Foliar nutrition involves applying liquid fertilizers directly to plant leaves for faster nutrient absorption, serving as a rapid supply method when soil nutrients are limited. This technique can enhance yield by 12% to 25% and is especially effective in adverse conditions, though it also requires careful consideration of timing and environmental conditions to avoid leaf damage. The use of foliar fertilizers supplements rather than replaces soil fertilization, addressing deficiencies efficiently among various crops.

2. .

3. 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 stomata
but 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.

4. 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.

5.  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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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 humidity
4 Wind Speed less than 5 mph

9.  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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16.  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

19. 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)

20. Table 2. FoliarApplication of Nutrients Enhances the YieldAttributesand
Nutrient Uptake of Green gram
Sr. Treatment No. of pods
plant-1
No. of
seeds pod-1
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Haulm yield
(kg ha-1)
1 T1- No spray (control) 21.0 7.6 712 939
2 T2- 2% urea spray 26.0 10.0 793 976
3 T3- 2% DAP spray 27.0Z 10.3 817 1014
4 T4- 0.05% Na molybdate
spray
26.0 10.0 813 993
5 T5- 100 ppm salicylic acid 27.0 11.0 818 975
6 T6- T2 + T5 29.0 10.6 852 1073
7 T7- T3 + T5 30.0 11.0 877 1100
8 T8- T4+ T6 32.0 11.3 895 1104
9 T9- T4 + T7 34.0 11.6 928 1230
10 T10- Water spray 23.0 8.6 765 870
SEd 0.9 0.6 22 61
CD (P=0.05) 1.9 1.3 46 128
TNAU, Coimbatore Kuttimani et al. (2011)

21. Table 3. Effect of Foliar Nutrition of Potassium Nitrate on the growth
and yieldof Green gram
Sr.
No.
Treatment Yield (kg/ha) Harvest
Index
pod Grain Fodder
T1 KNO3 O.2% 1398 939 2948 21.6
T2 KNO3 O.4% 1604 1081 3091 23.0
T3 KNO3 O.6% 1511 1001 2983 22.3
T4 KNO3 O.8% 1521 1022 3031 22.5
T5 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 Station
Junagadh Agricultural University, GJ

22. Table 4. Effect of Foliar spray of Fertilizer onYield of
ChickpeaVar. Vijay
Foliar Spray Grain Yield
T1- Control 698
T2- Water Spray 706
T3- Urea 2% 1094
T4- Urea 3% 1095
T-5 DAP 2% 1062
T-6 KCL 2% 912
SE+ 37
CD At 5% 74
MPKV. Rahuri Dudhate et al. (2003)

23. Table 5. Effect of Zn supply on the dry matter yield,floral analysis and
reproductive yield of black gram
Parameter
Dry 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 0.952
Stem 0.380 0.590 1.585 1.068 0.992
Root 0.063 0.090 0.195 0.184 0.146
Whole Plants 1.103 1.159 2.750 2.305 2.090
Flower No. 16.0 23.0 44.0 34.0 33.0
Anther Size 423 473 790 758 718
Pollen Size 58.1 76.3 91.2 88.5 84.7
Pollen Viability 32 47 90 84 80
No. of pods/ plant 8 11 25 25 20
Pod wt./ plant 0.099 0.135 0.256 0.214 0.184
No. of seeds per plant 44 68 145 120 102
Seed wt. per plant 1.6 1.9 3.7 3.2 2.9
Differences between means with different letter in the same row are significant at p<0.05.
University of Lucknow Pandey et al. (2013)

24. Table 6. Effect of plant growth regulatingchemicals 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 1162.42
T2 – SA 100 ppm 14.37 42.30 33.97 65.16 1250.59
T3 – 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)

25. Table 7. Effect of fertilitylevels and foliar nutrition on cowpea growth
Sr. 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,

26. 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 17.94
T2 Water spray 43.6 4.9 39.2 18.20 1.6 2409.9 17.88
T3 Urea spray at 60 DAS* 44.0 5.2 41.6 18.60 1.7 2535.9 18.75
T4 Urea spray at 75 DAS 46.4 5.7 43.7 20.50 1.9 2828.5 18.90
T5 Urea spray at 90 DAS 43.0 5.7 42.5 19.70 1.7 2712.5 18.89
T6 Urea spray at 60+75 DAS 43.5| 5.6 42.3 19.60 1.9 2723.7 18.89
T7 Urea spray at 60+90 DAS 43.9 5.5 41.2 19.50 1.8 2639.6 18.85
T8 Urea spray at 75+90 DAS 44.1 5.7 42.7 20.30 1.9 2755.7 19.32
T9 Urea spray at 60+75+90
DAS
43.7 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

27. 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 0.30
Department of Agronomy, Allahabad Kumar S. et al. (2015 )

28. 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 10.53
T3= 2% DAP 43.13 7.57 5.80 32.03 5197.00 15.88 10.80
T4= 0.5% K 38.66 6.43 5.17 31.93 4669.00 18.24 11.77
T5= 1% K 42.00 6.75 5.30 34.93 4634.00 18.61 12.17
T6= 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 11.0
8
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)

29. 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 37.31
2 Water 51.2 69.8 11.1 12.1 11.96 35.50
3 Urea (2%) 55.9 87.5 13.4 13.1 13.24 36.24
4 Urea(3%) 57.9 97.1 15.3 13.9 14.08 36.99
5 DAP(2%) 60.2 108.9 16.2 14.6 14.78 37.86
6 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 0.34
Basal Application
1. Control 48.3 64.2 11.8 12.4 10.77 34.68
2. N20P50K20S20 59.2 100.5 14.6 13.6 15.14 38.65
3. 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.

30. 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)
Grain
Yield
(Q/ha)
Haulm
Yield
(Q/ha)
T1. Control 18.00 26.63 6.26 28.36
T2. DAP 2% 18.26 28.20 7.90 27.53
T3. NAA 40 ppm 20.06 29.36 7.53 29.23
T4. B 0.2% 18.06 28.70 6.83 30.00
T5. Mo 0.05% 19.33 27.00 6.53 26.46
T6. DAP 2% + NAA 40 ppm 23.46 29.06 8.09 28.20
T7. DAP 2% + B 0.2% 19.00 28.16 7.83 27.13
T8. DAP 2% + Mo 0.05% 20.46 27.56 7.96 25.86
T9. NAA 40 ppm + B 0.2% 20.53 27.90 7.90 26.23
T10. NAA 40 ppm + Mo 0.05% 22.80 27.80 8.13 29.53
T11. B 0.2% + Mo 0.05% 22.06 30.13 7.66 28.50
T12. 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 0.91
CD. (P=0.05) 2.59 1.86 1.11 1.97

31. 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
T0
Contro
l
T1
0.2Kg
K/ha
T2
0.4Kg
K/ha
T3
0.6Kg
K/ha
T4
0.8Kg
K/ha
T5
1.0Kg
K/ha
1 Height of plant(cm) 50 21.21 21.17 21.30 21.99 23.20 24.21
2 Length of Petiole (cm) 50 6.07 5.81 5.23 5.52 5.68 5.54
3 Length of Lamina(cm) 50 5.45 5.14 5.18 5.43 5.82 4.91
4 Breadth of Lamina(cm) 50 3.00 4.76 4.62 5.43 5.53 5.43
5 No. Of Stomata 50 15.74 13.24 12.72 14.84 20.30 14.82
6 Length of Guard cell(cm) 50 4.64 4.36 4.52 4.54 4.58 4.58
7 Breadth of Guard cell(u) 50 2.40 2.30 2.38 2.56 2.46 2.60
8 Length of Stomatal Aperture (u) 50 4.10 4.88 5.32 5.44 5.58 5.50
9 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 1.41
11 No.of pods/ plant 50 16.00 18.46 18.76 19.20 19.44 19.72
12 Length of Pod 50 3.32 3.82 4.00 4.06 4.16 4.53
13 No. Of seeds / pod 50 4.44 8.24 8.48 7.08 7.48 9.54
14 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.

32. 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 55.67
2 RDF + foliar spray of 5% cow urine 836 24.47 4.86 5.47 49.30
3 RDF + foliar spray of 2% DAP 1179 31.33 5.67 6.33 59.07
4 RDF + foliar spray 2% urea 1143 29.27 5.43 3.27 57.50
5 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 56.83
7 RDF + foliar spray of1% salicylic acid 772 22.60 4.70 5.40 47.17
8 RDF + foliar spray of 2% DAP + 0.5% chelated micronutrient 1237 34.13 5.88 6.33 60.67
9 RDF+ foliar spray of 40 ppm NAA + 05.%
chelated micronutrient + 2% DAP
1298 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 42.17
11 Control (RDF + No spray ) 749 21.80 4.29 4.93 45.67
12 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 1.15
C.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.

33. 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.

34. 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.