Verification of the effectiveness of Nano Liquid Fertilizer for Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) Production in Bale midland, Oromia, Ethiopia

@ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 72 Global Journal of Research in Agriculture & Life Sciences ISSN: 2583-4576 (Online) Volume 05 | Issue 05 | Sept.-Oct. | 2025 Journal homepage: https://gjrpublication.com/gjrals/ Research Article Verification of the effectiveness of Nano Liquid Fertilizer for Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) Production in Bale midland, Oromia, Ethiopia *Mulugeta Eshetu 1, Regassa Gosa 1, Tesfaye Ketema 1, Tamene Mideksa 2 1Sinana Agricultural Research Center, Soil Fertility Improvement Team, Bale Oromia, Ethiopia. 2Center director, Sinana Agricultural Research Center, Bale Oromia, Ethiopia. *Corresponding author: Mulugeta Eshetu Sinana Agricultural Research Center, Soil Fertility Improvement Team, Bale Oromia, Ethiopia. Abstract The continuous and unbalanced use of synthetic fertilizers imposes economic burdens, degrades soil and water quality, contributes to atmospheric pollution, and reduces nutrient use efficiency. However, nano fertilizers are of submicroscopic sizes, have a large surface area to volume ratio, and are important tools in agriculture to improve crop growth and yield parameters, reduce wastage of fertilizers, and reduce the cost of production, so they are regarded as a deliverable ‘smart system of nutrients. Despite the fact that no research has yet been conducted on the effectiveness and introduction of nano-fertilizers as alternative sources of fertilizer for tef production. A field experiment was conducted in Goro District of Bale midland during the 2024 main cropping season, locally named the bona season (September to December), with the objective of verifying the effectiveness/efficacy of nano fertilizer for tef production in Oromia, Ethiopia. The experiment consisted of three treatments, viz., nano liquid (Nito and Ammo) fertilizer, control (without granular and nano fertilizers), and granular fertilizer. The foliar spray of nano liquid fertilizer was carried out on the 15th, 35th, and 50th days of planting using the factory recommendation. The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in yield and yield components of tef between treatments. The highest grain yield 1865 kg ha⁻¹) was obtained from conventional (granular) fertilizer, followed by nano fertilizer (1331 kg ha⁻¹), while the lowest (601 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded in the control. Partial budget analysis showed that conventional fertilizer resulted in the highest net benefit of 142,262.821ETB with a favorable marginal rate of return of 395.07%, while nano fertilizer achieved a net benefit of 107,745.73 ETB with an exceptionally high marginal rate of return of 90,492.92%. It can be concluded that conventional (granular) fertilizer and nanofertilizer significantly improved tef yield compared to controls, with conventional fertilizer achieving the highest yield. Further research should be recommended on the optimum rate, application times, and viability for tef production across different agro-ecological zones and evaluate the practicality of nano-fertilizers as a supplement or alternative to conventional fertilizers to enhance efficiency and sustainability. Keywords: Ammo, conventional fertilizer (DAP and urea), foliar spray, Nano fertilizer, Nito and Tef. Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 73 Introduction Fertilizers have an axial role in enhancing the food production in developing countries especially after the introduction of high yielding and fertilizer responsive crop varieties (Swati et al., 2023). The soil application of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers is not much accepted by scientists, but foliar spray is effective in increasing growth of crops throughout their life period. The unbalanced and indiscriminate use of these chemical fertilizers had a negative impact on soil health, human health and factor production (Spiegal et al., 2020; Jatav et al., 2022 and Poudel et al., 2023). Fertilization management is currently one of the most challenging tasks under the field management. Despite the fact that mineral fertilizers are necessary for the growth of plants, their prolonged usage poses environmental and health risks, such as surface and groundwater pollution. Foliar application is a method of nourishing plants by spraying liquid fertilizers directly onto their leaves, promoting enhanced absorption in the above-ground parts of the plant (Marzouk et al., 2019 and Borana et al., 2024). Nitrogen and phosphorus applied by foliar application has greater utilization efficiency than N and P supplied directly to the soil. Nano urea nitrogen and phosphorus nutrition at optimum recommended dose of fertilizer increased root length and root area resulting better uptake of other nutrients and this efficient absorption and utilization of other minerals might have supported growth of crop plant (Borana et al., 2024). Nano-fertilizers regulate the nutrient release depending on the crop requirement, making them more efficient than normal fertilizers (Liu and Lal, 2015 and Poudel et al., 2023). Nano fertilizers are a new generation of synthetic fertilizers that contain readily available nutrients in the Nano scale. Nano fertilizers are highly preferred due to their efficiency and environmental friendliness compared to conventional chemical fertilizers (Janmohammadi et al., 2016 and Al-Jubouri et al., 2022). Thus, nano fertilizers were produced as a potential solution to reduce fertilizer loss in the environment and increase fertilizer use efficiency for crop production, hence decreasing the recommended dose of traditional fertilizers. Nanotechnology-based fertilizers can be more soluble or more reactive than their conventional counterparts (Rameshaiah and Jpallavi, 2015; Mahmoud et al., 2017; Al-Jubouri et al., 2022 and Swati et al., 2023). Liquid nano fertilizer which is currently the best alternative to common urea fertilizer. One nano urea liquid particle is 30 nano meters in diameter, with 10,000 time’s higher surface area to volume size than normal granular urea chlorophyll (Rawate et al., 2022). Nano fertilizers have emerged as a promising alternative for ensuring high crop yield while remaining environmentally friendly chlorophyll. Foliar application of nano urea liquid at critical crop growth stages of a plant effectively fulfils its nitrogen requirement and leads to higher crop productivity. The newly created nano fertilizer will reduce chemical fertilizer consumption 80-100 times, saving significant foreign exchange on fertilizer imports (Poudel et al., 2023). This foliar application, is a viable strategy for increasing the availability of nutrients to crops in order to boost output. Adoption of nano fertilizers for revolutionary transformation through nanotechnology, which helps to sustain soil health at the same time ensuring high productivity (Shang et al., 2019 and Borana et al., 2024). Nano fertilizers are recognized for their precise nutrient release and targeted delivery at the nano scale, enhancing plant productivity and mitigating environmental pollution. Nano fertilizers are required in small quantity which reduces toxic effect caused by the extreme use of conventional fertilizers and have higher use efficiency than conventional fertilizers which reduces losses of nutrients. Nano fertilizers are efficiently absorbed by plant because of its ultra-high absorption feature and high surface to volume ratio (Elemike et al., 2019 and Borana et al., 2024). The nano fertilizers are better than conventional fertilizers as they are ecofriendly, cost effective, maintain soil fertility and plant health. Nanotechnology may facilitate enhanced crop yield in an environmentally sustainable and economically steady manner (Ghidan and Antary 2018, and Eid, et al., 2023). Even though nano fertilizers have such crop production, economic and environmental benefit yet not evaluated on the effectiveness/efficacy and adopted to our environmental conditions. Therefore, this studied designed with the objective: to verify the effectiveness/efficacy of Nano fertilizer for tef production and to introduce nano fertilizers as alternative sources of fertilizer for tef production in the region. Material and Methods Description of the study area The study will be conducted in Bale districts of Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. Highlands of Bale is located between 6.45°N to 7.45°N and 39.47°E to 40.77°E in the southern parts of Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. The elevation of the area ranges from 1500 to 3500 meter above sea level. The study area covers three (3) Districts two highland (Goba, and Sinana) and one midland (Goro) of Bale Zone. Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 74 Figure 1. Map of the study area Climate conditions The Bale climate condition experience eight (8) months of bimodal rainfall that include a heavy rain (July-October) and a small rain (April-June). Some 600-1000 mm falls annually in the lower altitude areas, and 1000-1400 mm in the higher altitude areas. The wet seasons are comparatively warm and the dry seasons are comparably colder at night and warmer during the day. The lowest recorded temperature on the highest is -15ºC and the maximum record was 26ºC. Figure 2. Monthly rainfall, maximum, and minimum temperature and relative humidity of Goro District 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Prc (mm) RH(%) Temp Min (℃) Temp Max (℃) Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 75 Figure 3. Sun shine and evapotranspiration of Goro District Experimental design and Treatments The experiment was conducted on farmers’ fields during the main cropping season (September -December) at four (3) location in Goro District using farmer’s replications. The land preparation was conducted using both tractor and oxen plow in accordance with conventional tillage frequency. It conducted on the plot size was 5 m x 5 m (25 m2) using 1 m the spacing between blocks and plots. Tef local variety was used as test crop at 25 kgha-1 seeds rate. The treatments consist of factory recommended nano fertilizer (1Lha-1 AMMO + 0.5 Lha-1 NITO), Control (without nano and recommended NP) and Recommended NP (46 N kg ha-1 and 59 P2O5 kg ha-1). Treatments T1 = Factory Recommended Nano fertilizer (1Lha-1 AMMO + 0.5 Lha-1 NITO) T2 = Control (Negative control) T3 = Recommended NP (Glandular form) Methods of Applications Depending on the crop and its nutrient or fertilizer requires, the number of nano fertilizer sprays at 15, 35 and 50 days after germination. Before the spray the nano urea (NITO) bottle was mixed thoroughly and apply in the morning or evening to avoid dew (Table 1). In general, the following table indicated the summarizes the sources, types, times, and doses of nano fertilizer: Table 1. Fertilizers recommendation dose for bread wheat production After Germination Product Fertilizers Requirement per Water Requirement per Hectare (ha) Plot (25 m2) Hectare (ha) Plot (25 m2) 15 days AMMO 123.76 ml 0.3094 ml 123.76 L 309.4 ml NITO 61.88 ml 0.16 ml 35 days AMMO 371.28 ml 0.93 ml 371.28 L 930 ml NITO 371.28 ml 0.93 ml 50 days AMMO 495.05 ml 1.24 ml 495.05 L 1240 ml Total 990.09 ml 2.48 ml 990.09 L 2479.4 ml 433.16 ml 1.09 ml Source of Rate: AGRILABH BEEJ LTD 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sun shine(J m-2 day -1) Sun shine(J m⁻² day⁻¹) Eto (mm) Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 76 Data collection Plant height, and panicle length, were taken from five (5) randomly selected from the net plot at harvest and were averaged to per plant basis. Aboveground dry biomass yield was recorded from the net plot area harvested and weighted then converted into kgha−1. Grain yields was taken by harvesting and threshing the grain yield from total plot area and converted hector basis. Harvest index was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to the above ground dry biomass yield expressed as a percentage. 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐱 = (𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐲𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 )∗𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐲𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 …………………………………. (1) The yield advantage of the fertilized plot compared to the control plot was calculated the following formula: 𝐘𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 = (𝐘𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐅𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐥𝐨𝐭 − 𝐘𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐏𝐥𝐨𝐭)∗𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐘𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐏𝐥𝐨𝐭 ……… (2) Data Analysis The collected agronomic data were subjected to the procedure of analysis of variance (ANOVA) using GenStat 2015 software program. The comparisons among treatment means were employed by using of Least Significance Difference (LSD) fisher protected at 5% significant level. Partial budget Analysis The partial budget analysis was conducted using a partial budget procedure described by CIMMYT (1988). The price of grain yield of tef, urea, and DAP fertilizers were valued during the study year (2025) at an average open market price at local towns, which were 90 ETB kg−1, 38 ETB kg−1, and 39 ETB kg−1 at Goro District of Bale midland, respectively. The nano fertilizer prices landing at Addis Abeba which is NITO 18 USD (2,286 ETB) and AMMO 33 USD (4,191 ETB) were considered. Result and Discussion Responses of tef production to different fertilizer sources Plant height The analysis of variance showed no significance difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the treatments on plant height (Table 2). Numerically, the highest plant height (75.45 cm) was recorded with conventional granular fertilizer, followed by nano fertilizer (67 cm), while the lowest (66. 47 cm) was in the control. This might be due to optimum nitrogen and phosphorus physiological process of plant as it promotes vegetative growth. The similar results were also found by (Choudhary et al (2018) and Borana et al (2024) who reported that nitrogen and phosphors promoting cell division to development, vigorous root system and higher yield. The highest plant height with nano fertilizer may be due to nutrient uptake during foliar application. These findings align with Al-Juthery et al (2018), Rawate et al (2022), Maheta et al (2023), and Swati et al (2023). The synergy between conventional and nano fertilizers enhances nutrient absorption at the cellular level, optimizing growth and metabolic functions like photosynthesis, ultimately increasing plant height (Borana et al., 2024). Panicle length The ANOVA results revealed a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05) of treatments on tef panicle length (Table 2). The longest panicle length (31.17 cm) was recorded with conventional granular fertilizer, followed by nano fertilizer (25.95 cm), while the control had the shortest (24.57 cm) (Table 2). Increased nutrient availability enhances photosynthate translocation, accelerating sink development and resulting in longer spike length (Borana et al., 2024). Biomass yield The results of the ANOVA showed that the treatments had a significant (p ≤ 0.05) effect on the biomass yield (Table 2). The highest biomass yield (5507 kgha-1) was recorded with conventional granular fertilizer, followed by nano fertilizer (4347 kgha-1), while the lowest (2227 kgha-1) was in the control. The highest biomass yield in nano fertilizer might be due to the foliar application might be due to quick absorption by plant and easiness of translocation, which aided in better rates of photosynthesis and more dry matter accumulation, that give higher biomass yield. The similar results were also found by Chandana et al (2021); Rawate et al (2022); Maheta et al (2023) and Swati et al (2023). Nano fertilizer improve nutrient release resulting in a higher photosynthetic rate and ultimately, a higher biomass yield accumulation (Adhikari et al., 2014 and Poudel et al., 2023). Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 77 Nano fertilizers enhance phosphorus absorption and slow-release nano DAP boosts chlorophyll synthesis, increasing biomass yield. Studies confirm high biomass like conventional fertilizers (Liu and Lal, 2014; Borana et al., 2024). Nano fertilizers significantly enhance grain yield by improving plant height, spike length, grains per spike, and 1000-grain weight (Ahmadian et al., 2021). This leads to a substantial increase in overall biological yield. Grain yield The results of the ANOVA showed that the treatments had a significant (p ≤ 0.05) effect on the grain yield (Table 2). The highest grain yield (1865 kgha-1) was recorded with conventional granular fertilizer, followed by nano fertilizer (1331 kgha-1), while the lowest (601 kgha-1) was in the control. This might be due to nano fertilizer improves nutrient absorption, resulting in optimal growth of plant parts and improved metabolic processes such as photosynthesis, which results in higher accumulation of photosynthetic and translocation to the plant’s economic parts, improving crop growth, development and yield. A similar result was seen on broad bean, where the use of nano-fertilizer provided better nutrient accumulation and increased growth activity due to smart delivery system of the fertilizers (Benzon et al., 2015; El-Azizy et al., 2021 and Poudel et al., 2023). The yield advantage shows a 210.32% increase with conventional granular fertilizer and 121.46% with nano fertilizer over the control. This confirms that conventional fertilizers provide immediate nutrient availability for higher yields, while nano fertilizers, though efficient, release nutrients gradually, leading to a lower but steady yield increase. These findings align with previous studies (Aziz et al., 2016; Borana et al., 2024), highlighting the influence of agronomic practices. Foliar nutrient sprays with nano DAP and optimal fertilization significantly enhance yield (Sahu et al., 2022; Borana et al., 2024). Nano fertilizers significantly enhance grain yield by improving plant height, spike length, grains per spike, and 1000grain weight (Ahmadian et al., 2021). This leads to a substantial increase in overall biological yield. These findings closely align with results reported by Attri et al (2022), Borana et al (2024), and others, confirming similar trends in yield improvements. Table 2. Responses of tef yield and yield components to nano liquid fertilizer foliar application and granular NP fertilizers Treatment PH (cm) PL (cm) BM (kgha-1) Gy (kgha-1) HI (%) LNF 67.00 25.95b 4347b 1331b 30.62b Control 66.47 24.57b 2227c 601c 26.91c RNP 75.47 31.17a 5507a 1865a 33.97a Mean 69.64 27.23 4027 1265 30.50 LSD (0.05) NS 3.740 1043.7 288.9 1.599 CV (%) 5.1 6.1 11.4 10.1 2.3 Where, LNF = Liquid nano fertilizer, RNP = recommended nitrogen and phosphors, PH = plant height, PL = Panicle Length, BM = biomass yield, GY = grain yield, HI = Harvesting index, NS = non-significant among the treatment Partial Budget Analysis Partial budget analysis showed that conventional fertilizer resulted in the highest net benefit of 142,262.821ETB with a favorable marginal rate of return of 395.07%, while nano fertilizer achieved a net benefit of 107,745.73 ETB with an exceptionally high marginal rate of return of 90,492.92%. Table 3. Partial Budget Analysis Treatments N P2O5 AMMO NITO AdGY (kg ha-1) TB TVC NB MRR (%) kg ha-1 (L/ha) ETB ha-1 Control 0 0 0 0 540.9 48681 0 48681 LNF 0 0 1 0.5 1197.9 107811 65.27 107745.73 90492.92 RNP 69 69 0 0 1678.5 151065 8802.179 142262.821 395.07 Where, LNF = Liquid nano fertilizer, RNP = recommended nitrogen and phosphors, AdGY = adjusted grain yield, TB = total benefit, TVC = total variable cost, NB = total net benefit, marginal net return Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 78 Conclusion The pre-verification study evaluating the effectiveness of liquid nano fertilizer against a control (negative control) and conventional granular fertilizer demonstrated a significant influence on bread wheat yield and its components. The highest grain yield 1865 kg ha⁻¹) was obtained from conventional (granular) fertilizer, followed by nano fertilizer (1331 kg ha⁻¹), while the lowest (601 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded in the control. Partial budget analysis showed that conventional fertilizer resulted in the highest net benefit of 142,262.821ETB with a favorable marginal rate of return of 395.07%, while nano fertilizer achieved a net benefit of 107,745.73 ETB with an exceptionally high marginal rate of return of 90,492.92%. These findings confirm that both conventional and nano fertilizers enhanced tef production compared to the control, with conventional fertilizer demonstrating the greatest yield advantage. Consequently, it can be understood that, in light of the research that has been conducted, nano fertilizer deserves to be officially registered by the agricultural authority as input for tef production and additional for further studied. Recommendations On-farm trials across diverse agro-ecological zones are necessary to validate the consistency of the results, the nano fertilizer as a supplement, and its equivalency with conventional fertilizer recommended. Given the promising results observed with nano liquid fertilizer, it is recommended that the product be registered, and further studies be conducted across diverse agro-ecological zones to validate its effectiveness and adaptability under varying environmental and soil conditions. Further research should focus on determining the optimal rates, timing, and method of application to maximize tef yield and minimize soil nutrient losses. References 1. Adhikari, T., Kundu, S., Meena, V., & Rao, A. S. (2014). Utilization of nano rock phosphate by maize (Zea mays L.) crop in a vertisol of Central India. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 4, 384–394. 2. Al-Jubouri, M. A. N., Abdlrhmaam, A. J., & Al-Ardeeni, A. A. (2022). Response of barley crop growth to concentrations and number of sprays of NPK nano-compound fertilizer. Eastern Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 2(4), 25–33. 3. Al-Juthery, H. W. A., Kahraman, H. H., Altaee, F. J. K., Al-Taey, D. K. A., & Al-Tawaha, A. R. M. (2018). Effect of foliar application of different sources of nano-fertilizers on growth and yield of wheat. Bioscience Research, 15(4), 3988–3997. 4. Aziz, H. M. M., Hasaneen, M. N. A., & Omer, A. M. (2016). Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 14(1), 1–11. 5. Attri, M., Sharma, N., & Sharma, B. C. (2022). Effect of foliar application of nano urea on productivity and profitability of fine rice under irrigated subtropics of Jammu region. Indian Journal of Ecology, 49(5), 1935–1938. 6. Benzon, H., Rubenecia, M., Ultra, V., & Lee, S. (2015). Nano-fertilizer affects the growth, development and chemical properties of rice. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 7, 105–117. 7. Borana, H., Singh, I., Verma, J. R., Kumhar, B. L., Dev, P., & Ram, M. (2024). Effect of nano fertilizers on growth and quality of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(8), 284–289. 8. Borana, H., Singh, I., Verma, J. R., Ram, M., & Kumhar, B. L. (2024). Effect of nano fertilizers on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at Instructional Farm, College of Agriculture, Jodhpur. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 36(9), 223–230. 9. Bouyoucos, G. J. (1927). The hydrometer as a new method for the mechanical analysis of soils. Soil Science, 23, 343–353. 10. Chandana, P., Latha, K. R., Chinnamuthu, C. R., Malarvizhi, P., & Lakshmanan, A. (2021). Impact of foliar application of nano nitrogen, zinc and copper on yield and nutrient uptake of rice. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 33(24), 276–282. 11. Choudhary, D. K., Karmakar, S., & Kumar, B. (2018). Intercession of legume-based intercropping and nano phosphorus as managerial input for upland of Jharkhand. Chemical Science Review and Letters, 7(28), 941–946. 12. CIMMYT Economics Program. (1988). From agronomic data to farmer recommendations: An economics training manual (No. 27). CIMMYT. 13. Eid, A. M., Sayed, O. M., Hozayen, W., & Dishisha, T. (2023). Mechanistic study of copper oxide, zinc oxide, cadmium oxide, and silver nanoparticles-mediated toxicity on the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri. Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 46(5), 825–840. 14. El-Azizy, F., Habib, A., & Abd-El Baset, A. (2021). Effect of nano phosphorus and potassium fertilizers on productivity and mineral content of broad bean in North Sinai. Journal of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering, 12, 239–246. 15. Elemike, E. E., Uzoh, I. M., Onwudiwe, D. C., & Babalola, O. O. (2019). The role of nanotechnology in the fortification of plant nutrients and improvement of crop production. Applied Sciences, 9(499), 1–32. 16. Ghidan, A., Al-Antary, T. M., Awwad, A., & Ayad, J. (2018). Physiological effect of some nanomaterials on pepper (Capsicum annuum). 17. Jackson, M. L. (1958). Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. Global J Res Agri Life Sci. 2025; 5(5), 72-79 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 79 18. Janmohammadi, M., Amanzadeh, T., Sabaghnia, N., & Dashti, S. (2016). 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, 107(2), 265–276. 19. Jatav, S. S., Singh, S. K., Parihar, M., Alsuhaibani, A. M., Gaber, A., & Hossain, A. (2022). Application of sewage sludge in a rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) system influences the growth, yield, quality, and heavy metals accumulation of rice and wheat in the Northern Gangetic Alluvial Plain. Life, 12(4), 484. 20. Jones, J. B. (1991). Kjeldahl method for nitrogen (N) determination. Micro-Macro Publishing. 21. Khospeyak, S., Haghi, R. S., & Ahmadiyan, A. (2016). The effect of application of nano organic fertilizer and nitrogen fertilizer on yield, yield components, and essential oil content of fennel. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Research, 14(4), 775–787. 22. Kumar, Y., Tiwari, K. N., Nayak, R. K., Rai, A., Singh, S. P., Singh, A. N., Tomar, H., & Raliya, R. (2020). Nano fertilizers for increasing nutrient use efficiency, yield and economic returns in important winter season crops of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, 16(8), 772–786. 23. Liu, R., & Lal, R. (2014). Synthetic apatite nanoparticles as a phosphorus fertilizer for soybean (Glycine max). Environmental Science, 4, 1–18. 24. Liu, R., & Lal, R. (2015). Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic production. Science of the Total Environment, 514, 131–139. 25. Maheta, A., Gaur, D., & Patel, S. (2023). Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus nano-fertilizers on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal, 12(3), 2965–2969. 26. Mahmoud, A. W. M., El-Attar, A. B., & Mahmoud, A. A. (2017). Economic evaluation of nano and organic fertilizers as an alternative source to chemical fertilizers on Carum carvi L. plant yield and components. Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 63(1), 33–49. 27. Marzouk, N. M., Abd-Alrahman, H. A., Tanahy, E. L., & Mohmouud, S. H. (2019). Impact of foliar spraying of nano micronutrient fertilizers on the growth, yield, physical quality, and nutritional value of two snap bean cultivars in sandy soils. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 43, 84. 28. Meena, R. H., Jat, G., & Jain, D. (2021). Impact of foliar application of different nano fertilizers on soil microbial properties and yield of wheat. Journal of Environmental Biology, 42, 302–308. 29. Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watnahe, F. S., & Dean, L. A. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate (U.S. Dept. Agr. Circ. No. 939). 30. Poudel, A., Singh, S. K., Jiménez-Ballesta, R., Jatav, S. S., Patra, A., & Pandey, A. (2023). Effect of nanophosphorus formulation on growth, yield and nutritional quality of wheat under semi-arid climate. Agronomy, 13(3), 768. 31. Rameshaiah, G. N., & Jpallavi, S. (2015). Nano fertilizers and nano sensors – an attempt for developing smart agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 3(1), 314–320. 32. Ramesh, D., Patel, J. R., Agrawal, A. P., Agrawal, H. P., Pandey, D., Patel, C. R., Verma, P., Chandravanshi, M., & Hetram, A. (2022). Effect of nano urea on productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under irrigated condition. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 11, 1279–1282. 33. Rani, B., Zalawadia, N. M., Buha, D., & Rushang, K. (2019). Effect of different levels of chemical and nano urea nitrogenous fertilizers on content and uptake of N, P, K by sorghum crop cv. Gundari. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 8(5), 454–458. 34. Ranjan, P., Kumar, B., Mala, A., Priyadarshi, S., Shri, A., Lal, B., Narayan, A., & Kumar, B. (2023). Effect of foliar spray of nano urea on yield and economics of rice. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 12(1), 3030–3033. 35. Sahu, T. K., Kumar, M., Kumar, N., Chandrakar, T., & Singh, D. P. (2022). Effect of nano urea application on growth and productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under midland situation of Bastar region. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 11(6), 185–187. 36. Shang, Y., Hasan, M. K., Ahammed, G. J., Li, M., Yin, H., & Zhou, J. (2019). Applications of nanotechnology in plant growth and crop protection: A review. Molecules, 24(14), 2558. 37. Spiegal, S., Kleinman, P. J., Endale, D. M., Bryant, R. B., Dell, C., Goslee, S., Meinen, R. J., Flynn, K. C., Baker, J. M., Browning, D. M., & McCarty, G. (2020). Manuresheds: Advancing nutrient recycling in U.S. agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 182, 102813. 38. Swati, H. P., Parmar, J. K., Bhanvadiya, A. S., Makwana, S., & Maheta, A. (2023). Effect of nano NP, nano P and recommended dose of fertilizers on growth, yield and nutrient content of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in field condition. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 12(12), 2451–2457. 39. Velmurugan, A., Subramanil, T., Bommayasamy, N., Ramakrishna, M. K., & Swarnam, T. P. (2021). Effect of foliar application of nano urea (liquid) on rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of the Andaman Science Association, 26(2), 76– 81. 40. Ahmadian, K., Jalilian, J., & Pirzad, A. (2021). Nano-fertilizers improved drought tolerance in wheat under deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 244, 106544.