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

Research Articles

Early Access

Partial substitution of inorganic fertilizer with nano fertilizer improved soil microbial diversity and yield of irrigated lowland rice

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9368
Submitted
8 May 2025
Published
05-11-2025
Versions

Abstract

Nanotechnology holds an immense potential to revolutionize rice production especially in enhancing grain yield. This study evaluates the effect of nanotechnology on grain yield, microbial activity, root development and economic returns over multiple cropping seasons (2022 to 2024). In the 2022 Wet Season (WS), while full-dosed inorganic fertilizer (100 % Rice Crop Manager, RCM) (6.87 tha-1) did not meet the targeted yield due to typhoon-induced lodging, treatments with 50 % RCM combined with Nano fertilizer (NF) produced comparable yields (6.27 to 6.62 tha-1). In 2023 Dry Season (DS), both full RCM and 50 % RCM with NF yielded 6.85 t ha-1; in 2023 WS, 50 % RCM with NF yielded higher yield (4.88 to 5.60 tha-1) than no-fertilizer control (4.35 tha-1); and in 2024 DS, full RCM produced the highest yield of 8.51 tha-1 while 50 % RCM + NF yielded 7.11 tha-1. Soil microbial activity, using Shannon Index was lower in plots with continuous synthetic fertilizer application (H’=2.71) in 2024 DS, showing a decline in soil microbial diversity. Root system development was most robust with full RCM, but the reduced RCM with NF also had favourable root growth, particularly lateral root length. Partial budget analysis revealed that while full RCM provided the highest gross income, the 50 % RCM + NF produced yielded higher net incomes due to lower input costs. The promising results of reduced RCM rates + NF warrant further investigation to assess long-term sustainability, cost-effectiveness and broader environmental impact.

References

  1. 1. Duhan JS, Kumar R, Kumar N, Kaur P, Nehra K, Duhan S. Nanotechnology: the new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnology Reports. 2017;15:11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2017.03.002
  2. 2. Mikkelson R. Nanofertilizer and nanotechnology: a quick look. Better Crops with Plant Food. 2018;102(3):18-19. https://doi.org/10.24047/BC102318
  3. 3. Bose P. The effect of nano-fertilizers on sustainable crop development. Editorial Feature. 2020. https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5614
  4. 4. Iqbal MA. Nano-fertilizers for sustainable crop production under changing climate: a global perspective. IntechOpen. 2019.
  5. 5. Benzon HRL, Rubenecia MRU, Ultra JRV, Lee SC. Nano-fertilizer affects the growth, development and chemical properties of rice. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research. 2015;7(1):105-17. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v7n4p20
  6. 6. Fakharzadeh S, Hafizi M, Baghaei MA. Using nanochelating technology for biofortification and yield increase in rice. Scientific Reports. 2020;10:4351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60189-x
  7. 7. Gao J, Xu G, Qian H, Liu P, Zhao P, Hu Y. Effects of nano-TiO₂ on photosynthetic characteristics of Ulmus elongata seedlings. Environmental Pollution. 2013;176:63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.027
  8. 8. Janmohammadi M, Amanzadeh T, Sabaghnia N, Dashti S. Impact of foliar application of nano micronutrient fertilizers and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the growth and yield components of barley under supplemental irrigation. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica. 2016;107(2):265-76. https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2016.107.2.01
  9. 9. Kumara KHCH, Wathugala DL, Hafeel RF, Kumarasinghe HKMS. Effect of nano calcite foliar fertilizer on the growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Agricultural Sciences – Sri Lanka. 2019;14(3):154-64. https://doi.org/10.4038/jas.v14i3.8599
  10. 10. Thuithaisong C, Parkpian P, Shipin OV, Shrestha RP, Nakland K. Comparison of microbial diversity of paddy soils in sustainable organic farming. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development. 2010;1:152-7.
  11. 11. Kong WD, Zhu YG, Fu BJ, Marschner P, He JZ. The veterinary antibiotic oxytetracycline and Cu influence functional diversity of the soil microbial community. Environmental Pollution. 2006;143(1):129-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.11.003
  12. 12. Domínguez J. Earthworms and vermicomposting. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76088
  13. 13. Lavelle P, Charpentier F, Villenave C, Rossi J, Derouard L, Pashanasi-Amasifuen B, et al. Effects of earthworms on soil organic matter and nutrient dynamics at a landscape scale over decades. 2nd ed. Florida: CRC Press LLC; 2004:145-60. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420039719.pt4
  14. 14. Fierer N, Bradford MA, Jackson RB. Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology. 2007;88(6):1354-64. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-1839
  15. 15. Fakruddin MD, Mannan SB. Methods for analyzing diversity of microbial communities in natural environments. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences). 2013;42(1):19-33. https://doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v42i1.5896
  16. 16. Du M, Zhang W, Gao J, Liu M, Zhou Y, He D, et al. Improvement of root characteristics due to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium interactions increases rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Agronomy. 2022;12(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010023
  17. 17. Singh JS, Pandey VC, Singh DP. Efficient soil microorganisms: a new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2011;140(3-4):339-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.01.017

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.