seminar InchargeDr. P. H. Vaidya

Asso. Prof. Department of SSAC, College of Agriculture, Latur.

INTRODUCTION

Foliar nutrition is a technique of feeding plants by applying liquid fertilizer directly to their leaves.

Plants are able to absorb essential elements through their leaves.

The absorption takes place faster through their stomatabut total absorption may be as great through the epidermis.

Plants are also able to absorb nutrients through their bark.

Foliar nutrient uptake is a means of rapid nutrient supply, especially when soil nutrient availability or root activity is reduced.

IMPORTANCE & SCOPE

Foliar nutrient uptake is a means of rapid nutrient supply, when soil nutrient availability or root activity is reduced.

Foliar Spray is also the method of choice when prompt correction of nutrient deficiencies is required.

Nutrient sprays can be applied at any point of time during the growing season to improve the appearance and colour, size and quality of fruits.

Foliar fertilization can be applied in combination with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides etc.

During adverse conditions such as drought, disease or insect attack, foliar sprays are more effective.

Nutrients can be applied directly to site of metabolism.

It can increases yields from 12% to 25%.

More than 90% of the fertilizer is utilized by the plant.

Foliar applied fertilizers are up to 20 times more effective than the soil applied fertilizers. Foliar feeding bypasses nutrient uptake through root .

Deficiencies can be corrected within the short time period.

NEED OF FOLIAR FEEDING

MECHANISM OF FOLIAR FEEDING

Nutrient must enter into the leaf before entering into the cytoplasm of the leaf cell.

Nutrient must effectively penetrate the outer cuticle and wall of the epidermal cell.

Once penetration has occurred, nutrient absorption by the cell is similar to absorption by the roots.

Among all the components the cuticle offers the greatest resistance to the nutrients.

1.Proper Growth Stage: Foliar applications should be timed to provide needed nutrients during the yield potential determining time frame of plant development, which favorably influence the post reproductive development stages.

2.Proper Crop Condition: Crops that are nutritionally sound will be most likely to respond to foliar feeding. Crops under heat or moisture stress show less response to foliar applications due to lower leaf & stem absorption rates and poor vigor. Foliar feeding does benefit crop performance and yield if an application was made prior to heat or moisture stress.

METHOD

3.Proper Meteorological Conditions

Environmental influences, such as time of day, temperature, humidity and wind speed influence the physical and biological aspects of foliar applications due to effect on Plant tissue permeability.

Sr. No Meteorological Conditions

Mineral Nutrient Sprays

1 Time of Day late evening; after 6:00 p.m.early morning; before 9:00 am

2 Temperature Between 25-30 C Temp.3 Humidity greater than 70% relative humidity4 Wind Speed less than 5 mph

Fertilizer Materials: 1. Not all fertilizers are suitable for use as a foliar spray. The primary

objective of a foliar application is to allow for maximum absorption of nutrients into the plant tissue; foliar fertilizer formulations should meet certain standards in order to minimize foliage damage.

2. Qualifications for fertilizer materials follow:High solubility. Low salt index.High purity.

Nitrogen Materials: 1. Urea is the most suitable nitrogen source for foliar applications, due

to it’s low salt index and high solubility in comparison to other nitrogen sources.

2. Urea utilized in foliar sprays should be low in biuret content to lessen urea foliage burn.

Types of fertilizer material

Phosphorus Materials: 1. A combination of poly and ortho-phosphates shown to lessen leaf burn

and aid in leaf phosphate absorption . The polyphosphate advantage may also be due to supplying both ortho and polyphosphate forms.

Potassium Materials: 1. Depending on availability, potassium polyphosphates are an excellent

source of low salt index, highly soluble potassium.2. Potassium sulfate- low salt index, but a rather low solubility. 3. Potassium hydroxide, potassium nitrate and potassium thiosulfate -low

salt index and high solubility characteristics.

Secondary and Micronutrient Materials: 1. Foliar application of secondary nutrients can be highly effective, but

because of difficulties associated with leaf tissue absorption and translocation choosing the correct fertilizer sources for these nutrients becomes very critical.

1. Spray during the cooler and more humid times of the day.

2. Spray when wind is low.

3. Never spray plants under very stress of moisture.

4. Test for possible side effects or photo-toxicity by a small trial, spraying a week prior to intended commercial treatments.

5. After spraying rinse thoroughly the sprayer and all it’s parts with fresh water.

For Successful Foliar Fertilization

1) If a deficiency exists, then foliar application would be one means of providing a quick method to fix the problem.

2) When the absorption of plant nutrients is disturbed by weeds, poor aeration, low soil temperature, frequent rainfall etc Nutrients absorbed through the foliage strengthen the plant and help recovering root uptake.

3) The purpose of foliar feeding is not to replace soil fertilization. It is usually a supplement way to compensate nutrients deficiency.

ADVANTAGES OF FOLIAR NUTREINTS

It can be effectively used at varying topographical condition.

Poor and marginal lands could be used effectively.

Foliar fertilization can apply fertilizers in combination with herbicides insecticides fungicides.

It reduces fertilizer requirement of crop by increasing nutrient availability

DISADVANTAGES OF FOLIAR NUTRITION

1) If concentrations of nutrients in the foliar spray are too high, then leaf damage can occur and in severe cases may kill the plant.

2) If rain occurs shortly after an application, most of the spray will be washed off the leaves and reapplication will be necessary.

3) Foliar fertilization is unable to meet the total plant requirements for the major nutrients N, P and K

Toxicity may be the result of osmotic or direct elemental effects.

Osmotic toxicity is due to dehydration of cells by salt solution.

Elemental toxicity occurs by excessive entry of elements into the metabolic space.

Elemental toxicity is also due to excessive concentration of the formulation used.

Toxicity of foliar applications is extremely important but poorly understood process.

Toxicity of Foliar Applications

Possibility of foliar burn (with high concentration).

Solubility problems especially with cold water.

Requirement of correct weather condition.

Incompatible with certain agrochemicals.

Nutrient absorption affected by plant factors.

LIMITATION OF FOLIAR FEEDING

Particulars Area Percent Production percent Productivity

Chickpea 73.7 38.71 58.9 48.28 799.19

Tur 36.3 19.07 27.6 22.62 760.33

Mungbean 34.4 18.07 14 11..48 406.98

Uradbean 31 16.28 14 11.48 451.61

Lentil 15 7.88 9.5 7.79 633.33

Total 190.4 100.0 124 101.64 651.2

Table 1 : Area, production and productivity of major pulses in India ( Areas: lakh ha, production ; lakh tonnes, productivity ; kg/ha)

Table 2. Foliar Application of Nutrients Enhances the Yield Attributes and Nutrient Uptake of Green gram

Sr. Treatment No. of podsplant-1

No. ofseeds pod-1

Grain yield(kg ha-1)

Haulm yield(kg ha-1)

1 T1- No spray (control) 21.0 7.6 712 9392 T2- 2% urea spray 26.0 10.0 793 9763 T3- 2% DAP spray 27.0Z 10.3 817 10144 T4- 0.05% Na molybdate

spray26.0 10.0 813 993

5 T5- 100 ppm salicylic acid 27.0 11.0 818 9756 T6- T2 + T5 29.0 10.6 852 10737 T7- T3 + T5 30.0 11.0 877 11008 T8- T4+ T6 32.0 11.3 895 11049 T9- T4 + T7 34.0 11.6 928 1230

10 T10- Water spray 23.0 8.6 765 870SEd 0.9 0.6 22 61

CD (P=0.05) 1.9 1.3 46 128

TNAU, Coimbatore Kuttimani et al. (2011)

Table 3. Effect of Foliar Nutrition of Potassium Nitrate on the growth and yield of Green gram

Sr. No.

Treatment Yield (kg/ha) Harvest Index

pod Grain FodderT1 KNO3 O.2% 1398 939 2948 21.6T2 KNO3 O.4% 1604 1081 3091 23.0T3 KNO3 O.6% 1511 1001 2983 22.3T4 KNO3 O.8% 1521 1022 3031 22.5T5 Water Spray 1387 913 2825 21.7

SEm 55 34 106 -C.D.(p=0.05) 156 96 228 -

Vekaria et al. (2012).Dry Farming Research StationJunagadh Agricultural University, GJ

Table 4. Effect of Foliar spray of Fertilizer on Yield of Chickpea Var. Vijay

Foliar Spray Grain YieldT1- Control 698T2- Water Spray 706T3- Urea 2% 1094T4- Urea 3% 1095T-5 DAP 2% 1062T-6 KCL 2% 912SE+ 37CD At 5% 74

MPKV. Rahuri Dudhate et al. (2003)

Table 5. Effect of Zn supply on the dry matter yield, floral analysis and reproductive yield of black gram

ParameterDry matter yield gm/plant

Zn Spply (uM)

T1-0.01 T2-0.1 T3- 1.0 T4-2.0 T5-10.0

Leaves 0.660 0.779 0.970 1.053 0.952Stem 0.380 0.590 1.585 1.068 0.992Root 0.063 0.090 0.195 0.184 0.146Whole Plants 1.103 1.159 2.750 2.305 2.090Flower No. 16.0 23.0 44.0 34.0 33.0Anther Size 423 473 790 758 718Pollen Size 58.1 76.3 91.2 88.5 84.7Pollen Viability 32 47 90 84 80No. of pods/ plant 8 11 25 25 20Pod wt./ plant 0.099 0.135 0.256 0.214 0.184No. of seeds per plant 44 68 145 120 102Seed wt. per plant 1.6 1.9 3.7 3.2 2.9Differences between means with different letter in the same row are significant at p<0.05.

University of Lucknow Pandey et al. (2013)

Table 6. Effect of plant growth regulating chemicals and nutrients on seed yield and yield components of green gram (variety CO 6)

Treatment No of pod /

cluster

No of flower/ plant

Fertility coefficient

(%)

Translocation efficiency

(%)

Seed yield (kg ha-1)

T1 – Control 13.20 47.40 27.89 64.23 1162.42T2 – SA 100 ppm 14.37 42.30 33.97 65.16 1250.59T3 – DAP 2% 16.55 43.30 38.19 67.30 1371.79

T4 – DAP 2% + KCl 1%+ NAA 40 ppm

14.90 45.82 32.54 64.31 1195.00

T5 – DAP 2% + SA 100 ppm+ KCl 1% + NAA 40 ppm

19.45 48.12 40.41 68.65 1443.38

SEd 0.75 1.06 - - 40.3

CD (P=0.05) 1.61 2.27 - - 85.9

TNAU, Coimbatore ,T.N. Chandrasekhar and Bangarusamy (2003)

Table 7. Effect of fertility levels and foliar nutrition on cowpea growthSr. Treatment Branches/plant (no.) Plant height(cm) Test Wt(g)

50 DAS At harvest 50 DAS At harvest

Fertility Levels

1 control 5.86 6.69 33.1 44.1 80.6

2 50% RDF 6.51 7.74 36.0 48.7 88.4

3 75% RDF 7.09 8.64 38.5 52.5 90.6

4 100% RDF 7.63 9.26 40.8 55.8 91.2

CD (P = 0.05)Foliar spray

- - 2.2 3.2 6.9

5 Water spray 6.28 7.38 34.6 46.6 85.5

6 2% urea spray 6.97 8.35 37.7 51.1 80.1

7 2% DAP spray 7.02 8.48 39.0 53.0 90.1

8 2% KCl spray 6.82 8.12 37.1 50.3 85.7

CD (P = 0.05) 0.52 0.61 2.2 3.2 NS

Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Choudhary et al.(2011) Agriculture University, Jobner,

Table 8. Effect of foliar application of urea on growth and yield attributes of chickpea

Sr. No. Treatment Plant height (cm)

Branches plant/(no.)

Pods/plant(no.)

100 seed weight (gm)

Seeds/ pod (no.)

Grain yield

(kg/ha)

Grain protein

(%)

T1 Control 42.2 4.8 36.4 18.15 1.6 2401.2 17.94T2 Water spray 43.6 4.9 39.2 18.20 1.6 2409.9 17.88T3 Urea spray at 60 DAS* 44.0 5.2 41.6 18.60 1.7 2535.9 18.75T4 Urea spray at 75 DAS 46.4 5.7 43.7 20.50 1.9 2828.5 18.90T5 Urea spray at 90 DAS 43.0 5.7 42.5 19.70 1.7 2712.5 18.89T6 Urea spray at 60+75 DAS 43.5| 5.6 42.3 19.60 1.9 2723.7 18.89T7 Urea spray at 60+90 DAS 43.9 5.5 41.2 19.50 1.8 2639.6 18.85T8 Urea spray at 75+90 DAS 44.1 5.7 42.7 20.30 1.9 2755.7 19.32T9 Urea spray at 60+75+90

DAS43.7 5.7 43.5 20.30 1.9 2809.4 19.17

CD (P=0.05) NS 0.74 2.97 1.17 0.17 183.6 0.08

Venkatesh and Basu (2011) Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur

Table 9. Performances of fertilizers and foliar nutrition levels on yield of Greengram (Vigna radiata L.)

Treatments No. of pods/plant

Length of pods (cm)

No. of grains pod

Test weight 1000 seed (g)

Grain yield q/ha

Levels ot Fertilizers

F1- 0% RDF (control) 21.13 8.83 9.37 51.20 10.50

F2 -100% RDF 24.54 9.03 10.00 53.21 13.93

F3- 85% RDF 25.83 9.11 10.25 53.42 14.71

F4 -70% RDF 25.30 9.06 10.15 53.23 14.00

CD. at 5% 0.31 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.30

Foliar spray at 20 and 40 DAS

S1- No spray (control) 2245 8.89 9.58 51.88 11.38

S3- water spray 23.61 8.98 9.75 5225 12.87

S3- urea 2% spray 24.25 9.03 10.03 52.89 13.59

S4- DAP 2% spray 26.50 9.13 10.40 54.04 15.30

CD. at 5% 0.31 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.30Department of Agronomy, Allahabad Kumar S. et al. (2015 )

Table 10. Effect of foliar applied DAP and K on growth, yield and quality of mungbean

Treatment Plant height

No of pods

No of seed pod

1000 seed wt (g)

Biological yield kg ha1

Harvest index (%)

Quality protein(%)

T1= Water control

32.10 6.17 5.50 27.87 4082.0 18.70 10.37

T2= 1% DAP 41.00 6.73 5.67 31.23 4773.70 16.97 10.53T3= 2% DAP 43.13 7.57 5.80 32.03 5197.00 15.88 10.80T4= 0.5% K 38.66 6.43 5.17 31.93 4669.00 18.24 11.77T5= 1% K 42.00 6.75 5.30 34.93 4634.00 18.61 12.17T6= 1% DAP + 0.5% K

43.00 7.33 5.43 32.00 4644.00 19.02 15.10

T7= 1% DAP+ 1% K

44.33 8.48 5.93 32.00 4626.00 21.73 17.97

T8= 2% DAP + 0.5 % K

50.00 9.65 8.67 31.47 4646.70 24.24 20.90

T9= 2 % DAP + 1% K

56.00 11.08 10.80 40.97 5713.30 22.24 23.80

LSD 1.73 2.57 0.78 2.62 508.73 1.56 1.71

College of agriculture, Faisalabad Pakistan. Muhammad Tahir et al. (2014)

Table 11. Yield attributes of rainfed chickpea as influenced by foliar and basal nourishment

Sr,no

Treatment Pods/ Plant

Seed/ plant

Seed weight/ Plant

100 Sed Weight

Grain yield(q/ha)

Harvest Index

Foliar Spray

1 Control 48.4 59.4 9.6 11.5 11.61 37.312 Water 51.2 69.8 11.1 12.1 11.96 35.503 Urea (2%) 55.9 87.5 13.4 13.1 13.24 36.244 Urea(3%) 57.9 97.1 15.3 13.9 14.08 36.995 DAP(2%) 60.2 108.9 16.2 14.6 14.78 37.866 KCl (2%) 48.8 71.6 13.8 12.7 12.06 36.16

C.D.(P=0.05) 1.42 4.50 0.51 0.97 0.25 0.34Basal Application

1. Control 48.3 64.2 11.8 12.4 10.77 34.682. N20P50K20S20 59.2 100.5 14.6 13.6 15.14 38.653. C.D. (p=0.05) 0.85 2.70 0.31 0.58 0.15 0.20

Shukla et al.(2013)Goverment P.G. College, Satna, M.P.

Table 12. Effect of foliar application of DAP, micronutrient and NAA on growth and yield of green gram (Vigna radiata l.)

Dixit and Elamathi (2007)Department of Agronomy, Allahabad Agricultural Institute

Sr.No.

Treatments No. of pods/ plant

1000-Seed wt.

(gm)

GrainYield

(Q/ha)

HaulmYield

(Q/ha)T1. Control 18.00 26.63 6.26 28.36T2. DAP 2% 18.26 28.20 7.90 27.53T3. NAA 40 ppm 20.06 29.36 7.53 29.23T4. B 0.2% 18.06 28.70 6.83 30.00T5. Mo 0.05% 19.33 27.00 6.53 26.46T6. DAP 2% + NAA 40 ppm 23.46 29.06 8.09 28.20T7. DAP 2% + B 0.2% 19.00 28.16 7.83 27.13T8. DAP 2% + Mo 0.05% 20.46 27.56 7.96 25.86T9. NAA 40 ppm + B 0.2% 20.53 27.90 7.90 26.23T10. NAA 40 ppm + Mo 0.05% 22.80 27.80 8.13 29.53T11. B 0.2% + Mo 0.05% 22.06 30.13 7.66 28.50T12. DAP 2% + NAA 40 ppm +B 0.2% + Mo 0.05% 25.86 30.33 10.16 30.33

S. Ed 1.25 0.90 0.53 0.91CD. (P=0.05) 2.59 1.86 1.11 1.97

Table 13. Mean comparison of vegetative & yield character of Green gram at half basal fertilizer treated with different conc. Of K as foliar spray @ flowering

S.N.

Character No. Of Samples

T0Contro

l

T10.2Kg K/ha

T20.4Kg K/ha

T30.6Kg K/ha

T40.8Kg K/ha

T51.0Kg K/ha

1 Height of plant(cm) 50 21.21 21.17 21.30 21.99 23.20 24.212 Length of Petiole (cm) 50 6.07 5.81 5.23 5.52 5.68 5.543 Length of Lamina(cm) 50 5.45 5.14 5.18 5.43 5.82 4.914 Breadth of Lamina(cm) 50 3.00 4.76 4.62 5.43 5.53 5.435 No. Of Stomata 50 15.74 13.24 12.72 14.84 20.30 14.826 Length of Guard cell(cm) 50 4.64 4.36 4.52 4.54 4.58 4.587 Breadth of Guard cell(u) 50 2.40 2.30 2.38 2.56 2.46 2.608 Length of Stomatal Aperture (u) 50 4.10 4.88 5.32 5.44 5.58 5.509 Breadth of Stomatal (u)Aperture 50 2.40 2.46 2.52 2.52 2.56 2.60

10 Diameter of Flower (cm) 50 1.17 1.30 1.33 1.34 1.36 1.4111 No.of pods/ plant 50 16.00 18.46 18.76 19.20 19.44 19.7212 Length of Pod 50 3.32 3.82 4.00 4.06 4.16 4.5313 No. Of seeds / pod 50 4.44 8.24 8.48 7.08 7.48 9.5414 1000 grain wt. (gm) 50 40.03 42.30 45.46 44.06 45.08 44.32

Beg and Ahemad.(2012)P. G. College, Azamgarh, U. P.

Sr. No

TREATMENTS GRAIN YIELD

(kg ha-1)

NO PODS

PLANT-1

POD LENGH ( Cm)

NO OF SEED

POD-1

TEST WEIGHT (1000 SEED

WT)

1 RDF + Foliar spray of 3% panchagavya 905 26.53 5.07 5.93 55.672 RDF + foliar spray of 5% cow urine 836 24.47 4.86 5.47 49.303 RDF + foliar spray of 2% DAP 1179 31.33 5.67 6.33 59.074 RDF + foliar spray 2% urea 1143 29.27 5.43 3.27 57.505 RDF + foliar spray of 0.5 % chelated micronutrient

( Zn, Fe, B and Mo)973 27.20 5.20 6.00 55.50

6 RDF + foliar spray of 40ppm NAA 1067 27.93 5.31 6.27 56.837 RDF + foliar spray of1% salicylic acid 772 22.60 4.70 5.40 47.178 RDF + foliar spray of 2% DAP + 0.5% chelated micronutrient 1237 34.13 5.88 6.33 60.679 RDF+ foliar spray of 40 ppm NAA + 05.% chelated

micronutrient + 2% DAP1298 38.73 6.03 3.47 61.90

10 RDF+ foliar spray of 1% salicylic acid + 2%DAP 566 15.09 3.57 4.27 42.1711 Control (RDF + No spray ) 749 21.80 4.29 4.93 45.6712 Farmer’s practice (50 kg DAP ha-1) 662 18.40 3.98 4.47 44.00

S. Em 39.8 0.56 0.12 0.29 1.15C.D (P=0.05) 116.8 4.11 0.36 0.85 3.36

Table 14. Grain Yield And Yield Components Of Black Gram As Influenced By Foliar Application Of Growth Regulator, Organic And Inorganic Nutrients

Shashikumar et al. (2013) University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

CONCLUSION

Foliar nutrition increases significantly higher values of growth attributes like number of branches, height, number of flowers and dry matter accumulation.

An increase in yield attributes such as number of pods per plant, pod weight per plant, test weight and grain yield per plant observed with liquid fertilizers in different legumes.

Foliar application of the correct nutrients in relatively low concentrations at critical stages in crop development contributes significantly to higher yields and improved quality.

Fture Strategies…

There is need of research finding on the use of various combination of Pesticide and Herbicide with water soluble fertilizer. It help to minimize cost of cultivation and labour charges.

As such, use of foliar feeding could really proved a blessing for Indian farming and may pave way for another green revolution and provide support to boost agricultural production and export.

Though foliar feeding technique approach is quite new in India and is in limited use due to its complicacy, it may be useful for high value crops particularly in drought affected areas.

Need to find out Multinutrients.

THANK YOU