Next Article in Journal
Review on Natural, Incidental, Bioinspired, and Engineered Nanomaterials: History, Definitions, Classifications, Synthesis, Properties, Market, Toxicities, Risks, and Regulations
Next Article in Special Issue
Nanotechnology in the Restoration of Polluted Soil
Previous Article in Journal
Lignin Nanoparticles and Alginate Gel Beads: Preparation, Characterization and Removal of Methylene Blue
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Recent Trends in Nano-Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture under Climate Change for Global Food Security

1
Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
2
Department of Botany, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan, India
3
Institute of Biotechnology, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
4
Academy of Biology and Biotechnology, Southern Federal University, 344090 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
5
Department of Botany, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226007, Uttar Pradesh, India
6
College of Agriculture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2022, 12(1), 173; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010173
Submission received: 21 November 2021 / Revised: 30 December 2021 / Accepted: 2 January 2022 / Published: 5 January 2022

Abstract

:
Nano-fertilizers (NFs) significantly improve soil quality and plant growth performance and enhance crop production with quality fruits/grains. The management of macro-micronutrients is a big task globally, as it relies predominantly on synthetic chemical fertilizers which may not be environmentally friendly for human beings and may be expensive for farmers. NFs may enhance nutrient uptake and plant production by regulating the availability of fertilizers in the rhizosphere; extend stress resistance by improving nutritional capacity; and increase plant defense mechanisms. They may also substitute for synthetic fertilizers for sustainable agriculture, being found more suitable for stimulation of plant development. They are associated with mitigating environmental stresses and enhancing tolerance abilities under adverse atmospheric eco-variables. Recent trends in NFs explored relevant agri-technology to fill the gaps and assure long-term beneficial agriculture strategies to safeguard food security globally. Accordingly, nanoparticles are emerging as a cutting-edge agri-technology for agri-improvement in the near future. Interestingly, they do confer stress resistance capabilities to crop plants. The effective and appropriate mechanisms are revealed in this article to update researchers widely.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is the economic backbone of developing countries and also provides food for better living globally [1,2]. Climate change in ecosystems operates through biotic and abiotic stresses [3,4] which impair the delicate balance of environment linked with food production and may cause crop failure [2]. Our global food demand is anticipated to climb by approx. 70% in 2050 as a result of the increasing population [5,6]. It is necessary to ratify innovative and futuristic agri-technologies to achieve global food security with improved plant productivity [6], because environmental difficulties may arise primarily due to the inefficiency of various farming operations based on conventional fertilization practices [7]. The nutrient utilization efficiency (NUE) seems to be an important metric for assessing agricultural production and nutrient bioavailability in plants [8,9]. Fertilizers offer nutrients to optimize crop productivity, usually being applied through soil surface broadcasting or mixed with irrigation, which may cause damage to the atmosphere, water bodies, and the ecosystem [10,11,12,13,14]. Hydroponic techniques are used to grow some crops under greenhouse conditions, at the expense of about 10 times greater water and energy consumption, found to be neither economical nor sustainable [7,15,16]; the addition of fertilizers can cause eutrophication and ground water contamination, which may badly impact public health [17,18].
In such a scenario, newer agricultural interventions need to be implemented to fulfill the desire of our global food system [7] along with the safety of ecosystems, biodiversity, and the climate [12,13], as fertilizer use is proposed to be nearly 20% less by 2030 [19] through best farming practices to ensure approx. 85% of global agricultural production in the next 10 years [20,21]. Future agriculture may be based on the use of nano-enabled fertilizers in various ways, as nanotechnologies are becoming widely accepted in agriculture to enhance crop yields with a healthy agro-ecosystem under environmental adversities [22,23,24,25,26]. We examined recent trends in deploying engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in agriculture, emphasizing nanotechnology-enabled fertilizers called “nano-fertilizers” and nano-pesticides with their improved delivery systems. The efficacies of the ENMs used are scrutinized, upgraded, and pooled herein (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 and Table 1) to enrich researchers’ understanding.

2. Agriculture and Nano-Fertilizers

Nano-fertilizers are important in modern agriculture, having appropriate formulations and delivery mechanisms to ensure optimal uptake/usage in plants [2,12,27]. These nanoscale fertilizers reduce nutrient losses due to leaching, and chemical alterations can be avoided—to enhance nutrient use efficiency and environmental quality [14,28] by exploring NPs based on various metals and metal oxides for application in agriculture. The nanoscale particles are smaller in size and may be absorbed with different dynamics from those in bulk particles or ionic salts, which has significant benefits [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41], as shown in Table 1. The usage of nano-enabled fertilizers may improve nutrient delivery efficiency in plants [37], as nano-fertilizers have demonstrated a boost in productivity by ensuring targeted delivery/gradual release of nutrients and reducing fertilizer application with an increase in NUE [42]. The reduced size of nano-fertilizers through physical/chemical means enhances their surface–mass ratio in order to allow an increase in absorption of nutrients by roots, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Nano-Fertilizers Mitigate Abiotic Stresses

ENMs have dramatically extended an increase in the functionality of biological systems due to their nanoscale size and vast surface area, which support plant growth and development [12,43,44,45] under biotic and abiotic stresses [13,46], viz., drought, salinity, alkalinity, temperature, minerals and metal toxicity [47]. Photosynthesis is a critical metabolic activity in plants and is found to be the most vulnerable to stress, viz., nutritional deprivation, salinity, drought, and heat, as photosystem II (PS II), rubisco, and ATP synthase become the primary targets [12]. Plant defense responses to abiotic stress have been established with SiO2 NPs to improve transpiration/ water-use efficiency (WUE), photosynthetic pigments, and carbonic anhydrase activities in pumpkin plants [13,48]. TiO2 has been discovered to alter photoreduction activity and block linolenic acid in the electron transport chain (ETC) located in chloroplasts for oxygen evolution [49]. Cell organelles produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) in stressful situations as the primary symptom of abiotic stress. Plants have the enzymatic machinery to deal with the oxidative stress they are subjected to by the environment. On the other hand, plants suffer the effects of such a situation when the defense system fails. By activating specific genes, collecting osmolytes, and supplying free nutrients and amino acids, NMs serve to alleviate stress, as shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 and Table 1.

3.1. Uptake and Accumulation Mechanisms of Nano-Fertilizers from Soil to Plants

The dispersion, aggregation, stability, immobilization, bioavailability, and transport of NPs are influenced by the physicochemical properties of the soil, i.e., texture, structure, clay minerals, pH, cation exchange capacity, soil organic matter, and microbial population [50]. Due to the surface charge effect, dissolved organic matter impacts the aggregation, mobility, stability, and binding nature of NPs [51]. Nano-fertilizers may be applied to soil or foliage directly. The foliar entry comes first, followed by the root entry. In foliar application, provided by spraying the green canopies/leaves, uptake occurs mainly via the cuticle, stomata, and hydathodes, whereas root application acquires access via root tips, lateral roots, root hairs, and rhizodermis. NF foliar application is preferred during poor soil and weather conditions [2] (Figure 1 and Figure 2; Table 1). The flow of water and solutes through the soil is described by the Richards equation, and the convection–dispersion equation with different empirical models using the Michaelis–Menten equation [52,53].
Absorption increases in a nonlinear pattern as the nutrient concentration rises, approaching the highest uptake. The kinetic parameters of the Michaelis–Menten equation change depending on plant type, duration, soil heat, and related factors. The first nutrient transport model for plant tissues was the steady-state source–sink model with flow driven by an osmotically created pressure gradient [54,55] influenced by diffusive transport factors [56]; still, efforts are needed to acquire a perfect uptake model/mechanism for NPs in plants.

3.2. The Role of Nano-Fertilizers on Uptake of Water with Minerals

It is essential to assess the accumulation and translocation of NFs from the soil to plants. This information may help to explore the most appropriate ways and means for plants, as NFs/NPs prefer to enter via xylem uploading and may also be administered exogenously via phloem loading [57]. The uptake and distribution mechanism of nutrients through NFs in plants may be affected by the composition of NFs/NPs, their particle size, the dynamics of physiological processes, and pore diameter (5–20 nm) of the cell wall [57,58,59], while uptake, absorption, and trafficking of NPs inside plants occur with tremendous freedom (Table 1). Surface receptors, transporters, and membrane proteins were found to regulate their energy levels and surface charge [60,61]; in addition, regulated trafficking occurs through the cell wall and plasma membrane, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 [62,63]. Plant cell walls are negatively charged and act as a surface for ion exchange, perhaps promoting the penetration of cationic rather than anionic NPs [64]. Thus, negatively charged NPs have higher transport efficiency, with improved rate of internalization and translocation [65]. In this scenario, positively charged CeO NPs strongly adsorbed onto the root surfaces (negatively charged), whereas negatively charged CeO2 NPs demonstrated limited root accumulation but increased shoot internalization, mostly by overcoming electrostatic resistance [66].

3.3. Impact of Nano-Fertilizer on Photosynthetic Leaf Gas Exchange Capacity

Upon use of nano-fertilizers, a considerable increase was achieved in the physiological and biochemical indices of crop plants. A biocompatible magnetic nano-fluid (MNF) enhanced the favorable effect on total chlorophyll content in sunflower leaves [67]. The foliar spray of nTiO2 enhanced photosynthetic pigments in Zea mays found to be associated with improved crop yield [68]. Jan Mohammadi et al. [69] found that the foliar application of nTiO2 barley boosted anthocyanin and photosynthetic pigments, rubisco activity, and photosynthetic efficiency. The use of nTiO2 in spinach boosted plant performance and enhanced nitrogen metabolism, protein levels, and green pigments up to 17-fold and the photosynthetic rate by approx. 29% [70,71]. The application of nano-Zn fertilizer decreased the peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT), and oxidase enzyme activities in cotton and soybean crops but increased polyphenol content [72,73]. An increase in photosynthetic pigments, total soluble leaf protein, and dry mass of the plants was observed after foliar use of Zn NF in Pennisetum glaucum [74]. In savory plants, nano-Zn treatment-induced chlorophyll, essential oil, and P content [75] were observed, as an increase in the antioxidant capacity of rice [73]. Antioxidants are secondary metabolites produced by plants under adverse situations, i.e., drought, salt, and nutritional deficiency. The NFs supply enough nutrients to improve antioxidant activity in plant cells [76] due to an enhancement in photosynthetic responses generated by nTiO2 foliar use [77], with enhanced capacity of photo assimilation by leaves and grain yield [69]. The application of nTiO2 increased plant fresh and dry mass by enhancing photosynthetic capacity and nitrogen metabolism [74] through enhancing pigment formation and conversion of light energy into biochemical energy via improved photophosphorylation, which also upregulated biological carbon sequestration through the Calvin cycle in more than 95% of plants. The photocatalytic activity of nTiO2 in nanoform enhanced Zea mays biomass and productivity [68], as shown in Table 1. Si NPs increased photosynthetic efficiency by enhancements in the photosynthetic efficiency of PS II and in the performance index and photosynthetic pigments [78].

3.4. The Interactive Role of Nano-Fertilizers and Plant Growth—Biomass and Productivity

Morphological characteristics of nanocarriers may influence nutrient transport through the surface of the membranes, which is crucial in order to demonstrate the application and usefulness of nano-fertilizers, as shown in Table 1. It was found that nCHT has a good effect on morphological and physiological features in both germinating seed and foliar treatment to boost the growth of seedlings, biomass, germination capacity, and seed vigor index in chickpea, maize, and tomato seedlings [28,79,80]. Plant physiology and performance was found to be improved by increasing the density of certain nanoparticle surfaces [3]; application of nano-Zn resulted in significant modifications in rice biomass, relative water content [81], sunflower biomass [82], wheat grain yield under stress [83], and maize yield under drought [84] by increasing NUE [85] through alteration in physiological characteristics [86], including cell division, cell wall extension, and aquaporin in tobacco [87], shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. NMs were also associated with developing seed vigor, as they may penetrate the seeds’ hard coating to allow water for the germination process. Thus, seed priming appears to be a promising procedure for high-yield value crops prior to sowing [88,89]. NPs, once delivered inside the cytosol, may interact with cellular machinery such as chloroplasts. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) enhance photosynthesis by acquiring adequate light-harvesting chlorophyll–protein complexes [13] and also do not cause stress in plants, indicating that they may be safe in such a type of smart delivery [90]. Silica is important for plant nutrition, as its deficiency makes plants weaker and more vulnerable to environmental stresses [12,91].
Depending upon their additive concentration and size, NPs might have a favorable or negative effect on plants by acquiring larger particles of TiO2 NPs [92]. These NPs may influence miRNA levels, triggering plant growth-promoting pathways [93]. At lower concentrations, Fe NPs had a favorable effect in Capsicum annum, promoting performance by increasing the number of chloroplasts and grana stacking to acquire stable and functional PS IIand ensure photo-bioenergetics [94]. Seed germination in Vigna mungo and Hordeum sativum distichum is affected by other metal oxides associated with ZnO and Cu NPs [95,96], and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) protects Pisum sativum [97]. Chitosan, another important and biocompatible NP, influences germination percentage and morphology in wheat plants by increasing levels of IAA even at low concentrations [98]. The nano-nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (nNPK) formulation may easily permeate the leaves through stomata, improving wheat gas exchange and leaf growth [99]. Jaberzadeh et al. [100] discovered that the foliar treatment of nFe (2%) boosted grain production. Similarly, manganese (Mn) NPs were used to boost output and yield components in Vigna radiata [101], followed by improved crop yield in peanut upon application of nFe, nMn, and nZn [102,103,104]. The foliar use of nano-chelated molybdenum (Mo) boosted morphological and physiological traits along with productivity in Arachis hypogaea [105,106], as shown in Table 1.

3.5. Influence of Nano-Fertilizer on the Regulation of Plant Hormones

Plant hormones are important in times of external stress and help plants to adapt under changing environmental conditions [107,108]. Thus, they play a crucial role in plant responses to unfavorable environmental conditions, viz., water deficit, shade, waterlogging, and cold temperature, mostly by slowing plant performance and refocusing its attention on surviving the stress response [109]. Phytohormones may also be delivered in A. thaliana with drought resistance ability [12,110]. The loss in auxins, cytokinins, and salicylic acid is caused by NPs, implying a hormonal imbalance in plants that affects general metabolism [111,112]. Zinc may stimulate important enzymes associated with biochemical processes, such as glucose and protein growth regulator metabolism, pollen production, and membrane integrity [113,114], and also terminal oxidase in mitochondria in order to face environmental adversities for survival, as nZn fertilizer may enhance plantgrowth-promoting hormones [46], as shown in Table 1.

3.6. Defense Mechanisms

When compared to Zn alone, ZnNPs enhanced Zn concentration and protein and carbohydrate metabolism but decreased the P content in wheat grains [115]. According to Burman et al. [116], the favorable response of nano-ZnO in chickpea may be related to low ROS (reactive oxygen species) levels for lowering lipid peroxidation and the activities of prominent antioxidative enzymes. In addition, Zn supplementation improves auxin production, promoting mineral absorption, cell division, and plant growth [114,117]. It also allows plants to retain the integrity of the plasma membrane [118] and the operation of the mitochondrial electron transport chain for liberating energy through oxidative phosphorylation linked with ATP synthase. Inadequate Zn may decrease IAA concentration in tomato plants [119]. Rezaei and Abbasi [72] found that applying nano-chelate Zn to cotton plants improves physiological processes by increasing chlorophyll content and antioxidant activities of CAT, POD, and polyphenol oxidase. The engineered TiO2 NPs could achieve improved photosynthesis as well as seed germination, plant development, and plant pest control in Lettuce [120,121,122,123,124], Lemna minor [125], Solanum lycopersicum [30], Triticum aestivum [126], Citrullus lanatus [127], Phaseolus vulgaris [128], and Panicum miliaceum [129,130], with increased nitrogen metabolism and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/ oxygenase (rubisco)—encoded by the rbcL and rbcS genes located on cpGenome and nGenome and associated for contributing the LSU and SSU subunits of the proteins, biologically operating as enzyme biomolecules to ensure CO2 assimilation/Calvin cycle—perhaps the major cause of enhanced photosynthesis and plant productivity [12,49,70,71,124,131].
Plants create ROS mostly as a result of metabolic processes [132]. During metabolic processes, i.e., respiration and photosynthesis, plants regularly produce ROS in chloroplasts, mitochondria, peroxisomes, and other cell locations [132]. ROS are signaling molecules associated with plant development and defense at low levels and may also cause damage to cell membranes, DNA, protein, and other cell functions to impair plant growth [132,133] (Figure 1 and Figure 3; Table 1). Increasing the functional and structural protectants, such as suitable solutes (osmolytes) and antioxidative enzymes, may extend stress resistance capacity [134]. Antioxidative enzymes, i.e., SOD, CAT, APX, GR, GPX, and POD, and nonenzymatic low-molecular-weight metabolites primarily scavenge ROS in plants. Increased antioxidants may allow the formation of ascorbic acid and polyphenols, which may neutralize ROS to reduce oxidative stress. During stress, metabolic processes associated with ROS scavenging, i.e., shikimate-phenylpropanoid biosynthesis and ascorbate and aldonate metabolism, were found to be stimulated [135] to induce plants’ ability to scavenge ROS; by applying NMs with antioxidative enzymes, this may extend tolerance towards environmental stresses [133] with better plant performance and productivity (Figure 3).

3.7. Stimulation of Enzymatic and Non-Enzymatic Activities

NPs have some harmful effects on plants along with their beneficial aspects and may be used to bring health advantages to plants (Table 1). Because of their potential interaction at the nano–bio interface, these NPs have the potential to improve plant tolerance to various abiotic stresses [136] (Figure 3), as abiotic stress may cause generation of ROS, which lowers photosynthetic capacity and may lead to oxidation of biomolecules and peroxidation of biological membranes [137]. CeO NP mimics SOD activity and creates H2O2, but it also mimics CAT activity and demonstrates the scavenging action at a minimum ratio of Ce3+/Ce4+ [9,138,139,140]. Nano-TiO2 may upgrade plant hydration by boosting the nitrate reductase (NR) activity, leading to increased osmolyte accumulation. Increased NR enzyme activity leads to the generation of nitric oxide (NO), which triggers the synthesis of proline and glycine betaine [141]. In plants, TiO2 NPs tend to demonstrate enzymatic and non-enzymatic stress protection. TiO2 NPs may also regulate enzymes such as glutamate hydrogenase, glutamine synthase, and others, allowing the accumulation of additional nutrients and the generation of essential oils [142]. ROS generation seems to be the toxic mechanism of NPs, and various forms of NPs may produce various types of ROS by decreasing oxygen molecules. Reactive oxygen species are the byproducts of oxidative cellular metabolism, the bulk of which is carried outby mitochondria and which may give four types, the hydroxyl radical (OH), the superoxide anion radical (O2−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and singlet oxygen (1O2) [143,144]. The chemical composition of ENMs determines the quantity of ROS they produce [145]. ROS are produced due to NP accumulation and are responsible for cellular oxidative stress and the genesis of nanotoxicity, including DNA injury, manipulation of cell signaling, cell mortality, apoptosis, and cytotoxicity [146,147].
So far, studies have revealed that ROS regulate the physiology of cells and mechanisms by altering numerous signal transduction pathways in different cell types and systems [148]. Under normal circumstances, the generation of ROS in microbial cells was found to be balanced. This unbalanced environment causes oxidative stress, which destroys the different components of microbial cells. The redox balance of the cell favors oxidation with more ROS. It has been established that oxidative stress has a role in changing the permeability of cell membranes and generating microbial cell membrane injury [143,149]. ROS have also been proven to have a crucial interactive function between DNA and microbial cells, boosted oxidative protein gene expression being an important factor in microbial cell death. It may degrade proteins and impair the periplasmic enzymes necessary for microbial cells to balance their morphological and physiological functions [150], as shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. One of the most effective ways to reduce the negative consequences of these pressures may be the use of NMs [151], because they may mimic enzymes such as POD, SOD, and CAT, which constantly scavenge ROS [81]. Si NPs stimulate the antioxidative system in stressed plants [12,152]. NPs may enhance enzymatic activities correlated to stress resistance, because they have more specific reactive surface areas. The loss in MDA accumulation in Si NP-applied plants was found to be significantly correlated to their membrane stability index [78] (Figure 3; Table 1).

3.8. Role of Nano-Fertilizers on the Expression of Stress-Responsive Genes

For DNA tagging and cleavage, interactions of NMs with nucleic acids have been employed. In contrast to the favorable applications of DNA–nanomaterial conjugation, fullerenes have been discovered to bind DNA and produce strand deformation, which may negatively influence molecule functionality and stability. Some NPs may indirectly damage DNA by generating ROS, resulting in cross-linking and DNA strand breakage [153]. The cells taking up nano-ions expressed continuous DNA alterations, identified during gene polymerization in vivo by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [154]. The oxygen radicals in TiO2 NPs, employed in sunscreen, may nick supercoiled DNA. Photosensitive fullerenes may cleave ds-DNA when exposed to light, with potential mutagenic functions [155]. Nanoparticles and their ions may interfere with DNA replication and expression of genes, as Ag ions are found to prevent DNA replication [153]. AgNPs bind to DNA in the cytoplasm of E. coli, impairing DNA replication [154]. In Pseudomonas stutzeri, Azotobacter vinelandii, and Nitrosomonas europaea, sublethal doses of Ag NPs caused no effect on N2-fixing or N2-denitrifying genes; nevertheless, other nitrification-related genes, such as amoA1 and amoC2, increased in N. europaea [156].
Microarray research of E. coli and Ag NPs reveals that NPs may greatly impact the bacterial transcriptome. Other molecular abnormalities are suggested by the stimulation of stress-related genes as well as genes for S, Cu, and Fe balance. The activation of nitrification genes without stimulation of denitrification genes (transformation of NO3 to N2) could affect the availability of N2 and the buildup of NO3 for later fixation. Ag NPs also alter other metal-regulated genes, suggesting that they have an impact on cellular metal homeostasis [157]. CuO NPs also reduced the output of luminous pyoverdine siderophores in P. chlororaphis by inhibiting the gene expression associated with their periplasmic maturation and secretion [158]. Ag NPs may alter other proteins related to metal detoxification, oxidative stress resistance, elongation and processes of transcription, cytoskeleton remodeling, protein loss, and cell division [159].

4. Long-Term Application of Nano-Fertilizers and Its Responses in Agriculture

Agriculture may experience environmental adversities in times to come, impairing our food security for a rapidly growing global population. Modifying current fertigation procedures [160], we may explore one of the possibilities for increasing plant performance, biomass, plant productivity, and eventually grain yield as well. The excessive use of chemical fertilizers may be harmful to the health of mankind, animals, the health of plants/crops, and the environment. The inclusion of nano-fertilizers could be a promising, fruitful solution to these issues. The use of NFs was found to be one of the most effective methods for increasing resource efficiency, plant production, and lowering pollution levels [161]. Thus, NFs may replace the application of regular fertilizers by providing a suitable approach to improving the agricultural products [162], as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Impact of nanoparticles/nano-fertilizers on crops under unfavorable environmental variables.
Table 1. Impact of nanoparticles/nano-fertilizers on crops under unfavorable environmental variables.
NPsPlantApplication TypeConcentration RangeImpactsSource
nCeO2Barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.)
Soil0–500 mg kg−1 soilImproved plant performance, enhanced Ce accumulation in grains, and P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Cu, Fe, Zn, Mn, Al, amino acids, fatty acids, methionine, aspartic acid, threonine, tyrosine, arginine, and linolenic acid.[163]
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)
Soil0–500 mg kg−1 soilEnhanced overall plant fitness and productivity as compared to normal plants—increased Ce uptake in roots but no change in leaves, hull, and seeds.[164]
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)
Soil0–400 mg kg−1 soilReduced photosynthetic pigments and seed protein, antioxidant enzyme activities upregulated. No significant effects on plant biomass and productivity.[165]
Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Soil400 mg kg−1 soilNo change in starch level but changed carbohydrate pattern. Enhanced globulin and reduced glutelin content.[166]
Cilantro
(Coriandrum sativum L.)
Soil0–500 mg kg−1 soilHigher content was found in Ce, CAT in the stem, and APx in roots.[167]
nCuOTomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Foliar50–500 ppm (particle size 50 nm)Enhanced vitamin C, lycopene, ABTS, CAT, and SOD and reduced the APX and GPX activities. Increased Cu accumulation in tomato fruits.[168]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Soil0.02–10 ppmImproved plant growth, development, productivity, and fruit quality. Enhanced the lycopene and antioxidant capacity.[169]
Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Hydroponic10–20 ppmIncreased ROS, phenolic components, amino acids, antioxidant enzymatic systems, and decreased citric acid level.[170]
Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Soil40 nm
(particle size)
Fruit metabolites were changed as compared to control plants. Sugars and organic, amino, and fatty acids were enhanced.[171]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum Mill.)
Soil10–100 mMEnhanced plant biomass and growth characteristics. Upregulated photosynthetic pigments, leaf gas exchange responses, and enzymatic activities.[172]
nCuO, nAl2O3, nTiO2Onion
(Allium cepa L.)
Petriplate0–2000 µg mL−1Significantly affected the mitotic index. ROS activities enhanced in onion roots. Enzymatic activities increased, i.e., CAT and SOD in all applied NPs.[173]
nCu/ kinetinKidney bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
Soil50, 100 mg
kg−1 soil
The chlorophyll content and nutrient elements, Ca, Mn, and P, were reduced and root Cu accumulation enhanced.[174]
nCu–chitosanTomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Soil0.3–0.015 MIncreased plant performance, productivity, stomatal conductance, and leaf CAT and fruit lycopene level.[175]
nCu, nFe, nCo (Metal NPs)Maize
(Zea mays L.)
Soil irrigation3–5 ppmPositively enhanced the seed germination frequency, time, and early growth, enzymatic activities, and metabolism of SOD in plant leaves to stress resistance capacity.[176]
nSiO2Maize
(Zea mays L.)
Hydroponic20–40 nmEnhanced germination (%) rate, biomass, Si uptake, and nutrient uptake[177]
Soybean
(Glycine max L.)
Soil30–50 nm
(particle size)
Reduced the toxic effects on plant performance and reduced Hg uptake in the epidermis and pericycle of the plant roots and leaves. Increase leaf gas exchange and enzymatic responses. [178]
Peregrina
(Jatropha integerrima)
Foliar1–2 mMIncreased growth characteristics, biochemical profile, meanwhile reduced uptake of Na, Cl, total phenolics, and flavonoid contents in the plant leaves.[179]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Petriplate0.05–2.5 ppmThe germination rate, root morphology, and biomass were significantly enhanced after NPs. Gene expression was upregulated, i.e., in AREB, TAS14, NCED3, CRK1, and RBOH1, APX2, MAPK2, ERF5, MAPK3, and DDF2 decreased. The genes are significantly associated to nSi in plant’s response to enhance stress resistance capacity.[180]
Mahaleb
(Prunus mahaleb L.)
Soil irrigation10–100 ppmImproved photosynthetic performance less impacted by stress when plants were pretreated with NPs at maximum treatment concentrations and upgraded nutritional level, i.e.,N, P, and K content.[181]
Faba bean
(Vicia faba L.)
Soil1–3 mMImproved seed germination rate and duration, plant length, leaf RWC biomass, seed quality, and productivity and nutritional element status, i.e., N, P, K, Ca, and Na.[182]
Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Foliar15–120 ppmAn enhancement in plant length, leaf number, areaexpansion, biomass, fruit weights, and quality as relative to control plants.[183]
Strawberry
(Fragaria × ananassa)
Foliar and soil irrigation20–80 ppmSignificantly enhanced the nutritional content, such as K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Si, in plant stem but no changes in Zn and Cu content.[184]
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)Foliar300 ppmEnhanced photosynthetic efficiency, Fv/Fm variables, chlorophyll content, and PS II apparatus during cold stress conditions.[185]
Barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.)
Soil12–250 ppmSignificantly enhanced plant growth performance, chlorophyll content, leaf gas exchange, osmolytes, antioxidative enzyme activities, cell membrane efficiency, and profile of metabolites.[186]
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)
Hydroponic10 µMAlleviates harmful effects of UV radiation on plants.[187]
Marigold
(Tagetes erecta L.)
Soil and foliar100–600 ppmEnhanced biometrics, physiological, biochemical, and flower traits, i.e., fresh and dry mass of flower, flowering duration, and days taken to first bud initiation, etc.[188]
Biogenic amorphous silica (bASi)-Soil1–15%Increases soil water holding capacity (SWHC). Soil management can be modified to increase bASI level, increasing available water content in soils, and to reduce water stress capacity for plant growth and development.[189]
nFe2O3Soybean
(Glycine max L.)
Foliar0.25–1 MEnhanced leaf biomass with seed weight in comparison to normal plants.[190]
Peanut
(Arachis hypogaea L.)
Soil2–1000 ppmImproved plant growth characteristics, root morphology, and productivity. Enhanced photosynthetic pigments, Chl index, plant hormones, enzymatic activities, and Fe uptake.[191]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Hydroponic50–800 ppmImproved germination of seeds, morphological traits, dry weight, and Fe uptake as compared to normal plants[192]
nFeSMustard
(Brassica juncea L.)
Foliar2–10 ppmEnhanced agronomic traits, photosynthetic pigments, membrane injury, nutrient assimilation, MDA, proline, and enzymatic activities versuswithout NP application. Activation of genes, i.e., rubiscosmall subunit (rubisco S), rubiscolarge subunit (rubisco L), glutamine synthetase (gs), and glutamate synthase (gogat).[45]
nTiO2Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Soil0–750 mg kg−1 soilEnhanced leaf greenness, CAT, and APx activity were reduced. Applied TiO2 increased Kand Plevels.[193]
Barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.)
Soil500–1000 mg
kg−1 soil
Applied NPs found tostimulate plant performance by enhancing germination (%) as compared to normal and treated plants.[39]
Rice
(Oryza sativa L.)
Soil0–750 mg kg−1 soilEnhanced plant performance, P level in roots to grains. Upregulated the level of metabolites, i.e., amino acids, palmitic acids, and glycerol level in rice seeds.[194]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Soil0–1000 mg kg−1 soilImproved plant development uptake and accumulation of minerals.[195]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicumL.)
Hydroponic0.5–4 MnTiO2 improved plant growth and development (approx. 50%) and significantly enhanced the leaf gas exchange, i.e., quantum yield, performance index, photosynthetic pigments, and expression ofPSIgene compared to normal plant growth conditions. Enhanced expressions of glutathione synthase and glutathioneS-transferase in roots and leaves. Antioxidant activities increased in a dose-dependent method. Nutritional element significantly affected (P, S, Mg, and Fe content).[196]
Spinach
(Spinacia oleracea L.)
-0.25%Enhanced electron transport rate (ETR) and the oxygen-evolving rate (OER) of PS II, enzymatic responses, reduced ROS level.[197]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Foliar0.05–0.2 MIncreased photosynthetic performance by regulating PS II energy dissipation and slightly reduced the Fv/Fm and electron transport rate in plant leaves.[198]
Wheat
(Triticum vulgare L.)
Hydroponic5–40 ppmNo significant effects on plant performance. Leaf photosynthetic pigments were reduced with increasing NP levels. Increased nutrient uptake and accumulation except for K level.[199]
nTiO2-Activated
carbon composite
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and mungbean
(Vigna radiates L.)
Foliar0–500 ppmAppropriate NP concentrations can enhance the rate of seed germination and minimize the germination period in tomato and mungbean.[200]
nFe3O4Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Hydroponic50–2000 ppmImproved plant growth, development, yield, and enzymatic responses, i.e., SOD and POD. Applied NPs enhance/balance the proper nutrient management to overcome food security and safety.[201]
Barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.)
Hydroponic125–1000 ppmIncrease plant growth, biomass traits, photosynthetic pigments, total soluble protein, and chloroplasts frequency. No toxic effects were found during the excess dose of NPs. Excess NP application reduced the CAT and H2O2 activities, and alteration was found in the photosynthetic genes of plant leaves.[202]
nFeChili
(Capsicum annuum L.)
Foliar0.002–2 mM L−1Low dose of nFe was noted to play positive role in plant growth and development. Enhanced chloroplast functional capacity and grana stacking. High dose of FeNPs found to have harmful effects on plants and can potentially stop the distribution of Fe nutrient.[94]
nAgTomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Seed0.05–2.5 ppmEnhanced the rate of germination (%), root morphology, and plant output. The expression of genes was found to be upregulated (AREB, MAPK2, P5CS, and CRK1), and few genes were noted as downregulated (TAS14, DDF2, and ZFHD1).[203]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum Mill.)
Soil irrigation10–40 ppmApplied NPs enhanced the fruit characteristics and plant performance.[204]
Soybean
(Glycine max (L.) Mell.)
Soil31.2–62.5 mg kg−1 soilNegatively affected plant development and fixation of N. [205]
nZnOMaize
(Zea mays L.)
Foliar150–300 ppmEnhanced maximum growth characteristics, physiological and biochemical activities during high pH treatment.[206]
Mungbean
(Vigna radiate L.)
Petriplate10–100 ppmEnhanced germination rate, growth development, and nutritional elements.[207]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum Mill.)
Tissue culture15–30 ppmZnO NPs alleviated the adverse effects of plants. Lower dose was more appropriate than the higher. Various cultivars found different tolerance capacity for stress.[208]
Maize
(Zea mays L.)
Foliar50–2000 ppmEnhanced seed germination rate, seedling vigor index, biomass, productivity, and accumulation of Zn in grains.[32]
Peanut
(Arachis hypogaea L.)
Soil irrigation0–1000 ppmIncreased vegetation growth rate, morphological traits, photosynthetic content, crop productivity, and overall plant performance.[209]
Sweet basil
(Ocimum basilicumL.)
Foliar1000 ppmImproved vegetative growth, development, essential oil productivity, biomass, and accumulation of Zn content.[210]
Peanut
(Arachis hypogaea L.)
Soil100–500 ppmMorphological, yield, and biochemical traits, such as plant length, biomass, and pod numbers/weight. Photosynthetic pigments, total phenols, reducing and total soluble sugar were positively affected by the NP treatment.[211]
Sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor L.)
Soil and foliar6 mg kg−1 soilEnhanced plant performance and yield component, uptake of N and K elements, improved grain nutrient profile and NUE as compared to normal plants.[212]
nZn–chitosanWheat
(Triticum durum)
Soil and foliar20 mg g−1 soil
(w/w)
Increased Zn accumulation in the plants cultivated under Zn-deficient arable land.[213]
nChitosanBarley
(Hordeum vulgareL.)
Soil and foliar10–100 ppmSignificantly enhanced the leaf areaexpansion, leaf greenness (Chl index), number of seeds/spikes, productivity, and harvest index relative to normal plants. nChitosan enhanced the LRWC, grain weight, grain protein, proline, and CAT and SOD activity. [214]
nChitosan-NPKWheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)
Foliar500, 60,
and 400 ppm (N, P, and K), 10,
25, and 100%
Enhanced growth, yield, and nutritional status as compared to normal plants.[215]
nChitosanBarley
(Hordeum vulgare L.)
Soil and foliar30–90 ppmPositively enhanced the growth parameters, leaf chlorophyll index, RWC, yield, and biochemical activities.[214]
nZ (Zein NPs)Sugarcane
(Saccharum spp.)
Hydroponic0.88–1.75 mg mL−1Uptake of significant amount of ZNPs in cane roots and the presence of Z particles in the epidermis and endodermis in the roots system of the sugarcane plant. Increased nutrient uptake in the plant system.[216]
nAuThale cress
(Arabidopsis thaliana L.)
Foliar10–80 µg mL−1Increased seed germination (%), growth, free radical scavenging responses. Potential approach to increase the seed productivity of plants.[217]
Brown mustard
(Brassica juncea L.)
Foliar0–100 ppmSignificantly enhanced the growth, biomass parameters, and total sugar level. Leafarea expansion was increased, but the mean area not affected. [218]
Mn3O4Cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.)
Foliar1–5 mg plant−1Significantly enhanced plant development, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic responses, and plant biomass. Increased endogenous antioxidative defense mechanisms. [219]
nUrea modified with hydroxyapatiteAlmond
(Prunus dulcis L.)
Soil irrigation25–100%Applied NPs enhanced seed germination rate, plant height, perimeter, elongation of secondary and primary roots/plant, and the number of secondary roots, increasing seed moisture status. [220]
Ironoxide nanoparticles may have a long history of use in a variety of fields, including catalysis and medicine [221]. Iron NPs applied to plants by irrigation of soil or spraying are absorbed and accumulated in Zea mays [222], Cucurbita pepo [223], and Citrullus lanatus [127,224]. Fundamental demonstrations of the effects of FeO NPs on a variety of plants, such as Lactuca sativa [121], Triticum aestivum [101], Trifolium repens [225], Glycine max [101,226], Oryza sativa [227], and Arachis hypogaea [191], reflected an idea that Fe NPs may improve a variety of morphological, physiological, biochemical, and yield attributes, as shown in Table 1. Plants may absorb FeO NPs as intact particles, and they eventually dissolve with positive effect on development. Thus, Fe NPs could be a good addition as a standard chelator for iron fertilizer. However, several aspects, such assoil properties, soil biogeochemistry, plant cultivars, plant growth stage/duration, NP exposure level, and physicochemical features, may limit these results, necessitating further validation with a variety of crops and soils, including subsequent effects on the food chain [12,46]. Notably, silica NPs also stimulate antioxidant enzymes to support improved seedling growth and tolerance under biotic and abiotic stresses [12,13,78,178,228]. They also inhibit Na uptake and its distribution while enhancing K uptake and accumulation [229,230]. As a result, the favorable effects of Si and Si NPs on plant growth and development may confer an ability to mitigate adverse impacts of climate change in years to come, for example, inconsistent rainfall, elevated or cold temperatures, and excess evaporation from the soil surface [78]. Si NPs may interact with plants directly or indirectly, causing morphological and physiological changes for upregulating stress resistance, which may sustain plant growth, development, performance, suitable canopy architecture, and rhizosphere and biosphere physiological acts assisting stress acclimatization [13,231], as shown in Table 1.
The potential of Si to influence the availability of P and boost the NUE, expressed as biomass produced per unit of a specific essential nutrient accumulated concerning N, has been shown [232,233]. As a result, Si supplementation in agricultural soils may eliminate the requirement of P and N fertilizer for crop plant production [234]. The wheat plants rapidly absorbed silicon, which was supplied to the substrate in the form of ENMs made up of amorphous pyrogenic hydrophilic SiO2 [233]. The maximum concentration of Si was found in vegetative tissue, i.e., leaf blades > leaf sheaths > culm and the lowest in grain followed by roots, increasing stomata density in the tissues. Wheat plants were shown to transfer around 90% of absorbed Si to the shoots, while root content remained low [233,235]. The addition of Si greatly boosts Pmobility by mobilizing Fe(II)-P phases from mineral surfaces. In phosphorus-deficient soils, it also stimulates soil respiration. It isa major factor for mobilizing phosphorus in Arctic soils, suggesting that this may also be important for sustainable management of phosphorus availability in soils [233,236].
Environmental protection, financial stability, and biological sustainability are more notable consequences of nano-goods supporting plant crops (Table 1). According to Tiwari et al. [237], NMs may boost plant stress tolerance, whereas nano-fertilizers may improve overall plant health. The specific biosensors may be associated with NFs to manage the delivery and bioavailability of nutrients based on plant types, growth stage, and agro-climatic zones. Above all, huge industrial set-up and vast transport using large quantities of energy may also be compressed in the event of global acceptance of NFs, as these are required in modest quantities compared to synthetic fertilizers for crop production [160,238].

5. Conclusions and Future Perspective

Plenty of ENMs have extended genuine promise in agriculture and plant/crop productivity. However, much more seems to be unestablished to reinforce scientific knowledge in order to produce another green revolution in years to come for the welfare of global food security under the era of climate change, associated with adverse environmental variables and increasing population in developing countries. As agricultural produce is essential to support and sustain life on planet Earth, recent advances of NFs may be explored to achieve precision agriculture with ecological and economical viability. It must be noted that the worldwide green revolution resulted in enhanced production of food grains at the cost of disproportionate use of artificial/synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which severely impaired our ecosystem. Thus, both of these troubles associated with agriculture may be substituted in an eco-friendly way by using NFs and NPs to safeguard our ecosystem/agro-climatic zones. The fertilizers obtained from biological resources may have numerous advantages over synthetic fertilizers in maximizing crop expansion with nutrient utilization efficiency and mitigation of climate change. Interestingly, NFs have shown considerable promise as an innovative approach and may confer in vivo enhanced agri-potential by maintaining the physiological fitness of crop plants holistically to maximize their metabolic processes, viz., WUE, NUE, LUE, and CUE, integrated with plant performance and plant productivity/carbon economy, found to be essential for the exploration of another green/grain revolution to feed the population globally with a healthy ecosystem under climate change in the future.

Author Contributions

The manuscript was designed and primarily constructed by K.K.V., X.-P.S., Y.-R.L., K.K.V. and X.-P.S. were actively involved in the manuscript writing, A.J. prepared the figures, and D.-D.T., V.D.R., M.S., J.A., T.M. and Y.-R.L. offered crucial advice, critically examined the manuscript, and revised the article as per the peer reviewer’s comments. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Guangxi Innovation Teams of Modern Agriculture Technology (nycytxgxcxtd-2021-03), Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (31901594), The National Natural Science Foundation of China (31760415), Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2021GXNSFAA220022), and Fund of Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2021YT011).

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning, Guangxi, China, for providing the necessary facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors declare that there are no competing financial interests.

References

  1. Pouratashi, M.; Iravani, H. Farmers’ knowledge of integrated pest management and learning style preferences: Implications for information delivery. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2012, 58, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mittal, D.; Kaur, G.; Singh, P.; Yadav, K.; Ali, S.A. Nanoparticle-Based Sustainable Agriculture and Food Science: Recent Advances and Future Outlook. Front. Nanotechnol. 2020, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hussein, M.M.; Abou-Baker, N.H. The contribution of nano-zinc to alleviate salinity stress on cotton plants. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 171809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Robroek, B.J.M.; Jassey, V.E.J.; Beltman, B.; Hefting, M. Diverse fen plant communities enhance carbon-related multifunctionality, but do not mitigate negative effects of drought. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 170449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bindraban, P.S.; Dimkpa, C.O.; Angle, S.; Rabbinge, R. Unlocking the multiple public good services from balanced fertilizers. Food Secur. 2018, 10, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mandal, D. Nanofertilizer and its application in horticulture. J. Appl. Hortic. 2021, 23, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fellet, G.; Pilotto, L.; Marchiol, L.; Braidot, E. Tools for Nano-Enabled Agriculture: Fertilizers Based on Calcium Phosphate, Silicon, and Chitosan Nanostructures. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elmer, W.H.; White, J.C. The use of metallic oxide nanoparticles to enhance growth of tomatoes and eggplants in disease infested soil or soilless medium. Environ. Sci. Nano 2016, 3, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Z.; Xie, X.; Zhao, J.; Liu, X.; Feng, W.; White, J.C.; Xing, B. Xylem- and Phloem-Based Transport of CuO Nanoparticles in Maize (Zea mays L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4434–4441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carpenter, S.R.; Caraco, N.F.; Correll, D.L.; Howarth, R.W.; Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, V.H. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 1998, 8, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Adisa, I.O.; Pullagurala, V.L.R.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Dimkpa, C.O.; Elmer, W.H.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; White, J.C. Recent advances in nano-enabled fertilizers and pesticides: A critical review of mechanisms of action. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 6, 2002–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Feizi, M.; Kumari, A.; Khan, M.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; El-Ramady, H.; Verma, K.K.; Singh, A.; et al. Effects of Silicon and Silicon-Based Nanoparticles on Rhizosphere Microbiome, Plant Stress and Growth. Biology 2021, 10, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Raliya, R.; Saharan, V.; Dimkpa, C.; Biswas, P. Nanofertilizer for Precision and Sustainable Agriculture: Current State and Future Perspectives. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 66, 6487–6503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pimentel, D.; Wilson, A. World population agriculture and malnutrition. World Watch 2004, 17, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  16. Renner, A.; Cadillo-Benalcazar, J.J.; Benini, L.; Giampietro, M. Environmental pressure of the European agricultural system: Anticipating the biophysical consequences of internalization. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 46, 101195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Smith, A.M.; Gilbertson, L.M. Rational Ligand Design to Improve Agrochemical Delivery Efficiency and Advance Agriculture Sustainability. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 13599–13610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. F2F. Farm to Fork Strategy. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  20. OECD-FAO. Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029; OECD Publishing: Paris, France; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Faizan, M.; Rajput, V.; Al-Khuraif, A.; Arshad, M.; Minkina, T.; Sushkova, S.; Yu, F. Effect of Foliar Fertigation of Chitosan Nanoparticles on Cadmium Accumulation and Toxicity in Solanum lycopersicum. Biology 2021, 10, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gogos, A.; Knauer, K.; Bucheli, T.D. Nanomaterials in Plant Protection and Fertilization: Current State, Foreseen Applications, and Research Priorities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 9781–9792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rajput, V.D.; Singh, A.; Minkina, T.; Rawat, S.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; Shuvaeva, V.; Nazarenko, O.; Rajput, P.; Komariah; et al. Nano-Enabled Products: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture. Plants 2021, 10, 2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, H.; Sharma, A.; Bhardwaj, S.K.; Arya, S.K.; Bhardwaj, N.; Khatri, M. Recent advances in the applications of nano-agrochemicals for sustainable agricultural development. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2021, 23, 213–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lowry, G.V.; Avellan, A.; Gilbertson, L.M. Opportunities and challenges for nanotechnology in the agri-tech revolution. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bandala, E.R.; Berli, M. Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and their role at the nexus of Food, Energy, and Water. Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 2019, 2, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fraceto, L.F.; Grillo, R.; de Medeiros, G.A.; Scognamiglio, V.; Rea, G.; Bartolucci, C. Nanotechnology in agriculture: Which innovation potential does it have? Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Saharan, V.; Kumaraswamy, R.V.; Choudhary, R.C.; Kumari, S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P. Cu-Chitosan Nanoparticle Mediated Sustainable Approach to Enhance Seedling Growth in Maize by Mobilizing Reserved Food. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 6148–6155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wiesner, M.R.; Lowry, G.V.; Alvarez, P.; Dionysiou, D.; Biswas, P. Assessing the Risks of Manufactured Nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4336–4345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Raliya, R.; Biswas, P. Environmentally benign bio-inspired synthesis of Au nanoparticles, their self-assembly and agglomeration. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 42081–42087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dimkpa, C.O.; Bindraban, P.S.; Fugice, J.; Agyin-Birikorang, S.; Singh, U.; Hellums, D. Composite micronutrient nanoparticles and salts decrease drought stress in soybean. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Subbaiah, L.V.; Prasad, T.N.V.K.V.; Krishna, T.G.; Sudhakar, P.; Reddy, B.R.; Pradeep, T. Novel Effects of Nanoparticulate Delivery of Zinc on Growth, Productivity, and Zinc Biofortification in Maize (Zea mays L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 3778–3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, S.X.; Wang, Z.H.; Miao, Y.F.; Li, S.Q. Soil organic nitrogen and its contribution to crop production. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 2061–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dubey, A.; Mailapalli, D.R. Nanofertilisers, nanopesticides, nanosensors of pest and nanotoxicity in agriculture. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 19, pp. 307–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Naderi, M.R.; Shahraki, A.D. Nanofertilizers and their roles in sustainable agriculture. Intl. J. Agr. Crop. Sci. 2013, 5, 2229–2232. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, R.; Lal, R. Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chhipa, H. Nanofertilizers and nanopesticides for agriculture. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2017, 15, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jyothi, T.; Hebsur, N. Effect of nanofertilizers on growth and yield of selected cereals—A review. Agric. Rev. 2017, 38, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Marchiol, L.; Mattiello, A.; Pošćić, F.; Fellet, G.; Zavalloni, C.; Carlino, E.; Musetti, R. Changes in physiological and agronomical parameters of barley (Hordeum vulgare) exposed to cerium and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Peralta-Videa, J.R. Are nanomaterials a real solution for sustainable agriculture? Acta Sci. Agric. 2018, 2, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chugh, G.; Siddique, K.; Solaiman, Z. Nanobiotechnology for Agriculture: Smart Technology for Combating Nutrient Deficiencies with Nanotoxicity Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kah, M.; Tufenkji, N.; White, J.C. Nano-enabled strategies to enhance crop nutrition and protection. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 532–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kah, M.; Kookana, R.S.; Gogos, A.; Bucheli, T.D. A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pullagurala, V.L.R.; Adisa, I.O.; Rawat, S.; Kim, B.; Barrios, A.C.; Medina-Velo, I.A.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Finding the conditions for the beneficial use of ZnO nanoparticles towards plants-A review. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 241, 1175–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rawat, M.; Nayan, R.; Negi, B.; Zaidi, M.; Arora, S. Physio-biochemical basis of iron-sulfide nanoparticle induced growth and seed yield enhancement in B. juncea. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 118, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zulfiqar, F.; Navarro, M.; Ashraf, M.; Akram, N.A.; Munne-Bosch, S. Nanofertilizer use for sustainable agriculture: Advantages and limitations. Plant Sci. 2019, 289, 110270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sharifi, M.; Faryabi, K.; Talaei, A.J.; Shekha, M.S.; Ale-Ebrahim, M.; Salihi, A.; Nanakali, N.M.Q.; Aziz, F.M.; Rasti, B.; Hasan, A.; et al. Antioxidant properties of gold nanozyme: A review. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 297, 112004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Siddiqui, M.H.; Al-Whaibi, M.H.; Faisal, M.; Al Sahli, A.A. Nano-silicon dioxide mitigates the adverse effects of salt stress on Cucurbita pepo L. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33, 2429–2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mingyu, S.; Chao, L.; Chunxiang, Q.; Lei, Z.; Liang, C.; Hao, H.; Xiaoqing, L.; Xiao, W.; Fashui, H. Nano-Anatase Relieves the Inhibition of Electron Transport Caused by Linolenic Acid in Chloroplasts of Spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2008, 122, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Khalkhal, K.; Lajayer, B.A.; Ghorbanpour, M. An overview on the effect of soil physicochemical properties on the immobilization of biogenic nanoparticles. In Biogenic Nano-Particles and Their Use in Agro-Ecosystems; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Singapore, 2020; pp. 133–160. [Google Scholar]
  51. Li, M.; Wang, P.; Dang, F.; Zhou, D.-M. The transformation and fate of silver nanoparticles in paddy soil: Effects of soil organic matter and redox conditions. Environ. Sci. Nano 2017, 4, 919–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Barber, S.A. Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  53. Claassen, N.; Syring, K.M.; Jungk, A. Verification of a mathematical model by simulating potassium uptake from soil. Plant Soil 1986, 95, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thornley, J.H.; Johnson, I.R. Plant and Crop Modeling—A Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1990; p. 660. [Google Scholar]
  55. Minchin, P.E.H.; Thorpe, M.R.; Farrar, J.F. A Simple Mechanistic Model of Phloem Transport which Explains Sink Priority. J. Exp. Bot. 1993, 44, 947–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Payvandi, S.; Daly, K.R.; Zygalakis, K.; Roose, T. Mathematical Modelling of the Phloem: The Importance of Diffusion on Sugar Transport at Osmotic Equilibrium. Bull. Math. Biol. 2014, 76, 2834–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pitambara; Archana; Shukla, Y.M. Nanofertilizers: A Recent Approach in Crop Production. Nanotechnol. Agric. Crop Prod. Prot. 2019, 25–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rico, C.M.; Majumdar, S.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Interaction of Nanoparticles with Edible Plants and Their Possible Implications in the Food Chain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 3485–3498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Corredor, E.; Testillano, P.S.; Coronado, M.-J.; Gonzalez-Melendi, P.; Fernández-Pacheco, R.; Marquina, C.; Ibarra, M.R.; de la Fuente, J.M.; Rubiales, D.; Perez-de-Laque, A. Nanoparticlepenetration and transport in living pumpkin plants: In Situ subcellular identification. BMC Plant Biol. 2009, 9, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Juárez-Maldonado, A.; Ortega-Ortíz, H.; Morales-Díaz, A.B.; González-Morales, S.; Morelos-Moreno, Á.; Sandoval-Rangel, A.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Benavides-Mendoza, A. Nanoparticles and Nanomaterials as Plant Biostimulants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Hotze, E.; Phenrat, T.; Lowry, G.V. Nanoparticle Aggregation: Challenges to Understanding Transport and Reactivity in the Environment. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 1909–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Santiago, M.; Pagay, V.; Stroock, A.D. Impact of Electroviscosity on the Hydraulic Conductance of the Bordered Pit Membrane: A Theoretical Investigation. Plant Physiol. 2013, 163, 999–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Zeng, Y.; Himmel, M.E.; Ding, S.-Y. Visualizing chemical functionality in plant cell walls. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Meychik, N.; Nikolaeva, J.; Yermakov, I. Ion Exchange Properties of the Root Cell Walls Isolated from the Halophyte Plants (Suaedaaltissima L.) Grown Under Conditions of Different Salinity. Plant Soil 2005, 277, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhu, Z.-J.; Wang, H.; Yan, B.; Zheng, H.; Jiang, Y.; Miranda, O.R.; Rotello, V.M.; Xing, B.; Vachet, R.W. Effect of Surface Charge on the Uptake and Distribution of Gold Nanoparticles in Four Plant Species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12391–12398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, M.; Feng, S.; Ma, Y.; Xie, C.; He, X.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, J.; Luo, W.; Zheng, L.; Chen, D.; et al. Influence of Surface Charge on the Phytotoxicity, Transformation, and Translocation of CeO2 Nanoparticles in Cucumber Plants. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 16905–16913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Pirvulescua, A.; Salaa, F.; Boldea, M. Variation of chlorophyll content in sunflower under the influence of magnetic nanofluids. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics 2014 (ICNAAM-2014), Rhodes, Greece, 22–28 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  68. Morteza, E.; Moaveni, P.; Farahani, H.A.; Kiyani, M. Study of photosynthetic pigments changes of maize (Zea mays L.) under nano TiO2 spraying at various growth stages. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. 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 Agric. Slov. 2016, 107, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Šebesta, M.; Kolenčík, M.; Sunil, B.R.; Illa, R.; Mosnáček, J.; Ingle, A.P.; Urík, M. Field Application of ZnO and TiO2 Nanoparticles on Agricultural Plants. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gao, F.; Hong, F.; Liu, C.; Zheng, L.; Su, M.; Wu, X.; Yang, F.; Wu, C.; Yang, P. Mechanism of Nano-anatase TiO2 on Promoting Photosynthetic Carbon Reaction of Spinach. Biol. Trace Element Res. 2006, 111, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rezaei, M.; Abbasi, H. Foliar application of nanochelate and non-nanochelate of zinc on plant resistance physiological processes in cotton (Gossipiumhirsutum L.). Iran. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 4, 1137–1144. [Google Scholar]
  73. Weisany, W.; Sohrabi, Y.; Heidari, G.; Siosemardeh, A.; GolezaniGhassemi, M. Changes in antioxidant enzymes activity and plant performance by salinity stress and zinc application in soybean (Glycin max L.). Plant Omics J. 2012, 5, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
  74. Tarafdar, J.C.; Raliya, R.; Mahawar, H.; Rathore, I. Development of Zinc Nanofertilizer to Enhance Crop Production in Pearl Millet (Pennisetumamericanum). Agric. Res. 2014, 3, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vafa, Z.N.; Sirousmehr, A.R.; Ghanbari, A.; Khammari, E.; Falahi, N. Effect of nano-zinc and humic acid in quantitative and qualitative characteristics of savory (Saturejahortensis L.). Int. J. Bio Sci. 2015, 6, 124–136. [Google Scholar]
  76. Benzon, H.R.L.; Rubenecia, M.R.U.; Ultra, V.U.; Lee, S.C. Nano-fertilizer affects the growth, development, and chemical properties of rice. Int. J. Agron. Agric. Res. 2015, 7, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gao, J.; Xu, G.; Qian, H.; Liu, P.; Zhao, P.; Hu, Y. Effects of nanoTiO2 on photosynthetic characteristics of Ulmus elongate seedlings. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 176, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Younis, A.; Khattab, H.; Emam, M. Impacts of silicon and silicon nanoparticles on leaf ultrastructure and TaPIP1 and TaNIP2 gene expressions in heat stressed wheat seedlings. Biol. Plant. 2020, 64, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kondal, R.; Kalia, A.; Krejcar, O.; Kuca, K.; Sharma, S.P.; Luthra, K.; Dheri, G.S.; Vikal, Y.; Taggar, M.S.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A.; et al. Chitosan-Urea Nanocomposite for Improved Fertilizer Applications: The Effect on the Soil Enzymatic Activities and Microflora Dynamics in N Cycle of Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.). Polymers 2021, 13, 2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Saharan, V.; Sharma, G.; Yadav, M.; Choudhary, M.K.; Sharma, S.S.; Pal, A.; Raliya, R.; Biswas, P. Synthesis and In Vitro antifungal efficacy of Cu–chitosan nanoparticles against pathogenic fungi of tomato. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 75, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Upadhyaya, H.; Shome, S.; Tewari, S.; Bhattacharya, M.K.; Panda, S.K. Effect of Zn nano-particles on growth responses of rice. In Nanotechnology: Novel Perspectives and Prospects; Singh, B., Kaushik, A., Mehta, S.K., Tripathi, S.K., Eds.; McGraw Hill Education: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 508–512. [Google Scholar]
  82. Torabian, S.; Zahedi, M.; Khoshgoftarmanesh, A. Effect of foliar spray of zinc oxide on some antioxidant enzymes activity of sunflower under salt stress. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 1013–1025. [Google Scholar]
  83. Babaei, K.; Sharifi, R.S.; Pirzad, A.; Khalilzadeh, R. Effects of bio fertilizer and nano Zn-Fe oxide on physiological traits, antioxidant enzymes activity and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under salinity stress. J. Plant Interact. 2017, 12, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Farnia, A.; Omidi, M.M.; Farnia, A. Effect of nano-zinc chelate and nano-biofertilizer on yield and yield components of maize (Zea Mays L.) under water stress condition. Ind. J. Nat. Sci. 2015, 5, 4614–4646. [Google Scholar]
  85. Huang, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Hou, Y.; Li, L. Nanotechnology in agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 369–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Jin, Y.; Fan, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, L.; Fu, Z.; Lavoie, M.; Pan, X.; Qian, H. Distinct physiological and molecular responses in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to aluminum oxide nanoparticles and ionic aluminum. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 228, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Khodakovskaya, M.V.; de Silva, K.; Biris, A.S.; Dervishi, E.; Villagarcia, H. Carbon Nanotubes Induce Growth Enhancement of Tobacco Cells. ACS Nano 2012, 6, 2128–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Acharya, P.; Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Crosby, K.M.; Jifon, J.L.; Patil, B.S. Nanoparticle-Mediated Seed Priming Improves Germination, Growth, Yield, and Quality of Watermelons (Citrullus lanatus) at multi-locations in Texas. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 5037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Anand, K.V.; Anugraga, A.; Kannan, M.; Singaravelu, G.; Govindaraju, K. Bio-engineered magnesium oxide nanoparticles as nano-priming agent for enhancing seed germination and seedling vigour of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). Mater. Lett. 2020, 8, 127792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bhat, J.A.; Rajora, N.; Raturi, G.; Sharma, S.; Dhiman, P.; Sanand, S.; Shivaraj, S.M.; Sonah, H.; Deshmukh, R. Silicon nanoparticles (SiNPs) in sustainable agriculture: Major emphasis on the practicality, efficacy and concerns. Nanoscale Adv. 2021, 3, 4019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rafi, M.M.; Epstein, E.; Falk, R.H. Silicon deprivation causes physical abnormalities in wheat (Triticum aestivum L). J. Plant Physiol. 1997, 151, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Larue, C.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Sobanska, S.; Cécillon, L.; Bureau, S.; Barthès, V.; Ouerdane, L.; Carrière, M.; Sarret, G. Foliar exposure of the crop Lactuca sativa to silver nanoparticles: Evidence for internalization and changes in Ag speciation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 264, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Boykov, I.N.; Shuford, E.; Zhang, B. Nanoparticle titanium dioxide affects the growth and microRNA expression of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Genomics 2019, 111, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yuan, J.; Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Lu, J.; Zhao, H.; Liu, M.; Nechitaylo, G.S.; Glushchenko, N.N. New insights into the cellular responses to iron nanoparticles in Capsicum annuum. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rajput, V.; Minkina, T.; Fedorenko, A.; Sushkova, S.; Mandzhieva, S.; Lysenko, V.; Duplii, N.; Fedorenko, G.; Dvadnenko, K.; Ghazaryan, K. Toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles on spring barley (Hordeum sativum distichum). Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Raja, K.; Sowmya, R.; Sudhagar, R.; Moorthy, P.S.; Govindaraju, K.; Subramanian, K. Biogenic ZnO and Cu nanoparticles to improve seed germination quality in blackgram (Vigna mungo). Mater. Lett. 2019, 235, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rahman, M.; Chakraborty, A.; Mazumdar, S.; Nandi, N.; Bhuiyan, M.; Alauddin, S.; Khan, I.; Hossain, M.J. Effects of poly(vinylpyrrolidone) protected platinum nanoparticles on seed germination and growth performance of Pisum sativum. Nano-Struct. Nano-Objects 2020, 21, 100408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Li, R.; He, J.; Xie, H.; Wang, W.; Bose, S.K.; Sun, Y.; Hu, J.; Yin, H. Effects of chitosan nanoparticles on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 126, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Abdel-Aziz, H.M.M.; Hasaneen, M.N.A.; Aya, M.O. Foliar application of nano chitosan NPK fertilizer improves the yield of wheat plants grown on two different soils. Egypt J. Exp. Biol. 2018, 14, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  100. Jaberzadeh, A.; Moaveni, P.; Moghadam, H.R.T.; Zahedi, H. Influence of Bulk and Nanoparticles Titanium Foliar Application on some Agronomic Traits, Seed Gluten and Starch Contents of Wheat Subjected to Water Deficit Stress. Not. Bot. HortiAgrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2013, 41, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Ghafariyan, M.H.; Malakouti, M.J.; Dadpour, M.R.; Stroeve, P.; Mahmoudi, M. Effects of Magnetite Nanoparticles on Soybean Chlorophyll. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10645–10652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Quary, F.X.; Leenhardt, F.; Remesy, C. Genetic variability and stability of grain Mg, Zn and Fe concentration in bread wheat. Eur. J. Agron. 2006, 25, 177–185. [Google Scholar]
  103. Mekkdad, A.A.A. Response of peanut nitrogen fertilizer levels and foliar zinc spraying rates in newly reclaimed sandy soils. J. Plant Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2017, 8, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. El-Metwally, I.M.; Doaa, M.R.; Abo-Basha, A.E.A.M.; Abd El-Aziz, M. Response of peanut plants to different foliar applications of nano-iron, manganese and zinc under sandy soil conditions. Middle East J. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 474–482. [Google Scholar]
  105. Mehrangiz, J.M.; Sirous, B.; Ebrahim, A. Study the effect of foliar application of nano chelate molybdenum fertilizer on the yield and yield components of peanut. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. H. Bot. 2014, 6, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  106. Anonymous. Annual Report; ICAR-CICR: Nagapur, Maharashtra, India, 2016; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
  107. Verma, V.; Ravindran, P.; Kumar, P.P. Plant hormone-mediated regulation of stress responses. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Raza, A.; Mehmood, S.S.; Tabassum, J.; Batool, R. Targeting plant hormones to develop abiotic stress resistance in wheat. In Wheat Production in Changing Environments; Springer: Singapore, 2019; p. 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Colebrook, E.H.; Thomas, S.G.; Phillips, A.L.; Hedden, P. The role of gibberellin signalling in plant responses to abiotic stress. J. Exp. Biol. 2014, 217, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Sun, D.; Hussain, H.I.; Yi, Z.; Rookes, J.E.; Kong, L.; Cahill, D.M. Delivery of Abscisic Acid to Plants Using Glutathione Responsive Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2018, 18, 1615–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. O’Brien, J.A.; Benková, E. Cytokinin cross-talking during biotic and abiotic stress responses. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Vankova, R.; Landa, P.; Podlipna, R.; Dobrev, P.I.; Přerostová, S.; Langhansova, L.; Gaudinova, A.; Motkova, K.; Knirsch, V.; Vanek, T. ZnO nanoparticle effects on hormonal pools in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 593, 535–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Salachna, P.; Mizielińska, M.; Płoszaj-Witkowska, B.; Jaszczak, A. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Enhanced Biomass and Zinc Content and Induced Changes in Biological Properties of Red Perilla frutescens. Materials 2021, 14, 6182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. El-Tohamy, W.A.; El-Greadly, N.H.M. Physiological responses, growth, yield and quality of snap bean in response to foliar application of yeast, vitamin E and zinc under sandy soil conditions. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2007, 1, 249–299. [Google Scholar]
  115. Li, M.; Wang, S.; Tian, X.; Zhao, J.; Li, H.; Guo, C.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, A. Zn distribution and bioavailability in whole grain and grain fractions of winter wheat as affected by applications of soil N and foliar Zn combined with N or P. J. Cereal Sci. 2015, 61, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Burman, U.; Saini, M.; Kumar, P. Effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on growth and antioxidant system of chickpea seedlings. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2013, 95, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cakmak, I. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: Agronomic or genetic bio-fortification. Plant Soil 2008, 302, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Raliya, R.; Tarafdar, J.C. ZnO nanoparticle biosynthesis and its effect on phosphorusmobilizing enzyme secretion and gum contents in clusterbean (Cyamopsistetragonoloba L.). Agric. Res. 2013, 20, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  120. Wang, P.; Lombi, E.; Zhao, F.-J.; Kopittke, P. Nanotechnology: A New Opportunity in Plant Sciences. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 699–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Zahra, Z.; Arshad, M.; Rafique, R.; Mahmood, A.; Habib, A.; Qazi, I.A.; Khan, S.A. Metallic Nanoparticle (TiO2 and Fe3O4) Application Modifies Rhizosphere Phosphorus Availability and Uptake by Lactuca sativa. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 6876–6882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hong, F.; Yang, F.; Liu, C.; Gao, Q.; Wan, Z.; Gu, F.; Wu, C.; Ma, Z.; Zhou, J.; Yang, P. Influences of nano-TiO2 on the chloroplast aging of spinach under light. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2005, 104, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hong, F.; Zhou, J.; Liu, C.; Yang, F.; Wu, C.; Zheng, L.; Yang, P. Effect of nano-TiO2 on photochemical reaction of chloroplasts of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2005, 105, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Linglan, M.; Chao, L.; Chunxiang, Q.; Sitao, Y.; Jie, L.; Fengqing, G.; Fashui, H. Rubisco Activase mRNA Expression in Spinach: Modulation by Nanoanatase Treatment. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2008, 122, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Song, G.; Gao, Y.; Wu, H.; Hou, W.; Zhang, C.; Ma, H. Physiological effect of anatase TiO2 nanoparticles on Lemna minor. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31, 2147–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Feizi, H.; Rezvani Moghaddam, P.; Shahtahmassebi, N.; Fotovat, A. Impact of bulk and nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO2) on wheat seed germination and seedling growth. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2012, 146, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wang, W.-N.; Tarafdar, J.C.; Biswas, P. Nanoparticle synthesis and delivery by an aerosol route for watermelon plant foliar uptake. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2013, 15, 1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Raliya, R.; Biswas, P.; Tarafdar, J. TiO2 nanoparticle biosynthesis and its physiological effect on mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). Biotechnol. Rep. 2015, 5, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Tarafdar, A.; Raliya, R.; Wang, W.-N.; Biswas, P.; Tarafdar, J.C. Green Synthesis of TiO2 Nanoparticle Using Aspergillus tubingensis. Adv. Sci. Eng. Med. 2013, 5, 943–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Burachevskaya, M.; Minkina, T.; Mandzhieva, S.; Bauer, T.; Nevidomskaya, D.; Shuvaeva, V.; Sushkova, S.; Kizilkaya, R.; Gülser, C.; Rajput, V. Transformation of copper oxide and copper oxide nanoparticles in the soil and their accumulation by Hordeum sativum. Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 1655–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gao, F.; Liu, C.; Qu, C.; Zheng, L.; Yang, F.; Su, M.; Hong, F. Was improvement of spinach growth by nano-TiO2 treatment related to the changes of rubisco activase? BioMetals 2008, 21, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Tripathy, B.C.; Oelmüller, R. Reactive oxygen species generation and signaling in plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2012, 7, 1621–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Zhao, L.; Wang, L.L.A.; Zhang, H.; Huang, M.; Wu, H.; Xing, B.; Wang, Z.; Ji, R. Nano-biotechonlgy in agriculture: Use of nanomaterials to promote plant growth and stress tolerance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 1935–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Wang, W.-X.; Vinocur, B.; Altman, A. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: Towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta 2003, 218, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Zhang, H.; Du, W.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; White, J.C.; Keller, A.A.; Guo, H.; Ji, R.; Zhao, L. Metabolomics Reveals How Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) Reprograms Metabolites to Cope with Silver Ions and Silver Nanoparticle-Induced Oxidative Stress. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 8016–8026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Saxena, R.; Tomar, R.S.; Kumar, M. Exploring nanobiotechnology to mitigate abiotic stress in crop plants. J. Pharma Sci. Res. 2016, 8, 974. [Google Scholar]
  137. Wakeel, A.; Xu, M.; Gan, Y. Chromium-Induced Reactive Oxygen Species Accumulation by Altering the Enzymatic Antioxidant System and Associated Cytotoxic, Genotoxic, Ultrastructural, and Photosynthetic Changes in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Wang, Q.; Ma, X.; Zhang, W.; Pei, H.; Chen, Y. The impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and its implications for food safety. Metallomics 2012, 4, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Van Nhan, L.; Ma, C.; Rui, Y.; Liu, S.; Li, X.; Xing, B.; Liu, L. Phytotoxic Mechanism of Nanoparticles: Destruction of Chloroplasts and Vascular Bundles and Alteration of Nutrient Absorption. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Pulido-Reyes, G.; Palomares, I.M.R.; Das, S.; Sakthivel, T.S.; Leganes, F.; Rosal, R.; Seal, S.; Fernández-Piñas, F. Untangling the biological effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles: The role of surface valence states. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Khan, M.N.; AlSolami, M.A.; Basahi, R.A.; Siddiqui, M.; Al-Huqail, A.A.; Abbas, Z.K.; Siddiqui, Z.; Ali, H.M.; Khan, F. Nitric oxide is involved in nano-titanium dioxide-induced activation of antioxidant defense system and accumulation of osmolytes under water-deficit stress in Viciafaba L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 190, 110152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ahmad, B.; Shabbir, A.; Jaleel, H.; Khan, M.M.A.; Sadiq, Y. Efficacy of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in modulating photosynthesis, peltate glandular trichomes and essential oil production and quality in Mentha piperita L. Curr. Plant Biol. 2018, 13, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Yin, J.-J.; Liu, J.; Ehrenshaft, M.; Roberts, J.E.; Fu, P.P.; Mason, R.P.; Zhao, B. Phototoxicity of nano titanium dioxides in HaCaT keratinocytes—Generation of reactive oxygen species and cell damage. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2012, 263, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Fu, P.P.; Xia, Q.; Hwang, H.-M.; Ray, P.C.; Yu, H. Mechanisms of nanotoxicity: Generation of reactive oxygen species. J. Food Drug Anal. 2014, 22, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Fedorenko, A.G.; Minkina, T.M.; Chernikova, N.P.; Fedorenko, G.M.; Mandzhieva, S.S.; Rajput, V.D.; Burachevskaya, M.V.; Chaplygin, V.A.; Bauer, T.V.; Sushkova, S.N.; et al. The toxic effect of CuO of different dispersion degrees on the structure and ultrastructure of spring barley cells (Hordeum sativum distichum). Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 1673–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Nel, A.; Xia, T.; Madler, L. Toxic potential of materials at the nano level. Science 2006, 311, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Zhu, X.; Hondroulis, E.; Liu, W.; Li, C.-Z. Biosensing Approaches for Rapid Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity Assays upon Nanomaterial Exposure. Small 2013, 9, 1821–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Vara, D.; Pula, G. Reactive oxygen species: Physiological roles in the regulation of vascular cells. Curr. Mol. Med. 2014, 14, 1103–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  149. Xia, T.; Kovochich, M.; Liong, M.; Mädler, L.; Gilbert, B.; Shi, H.; Yeh, J.I.; Zink, J.I.; Nel, A.E. Comparison of the Mechanism of Toxicity of Zinc Oxide and Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Based on Dissolution and Oxidative Stress Properties. ACS Nano 2008, 2, 2121–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Wang, L.; Hu, C.; Shao, L. The antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles: Present situation and prospects for the future. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 1227–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. El-Saadony, M.T.; Saad, A.M.; Najjar, A.A.; Alzahrani, S.O.; Alkhatib, F.M.; Selem, E.; Desoky, S.M.; Fouda, S.S.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Hassan, M.A.A. The use of biological selenium nanoparticles in controlling Triticum aestivum L. crown root and rot diseases induced by Fusarium species and improve yield under drought and heat stress. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 4461–4471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Siddiqui, M.H.; Al-Whaibi, M.H. Role of nano-SiO2 in germination of tomato (Lycopersicumesculentum seeds Mill.). Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2014, 21, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  153. Klaine, S.J.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Batley, G.E.; Fernandes, T.F.; Handy, R.D.; Lyon, D.Y.; Mahendra, S.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Lead, J.R. Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 1825–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Yang, W.; Shen, C.; Ji, Q.; An, H.; Wang, J.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, Z. Food storage material silver nanoparticles interfere with DNA replication fidelity and bind with DNA. Nanotechnology 2009, 20, 085102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Karimi, E.; Fard, E.M. Nanomaterial effects on soil microorganisms. In Nanoscience and Plant–Soil Systems. Soil Biology 48; Ghorbanpour, M., Manika, K., Varma, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 137–200. [Google Scholar]
  156. Yang, Y.; Wang, J.; Xiu, Z.; Alvarez, P.J.J. Impacts of silver nanoparticles on cellular and transcriptional activity of nitrogen-cycling bacteria. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 1488–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Minghetti, M.; Schirmer, K. Interference of silver nanoparticles with essential metal homeostasis in a novel enterohepatic fish in vitro system. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 6, 1777–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Weber, N.C.; Koron, D.; Jakopič, J.; Veberič, R.; Hudina, M.; Česnik, H.B. Influence of Nitrogen, Calcium and Nano-Fertilizer on Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) Fruit Inner and Outer Quality. Agronomy 2021, 11, 997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Mirzajani, F.; Askari, H.; Hamzelou, S.; Schober, Y.; Römpp, A.; Ghassempour, A.; Spengler, B. Proteomics study of silver nanoparticles toxicity on Bacillus thuringiensis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 100, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Seleiman, M.F.; Almutairi, K.F.; Alotaibi, M.; Shami, A.; Alhammad, B.A.; Battaglia, M.L. Nano-Fertilization as an Emerging Fertilization Technique: Why Can Modern Agriculture Benefit from Its Use? Plants 2021, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Taha, R.A.; Hassan, M.M.; Ibrahim, E.A.; Abou-Baker, N.H.; Shaaban, E.A. Carbon nanotubes impact on date palm in vitro cultures. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. (PCTOC) 2016, 127, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. El-Kereti, M.A.; El-Feky, S.A.; Khater, M.S.; Osman, Y.A.; El-Sherbini, E.S.A. ZnOnanofertilizer and He Ne laser irradiation for promoting growth and yield of sweet basil plant. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 2013, 5, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Rico, C.; Barrios, A.C.; Tan, W.; Rubenecia, R.; Lee, S.C.; Varela-Ramirez, A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Physiological and biochemical response of soil-grown barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to cerium oxide nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 10551–10558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Rico, C.; Lee, S.C.; Rubenecia, R.; Mukherjee, A.; Hong, J.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Impact Yield and Modify Nutritional Parameters in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 9669–9675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Du, W.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; Ji, R.; Yin, Y.; Zhu, J.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Guo, H. Physiological and Biochemical Changes Imposed by CeO2 Nanoparticles on Wheat: A Life Cycle Field Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 11884–11893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Zhao, L.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Rico, C.M.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Sun, Y.; Niu, G.; Servin, A.; Nunez, J.E.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. CeO2 and ZnO Nanoparticles Change the Nutritional Qualities of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 2752–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Morales, M.I.; Rico, C.M.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Nunez, J.E.; Barrios, A.C.; Tafoya, A.; Flores-Marges, J.P.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Toxicity Assessment of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles in Cilantro (Coriandrum sativum L.) Plants Grown in Organic Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 6224–6230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. López-Vargas, E.R.; Ortega-Ortíz, H.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Romenus, K.D.A.; de la Fuente, M.C.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Foliar Application of Copper Nanoparticles Increases the Fruit Quality and the Content of Bioactive Compounds in Tomatoes. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Hernández, H.H.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Cu Nanoparticles in chitosan-PVA hydrogels as promoters of growth, productivity and fruit quality in tomato. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 573–580. [Google Scholar]
  170. Zhao, L.; Huang, Y.; Hu, J.; Zhou, H.; Adeleye, A.S.; Keller, A.A. 1H NMR and GC-MS Based Metabolomics Reveal Defense and Detoxification Mechanism of Cucumber Plant under Nano-Cu Stress. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 2000–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  171. Zhao, L.; Hu, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, H.; Adeleye, A.; Ortiz, C.; Keller, A.A. 1H NMR and GC–MS based metabolomics reveal nano-Cu altered cucumber (Cucumis sativus) fruit nutritional supply. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Hernández-Hernández, H.; González-Morales, S.; Benavides-Mendoza, A.; Ortega-Ortiz, H.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Effects of Chitosan–PVA and Cu Nanoparticles on the Growth and Antioxidant Capacity of Tomato under Saline Stress. Molecules 2018, 23, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. Ahmed, B.; Shahid, M.; Khan, M.S.; Musarrat, J. Chromosomal aberrations, cell suppression and oxidative stress generation induced by metal oxide nanoparticles in onion (Allium cepa) bulb. Metallomics 2018, 10, 1315–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Apodaca, S.A.; Tan, W.; Dominguez, O.E.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Physiological and biochemical effects of nanoparticulate copper, bulk copper, copper chloride, and kinetin in kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 599, 2085–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Juarez-Maldonado, A.; Ortega-Ortíz, H.; Pérez-Labrada, F.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Benavides-Mendoza, A. Cu Nanoparticles absorbed on chitosan hydrogels positively alter morphological, production, and quality characteristics of tomato. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2016, 89, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Hoang, S.A.; Nguyen, L.Q.; Nguyen, N.H.; Tran, C.Q.; Nguyen, D.V.; Le, N.T.; Ha, C.V.; Vu, Q.N.; Phan, C.M. Metal nanoparticles as effective promotors for Maize production. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Suriyaprabha, R.; Karunakaran, G.; Yuvakkumar, R.; Rajendran, V.; Kannan, N. Silica Nanoparticles for Increased Silica Availability in Maize (Zea mays L) Seeds Under Hydroponic Conditions. Curr. Nanosci. 2012, 8, 902–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Li, Y.; Zhu, N.; Liang, X.; Bai, X.; Zheng, L.; Zhao, J.; Li, Y.-F.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, Y. Silica nanoparticles alleviate mercury toxicity via immobilization and inactivation of Hg(ii) in soybean (Glycine max). Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 1807–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Ashour, H.A.; Abdel Wahab, M.; Mahmoud, A.W.M. Response of Jatropha integerrima Plants Irrigated with Different Levels of Saline Water to Nano Silicon and Gypsum. J. Agric. Stud. 2017, 5, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Almutairi, Z.M. Effect of nano-silicon application on the expression of salt tolerance genes in germinating tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) seedlings under salt stress. Plant Omics 2016, 9, 106. [Google Scholar]
  181. Ashkavand, P.; Zarafshar, M.; Tabari, M.; Mirzaie, J.; Nikpour, A.; Bordbar, S.K.; Struve, D.; Striker, G.G. Application of SiO2 nanoparticles as pretreatment alleviates the impact of drought on the physiological performance of Prunus mahaleb (Rosaceae). Bol. Soc. Argent. Botánica 2018, 53, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Qados, A.M.S.A.; Moftah, A.E. Influence of Silicon and Nano-Silicon on Germination, Growth and Yield of Faba Bean (Viciafaba L.) Under Salt Stress Conditions. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2015, 5, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Yassen, A.E.; Abdallah, M.; Gaballah, M.; Zaghloul, S. Role of silicon dioxide nano fertilizer in mitigating salt stress on growth, yield and chemical composition of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Int. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 12, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Yousefi, R.; Esna-Ashari, M. The effect of micro-and nanoparticles of silicon on concentration of macro-and microelements and silicon content of strawberry plant in soilless culture conditions. J. Sci. Tech. Greenh. Cult. 2017, 8, 57–71. [Google Scholar]
  185. Elsheery, N.I.; Sunoj, V.; Wen, Y.; Zhu, J.; Muralidharan, G.; Cao, K. Foliar application of nanoparticles mitigates the chilling effect on photosynthesis and photoprotection in sugarcane. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 149, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Ghorbanpour, M.; Mohammadi, H.; Kariman, K. Nanosilicon-based recovery of barley (Hordeum vulgare) plants subjected to drought stress. Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Tripathi, D.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M.; Dubey, N.; Chauhan, D.K. Silicon nanoparticles more effectively alleviated UV-B stress than silicon in wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Attia, E.A.; Elhawat, N. Combined foliar and soil application of silica nanoparticles enhances the growth, flowering period and flower characteristics of marigold (Tageteserecta L.). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 282, 110015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Schaller, J.; Cramer, A.; Carminati, A.; Zarebanadkouki, M. Biogenic amorphous silica as main driver for plant available water in soils. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Sheykhbaglou, R.; Sedghi, M.; Shishevan, M.T.; Sharifi, R.S. Effects of Nano-Iron Oxide Particles on Agronomic Traits of Soybean. Not. Sci. Biol. 2010, 2, 112–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Rui, M.; Ma, C.; Hao, J.; Guo, Y.; Rui, X.; Tang, X.; Zhu, S. Iron oxide nanoparticles as a potential iron fertilizer for peanut (Arachishypogaea). Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Shankramma, K.; Yallappa, S.; Shivanna, M.B.; Manjanna, J. Fe2O3 magnetic nanoparticles to enhance S. lycopersicum (tomato) plant growth and their biomineralization. Appl. Nanosci. 2016, 6, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Servin, A.D.; Morales, M.I.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Munoz, B.; Zhao, L.; Nunez, J.E.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Synchrotron Verification of TiO2 Accumulation in Cucumber Fruit: A Possible Pathway of TiO2 Nanoparticle Transfer from Soil into the Food Chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11592–11598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Zahra, Z.; Waseem, N.; Zahra, R.; Lee, H.; Badshah, M.A.; Mehmood, A.; Choi, H.-K.; Arshad, M. Growth and Metabolic Responses of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Cultivated in Phosphorus-Deficient Soil Amended with TiO2 Nanoparticles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 5598–5606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Raliya, R.; Nair, R.; Chavalmane, S.; Wang, W.-N.; Biswas, P. Mechanistic evaluation of translocation and physiological impact of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles on the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plant. Metallomics 2015, 7, 1584–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Tiwari, M.; Sharma, N.C.; Fleischmann, P.; Burbage, J.; Venkatachalam, P.; Sahi, S.V. Nanotitania Exposure Causes Alterations in Physiological, Nutritional and Stress Responses in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Hong, F.; Yang, P.; Gao, F.-Q.; Liu, C.; Zheng, L.; Yang, F.; Zhou, J. Effect of nano-anatase TiO2 on spectral characterization of photosystem particles from spinach. Chem. Res. China Univ. 2005, 21, 196–200. [Google Scholar]
  198. Qi, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, T. Nano-TiO2 improve the photosynthesis of tomato leaves under mild heat stress. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2013, 156, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Dağhan, H.; Gülmezoğlu, N.; Köleli, N.; Karakaya, B. Impact of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) on growth and mineral nutrient uptake of wheat (Triticum vulgare L.). Biotech Stud. 2020, 29, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Singh, P.; Singh, R.; Borthakur, A.; Srivastava, P.; Srivastava, N.; Tiwary, D.; Mishra, P.K. Effect of nanoscale TiO2-activated carbon composite on Solanum lycopersicum (L.) and Vigna radiata (L.) seeds germination. Energ. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 1, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Konate, A.; Wang, Y.; He, X.; Adeel, M.; Zhang, P.; Ma, Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, J.; Kizito, S.; et al. Comparative effects of nano and bulk-Fe3O4 on the growth of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 165, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Tombuloglu, H.; Slimani, Y.; Tombuloglu, G.; Almessiere, M.; Baykal, A. Uptake and translocation of magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles and its impact on photosynthetic genes in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Chemosphere 2019, 226, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Almutairi, Z.M. Influence of Silver Nano-particles on the Salt Resistance of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) during Germination. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2016, 18, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Younes, N.A.; Nassef, D.M. Effect of silver nanoparticles on salt tolerancy of tomato transplants (Solanum lycopersicom L. Mill.). Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 46, 76–85. [Google Scholar]
  205. Ma, C.; Liu, H.; Chen, G.; Zhao, Q.; Guo, H.; Minocha, R.; Long, S.; Tang, Y.; Saad, E.M.; de la Torre Roche, R.; et al. Dual roles of glutathione in silver nanoparticle detoxification and enhancement of nitrogen assimilation in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 1954–1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Raddy, R.; Salimath, M.; Geetha, K.; Shankar, A. ZnO Nanoparticle Improves Maize Growth, Yield and Seed Zinc under High Soil pH Condition. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 1593–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Bahri, S.; Bhatia, S.S.; Moitra, S.; Sharma, N.; Bhatt, R.; Borthakur, N.S.; Agarwal, R.; Jain, D. Influence of silver nanoparticles on seedlings of Vigna radiata L. R. Wilczek. DU J. Undergrad. Res. Innov. 2016, 2, 142–148. [Google Scholar]
  208. Alharby, H.F.; Metwali, E.M.; Fuller, M.; Aldhebiani, A.Y. Impact of application of zinc oxide nanoparticles on callus induction, plant regeneration, element content and antioxidant enzyme activity in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) under salt stress. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2016, 68, 723–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Prasad, T.N.V.K.V.; Sudhakar, P.; Sreenivasulu, Y.; Latha, P.; Munaswamy, V.; Reddy, K.R.; Sreeprasad, T.S.; Sajanlal, P.R.; Pradeep, T. Effect of nanoscale zinc oxide particles on the germination, growth and yield of peanut. J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 35, 905–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Tavallali, V.; Rowshan, V.; Bahmanzadegan, A. Variations in sweet basil in response to Green synthesized Zinc-Amino nano complexes. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Rajiv, P.; Vanathi, P. Effect of Parthenium based vermicompost and zinc oxide nanoparticles on growth and yield of Arachis hypogaea L. in zinc deficient soil. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 13, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Dimkpa, C.O.; White, J.C.; Elmer, W.H.; Gardea-Torresdey, J. Nanoparticle and Ionic Zn Promote Nutrient Loading of Sorghum Grain under Low NPK Fertilization. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8552–8559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Deshpande, P.; Dapkekar, A.; Oak, M.D.; Paknikar, K.M.; Rajwade, J.M. Zinc complexed chitosan/TPP nanoparticles: A promising micronutrient nanocarrier suited for foliar application. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 165, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Behboudi, F.; Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Z.; Kassaee, M.Z.; Modares Sanavi, S.A.M.; Sorooshzadeh, A.; Ahmadi, S.B. Evaluation of Chitosan Nanoparticles Effects on Yield and Yield Components of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) under Late Season Drought Stress. J. Water Environ. Nanotechnol. 2018, 3, 22–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Abdel-Aziz, H.; Hasaneen, M.N.A.; Omer, A.M. Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 14, e0902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Prasad, A.; Astete, C.E.; Bodoki, A.E.; Windham, M.; Bodoki, E.; Sabliov, C.M. Zein Nanoparticles Uptake and Translocation in Hydroponically Grown Sugar Cane Plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 66, 6544–6551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Kumar, V.; Guleria, P.; Kumar, V.; Yadav, S.K. Gold nanoparticle exposure induces growth and yield enhancement in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 461, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Arora, S.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, S.; Nayan, R.; Khanna, P.K.; Zaidi, M.G.H. Gold-nanoparticle induced enhancement in growth and seed yield of Brassica juncea. Plant Growth Regul. 2012, 66, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Lu, L.; Huang, M.; Huang, Y.; Corvini, P.F.-X.; Ji, R.; Zhao, L. Mn3O4 nanozymes boost endogenous antioxidant metabolites in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plant and enhance resistance to salinity stress. Environ. Sci. Nano 2020, 7, 1692–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Badran, A.; Savin, I. Effect of Nano-Fertilizer on Seed Germination and First Stages of Bitter Almond Seedlings’ Growth Under Saline Conditions. BioNanoScience 2018, 8, 742–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Laurent, S.; Forge, D.; Port, M.; Roch, A.; Robic, C.; Vander Elst, L.; Muller, R.N. Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Stabilization, Vectorization, Physicochemical Characterizations, and Biological Applications. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 2064–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Li, J.; Hu, J.; Ma, C.; Wang, Y.; Wu, C.; Huang, J.; Xing, B. Uptake, translocation and physiological effects of magnetic iron oxide (γ-Fe2O3) nanoparticles in corn (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 2016, 159, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Zhu, H.; Han, J.; Xiao, J.Q.; Jin, Y. Uptake, translocation, and accumulation of manufactured iron oxide nanoparticles by pumpkin plants. J. Environ. Monit. 2008, 10, 713–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Li, J.; Chang, P.R.; Huang, J.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, H.; Ren, H. Physiological Effects of Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Towards Watermelon. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2013, 13, 5561–5567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Feng, Y.; Cui, X.; He, S.; Dong, G.; Chen, M.; Wang, J.; Lin, X. The role of metal nanoparticles in influencing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi effects on plant growth. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 9496–9504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Alidoust, D.; Isoda, A. Effect of γFe2O3 nanoparticles on photosynthetic characteristic of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.): Foliar spray versus soil amendment. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2013, 35, 3365–3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Alidoust, D.; Isoda, A. Phytotoxicity assessment of γ-Fe2O3 nanoparticles on root elongation and growth of rice plant. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 71, 5173–5182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Reynolds, O.L.; Keeping, M.; Meyer, J.H. Silicon-augmented resistance of plants to herbivorous insects: A review. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 155, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Ibrahim, M.; Farid, M.; Adrees, M.; Bharwana, S.A.; Zia-Ur-Rehman, M.; Qayyum, M.F.; Abbas, F. Mechanisms of silicon-mediated alleviation of drought and salt stress in plants: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 15416–15431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Liang, Y.; Nikolic, M.; Bélanger, R.; Gong, H.; Song, A. Silicon-Mediated Tolerance to Salt Stress. Silicon in Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Babajani, A.; Iranbakhsh, A.; Ardebili, Z.O.; Eslami, B. Differential growth, nutrition, physiology, and gene expression in Melissa officinalis mediated by zinc oxide and elemental selenium nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 24430–24444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Vitousek, P. Nutrient Cycling and Nutrient Use Efficiency. Am. Nat. 1982, 119, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Neu, S.; Schaller, J.; Dudel, E.G. Silicon availability modifies nutrient use efficiency and content, C:N:P stoichiometry, and productivity of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Carey, J.C.; Fulweiler, R.W. Human appropriation of biogenic silicon—The increasing role of agriculture. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 1331–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  235. Jarvis, S.C. The uptake and transport of silicon by perennial ryegrass and wheat. Plant Soil 1987, 97, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Schaller, J.; Faucherre, S.; Joss, H.; Obst, M.; Goeckede, M.; Planer-Friedrich, B.; Peiffer, S.; Gilfedder, B.; Elberling, B. Silicon increases the phosphorus availability of Arctic soils. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  237. Tiwari, J.N.; Tiwari, R.N.; Kim, K.S. Zero-dimensional, one-dimensional, two-dimensional and three-dimensional nanostructured materials for advanced electrochemical energy devices. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2012, 57, 724–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Leon-Silva, S.; Arrieta-Cortes, R.; Fernández-Luqueño, F.; López-Valdez, F. Design and production of nanofertilizers. In Agricultural Nanobiotechnology; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 17–31. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. An overview of nano-fertilizer application in agriculture. NPs = nano-particles; NFs = nano-fertilizers.
Figure 1. An overview of nano-fertilizer application in agriculture. NPs = nano-particles; NFs = nano-fertilizers.
Nanomaterials 12 00173 g001
Figure 2. Uptake of NFs via various channels and their translocation paths across multiple plant sections are depicted schematically. (A) NF traits affect absorption and translocation in plants: (a) T.S. of maize leaf; (b) T.S. of maize roots (both images were taken from public databases and are freely accessible). (B) NFs may use apoplastic-symplastic pathways for moving up and down. (C) Various strategies were proposed for the internal distribution of NFs inside the cells through endocytosis and pore formation mediated by carrier proteins via plasmodesmata.
Figure 2. Uptake of NFs via various channels and their translocation paths across multiple plant sections are depicted schematically. (A) NF traits affect absorption and translocation in plants: (a) T.S. of maize leaf; (b) T.S. of maize roots (both images were taken from public databases and are freely accessible). (B) NFs may use apoplastic-symplastic pathways for moving up and down. (C) Various strategies were proposed for the internal distribution of NFs inside the cells through endocytosis and pore formation mediated by carrier proteins via plasmodesmata.
Nanomaterials 12 00173 g002
Figure 3. NFs with a variety of defense mechanisms in plants under stress. Early prevalence of stress sensing via receptors/sensors cascades the downstream stress response by ROS, CaBP (Ca2+ binding proteins), and plant hormones. Signal extension and transduction is carried out by secondary messengers, i.e., MAPKs (mitogen-activated protein kinases), PKs (ROS-modulated protein kinases), PPs (protein phosphatases), CDPKs (calcium-dependent protein kinases), etc. Signaling causes various regulation of transcription factors (TFs) and stress-responsive genes. Control of TFs and genes linked with physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses may adjust to fine-tune enhanced stress resistance capacity.
Figure 3. NFs with a variety of defense mechanisms in plants under stress. Early prevalence of stress sensing via receptors/sensors cascades the downstream stress response by ROS, CaBP (Ca2+ binding proteins), and plant hormones. Signal extension and transduction is carried out by secondary messengers, i.e., MAPKs (mitogen-activated protein kinases), PKs (ROS-modulated protein kinases), PPs (protein phosphatases), CDPKs (calcium-dependent protein kinases), etc. Signaling causes various regulation of transcription factors (TFs) and stress-responsive genes. Control of TFs and genes linked with physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses may adjust to fine-tune enhanced stress resistance capacity.
Nanomaterials 12 00173 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Verma, K.K.; Song, X.-P.; Joshi, A.; Tian, D.-D.; Rajput, V.D.; Singh, M.; Arora, J.; Minkina, T.; Li, Y.-R. Recent Trends in Nano-Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture under Climate Change for Global Food Security. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010173

AMA Style

Verma KK, Song X-P, Joshi A, Tian D-D, Rajput VD, Singh M, Arora J, Minkina T, Li Y-R. Recent Trends in Nano-Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture under Climate Change for Global Food Security. Nanomaterials. 2022; 12(1):173. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010173

Chicago/Turabian Style

Verma, Krishan K., Xiu-Peng Song, Abhishek Joshi, Dan-Dan Tian, Vishnu D. Rajput, Munna Singh, Jaya Arora, Tatiana Minkina, and Yang-Rui Li. 2022. "Recent Trends in Nano-Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture under Climate Change for Global Food Security" Nanomaterials 12, no. 1: 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010173

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop