Paper · 2025 · Plant Science Today

Impact of multi-nutrient foliar fertilization on yield and nutrient uptake of green gram

M Vijayakumar; R Sivakumar; P Kannan; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Green gram and other pulse crops are particularly vulnerable to nutrient deficiencies, particularly in specific soil types or when intensive farming methods are used. Applying multiple nutrients guarantees that the plants get the components they need for optimum growth and development. Multi-nutrient applications, particularly foliar spraying can greatly increase green gram yield, growth and nutrient uptake; improving crop productivity as well as possibly increasing net returns. To develop a foliar multi-nutrient schedule for enhancing the productivity and nutrient uptake of green gram under irrigated conditions, the experimental trials were conducted in the Rabi season of 2019–2021 (two years) using a randomized block design (RBD) that was replicated three times at the Regional Research Station (RRS), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Paiyur of Krishnagiri district, Tamil Nadu. The RRS Farm comprises of Lithic Haplustepts soils from the Vannapatti series, which are characterized by non-calcareous sandy loam. In the experimental trial, green gram (var. VBN 4) was grown as test crop and TNAU-Water Soluble Fertilizers with or without combination of liquid multi-micronutrient (LMMN) and humic acid (HA) sprayed twice at vegetative and flowering stages. Among the different combination of foliar spray, applying TNAU-WSF (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University water soluble fertilizer) @ 2 % with LMMN @ 1 % and HA @ 1 % recorded higher SPAD value, photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate and nutrient uptake that enhanced significantly higher green gram yield (1102 kg/ha) and achieved a 32 % higher compared to application of 2 % DAP spray.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined TNAU-WSF, LMMN and HA foliar spray increased SPAD value, photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate.

Treatment
TNAU-WSF (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University water soluble fertilizer) @ 2 % with LMMN @ 1 % and HA @ 1 %e0
Outcome
SPAD value, photosynthetic rate, transpiration ratee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“applying TNAU-WSF (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University water soluble fertilizer) @ 2 % with LMMN @ 1 % and HA @ 1 % recorded higher SPAD value, photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate and nutrient uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1320–1522 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined foliar spray increased nutrient uptake.

Treatment
TNAU-WSF (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University water soluble fertilizer) @ 2 % with LMMN @ 1 % and HA @ 1 %e0
Outcome
nutrient uptakee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“applying TNAU-WSF (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University water soluble fertilizer) @ 2 % with LMMN @ 1 % and HA @ 1 % recorded higher SPAD value, photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate and nutrient uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1320–1522 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined foliar spray yielded 1102 kg/ha, 32% more than 2% DAP spray.

Treatment
TNAU-WSFe0
Outcome
green gram yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
1102 kg/hae0
Qualifier
32 %e0
Comparator
application of 2 % DAP spraye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“applying TNAU-WSF (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University water soluble fertilizer) @ 2 % with LMMN @ 1 % and HA @ 1 % recorded higher SPAD value, photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate and nutrient uptake that enhanced significantly higher green gram yield (1102 kg/ha) and achieved a 32 % higher compared to application of 2 % DAP spray”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1320–1655 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–88 · show in text ↑

fertilization · nutrient: content · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

79 papers: 76 positive, 3 negative or no effect

75 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

75 papers more in this group

See all 79 papers →

fertilization · physiology: photosynthesis · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

other · physiology: photosynthesis · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

other · nutrient: content · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.