Abstract
Nanotechnology opens an enormous scope of novel application in the fields of biotechnology and agricultural industries, because nanoparticles (NPs) have unique physicochemical properties, i.e. high surface area, high reactivity, tunable pore size and particle morphology. Present study was carried out to determine the role of silver NPs (SNPs) to improve yield of Pisum sativum L. SNPs (10–100 nm) were synthesised by green method using extract of Berberis lycium Royle. Pea seeds were soaked and seedling were foliage sprayed by 0, 30, 60 and 90 ppm SNPs. The experiment was arranged as split–split plot randomised complete block design with three replicates. The application of SNPs enhanced significantly number of seeds pod−1, number of pods plant−1, hundred seed weight, biological yield and green pod yield over control. The highest yield was found when 60 ppm SNPs were applied. However, exposure to 90 ppm SNPs, the yield of the pea decreased significantly as compared with 30 and 60 ppm. This research shows that SNPs have definite ability to improve growth and yield of crops. Nevertheless, a comprehensive experimentation is needed to establish the most appropriate concentration, size and mode of application of SNPs for higher growth and maximum yield of pea.
Inspec keywords: nanobiotechnology, silver, nanoparticles, crops
Other keywords: Ag, foliage spraying, crop yield, crop growth, green pod yield, biological yield, seed weight, pod plant number, seed pod number, pea seeds, Berberis lycium Royle extract, green method, nanotechnology, Pisum sativum L, silver nanoparticles
1 Introduction
Production and quality of food can be improved by modern technologies which can meet ever increasing world food demand in environment‐friendly way [1]. Though fertilisers are very important for plant growth and development, most of the applied fertilisers are rendered unavailable to plants due to many factors such as leaching, degradation by photolysis, hydrolysis and decomposition. Hence, it is necessary to minimise nutrient losses in fertilisation, and to increase the crop yield through the exploitation of new applications with the help of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. Nanotechnology, a new emerging and fascinating field of science, permits advanced research in many areas, and nanotechnological discoveries could open up novel applications in the field of biotechnology and agriculture [2]. Nanotechnology is expected to play a vital role in various disciplines. It is becoming the most innovative scientific field. Nanotechnology is being visualised as a rapidly evolving field that has potential to revolutionise agriculture and food systems and improve the conditions of the poor. Nanotechnology can address the most critical sustainable development problems of agriculture in an environment‐friendly manner. It may provide efficient means for application of agrochemicals, thereby reducing amount of chemicals introduced into the environment [3]. Nanotechnology‐based reorientation of agriculture can boost production of quality food.
Exploring beneficial uses of NPs in plant sciences is becoming an increasingly important area of interest [4]. Nanoparticles (NPs) are the aggregates of atoms or molecules which have 1–100 nm at least one dimension. Their nanosize modifies their chemical and physical properties contrast to bulk material [5]. NPs posed both positive and negative effects on plant growth and development and their impact on plants depend on the composition, concentration, size and physical and chemical properties of NPs as well as plant species [6]. Application of NPs has been found to improve germination, enhance growth and physiological activities [7], increase water and fertilisers use efficiency [8]. Agronomic traits of soyabean have been improved by the application of iron (Fe) NPs [9]. Silver NPs (SNPs) increase growth and yield in wheat [10]. Soaking of cotton seeds in silver (Ag) NPs (SNPs) produced favourable effects and reduced the amount of fertilisers applied through roots by half [11]. SNPs have catalytic effects [12] and increase chlorophyll [13]. SNPs are excellent material having antibacterial, antifungal properties and are used in food and agriculture such as food security, food packaging and pathogen detection [14]. They have great influence on plant growth and development such as germination, root–shoot ratio, seedling growth, root growth, root elongation and senescence inhibition [6, 15]. The influence of SNPs on extending maintenance period of leaves from 2 to 21 days has been reported in Asparagus plant. During this, the amount of chlorophyll, ascorbat and fibre was found higher in treated leaves as compared with control [16].
In fact, nanotechnology is a promptly emerging discipline considerably influencing every field of science and biology. Discovering comprehensive application profile of NPs may transform research in crop science and warrant food security by enhancing crop productivity. Sifting the possible aids of SNPs present paper was conducted to document the role that SNPs can play in yield of pea.
2 Experimental methods
2.1 Synthesis of SNPs
SNPs were synthesised by treating 100 ml aqueous bark extract of Berberis lycium with 100 ml of 4 mM Ag nitrate (AgNO3) solution. The aqueous extract of bark of B. lycium was prepared by dissolving 10 g dried powder of bark in 200 ml distilled water and kept for 20 h with continuous shaking. The conversion of Ag ions to SNPs was monitored by colour change which turned from yellowish to dark brown, an indication of formation of SNPs (Fig. 1 a). Then, this treated solution was subjected to utlraviolet–visible (UV–vis) spectroscopy (Perkin‐Elmer Lambda 950, UK) in the range of 350–700 nm after 0 and 6 h. It showed an absorption peak at 422 nm which is a characteristic peak of SNPs in the solution due to surface plasmon resonance (Fig. 1 b). The size and shape of the SNPs was determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The solution of SNPs was centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 4 min and centrifuged SNPs were then suspended in distilled water. A drop of suspension was placed on a carbon‐coated copper (Cu) grid and allowed to complete dry under lamp. TEM analysis was performed at Japan Electron Optics Laboratory (JEOL) JEM‐1010 (accelerating potential 80 KV) at magnification of ×15 k. TEM micrographs indicated that size of the SNPs is ranging from 10 to 100 nm with spherical shapes (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1.
Synthesis of SNPs
(a) Change in colour of bark extract after adding AgNO3 solution, (b) UV–vis spectrographs of SNPs
Fig. 2.
TEM micrographs of SNPs
2.2 Yield of pea
To investigate the effect of SNPs on yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.), field experiments were carried out during the growing season in Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir. P. sativum was selected for its agricultural and economic importance. Pea varieties, i.e. ‘Climax’, ‘Meteor’ and PF‐400 were obtained from Agriculture Department, Muzaffarabad. The seeds of the pea varieties were planted in split–split plot randomised complete block design with three replicates. The main plots were assigned to pea varieties, sub‐plots to modes of application of AgNPs [seed treatment (ST); folia spray (FS) and STFS] and sub–sub‐plots to SNPs concentrations (0, 30, 60 and 90 ppm). The main plot of the experiment was divided into sub‐plots and sub–sub‐plots. Each sub–sub‐plot measured 3 × 1.8 m2 (5.4 m2), row‐to‐row distance 90 cm and plant‐to‐plant distance 15 cm. Each sub–sub‐plot had two rows and each row had 20 plants. All the agronomic practices were carried out as and when needed. The SNPs were applied by three modes of application, i.e. ST, FS and STFS. ST was carried by soaking seeds in the solution of SNPs of 0, 30, 60 and 90 ppm for 6 h. The plants were sprayed by SNPs at phenological stage Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and Chemical (BBCH) 11 (first true leaf unfolded or first tendril developed) and BBCH 60 (first flower open sporadically within the population) in the early morning. Manual pump was used for spray in all cases. When plants were mature and ready for harvesting, data number of seeds pod−1, number of pods plant−1, hundred seed weight (HSW), biological yield (BY) and green pod yield (GPY) was recorded. Statistical analysis of data was done using the computer‐based statistical package MSTATC and treatment means were compared using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) test at 5% level of probability.
3 Results and discussion
The application of SNPs on yield parameters of pea revealed a significant difference among treatments. The effect of SNPs on number of seeds pod−1 in all varieties of pea (Climax, Meteor and PF‐400) is shown in Table 1. Among the varieties, variety PF‐400 produced significantly highest number of seeds pod−1 (7.04) followed by Climax (6.48) and Meteor (5.38). Among the concentrations of SNPs, a variety treated with 60 ppm SNPs produced highest number of seeds pod−1 (6.10) which was statistically significant from varieties treated with 30 (6.07), 90 (6.04) and 0 ppm (4.98). The control (0 ppm) showed a statistical difference with other concentrations of SNPs and produced less number of seeds pod−1. A significant interaction was found between varieties and concentrations of SNPs. The number of seeds pod−1 ranged from 5.23 (Meteor treated with 30 ppm) to 9.39 (PF‐400 treated with 60 ppm). The interaction between modes of application and concentrations of SNPs was also significant. The means varied from 4.83 (seed‐treated plants × 0 ppm) to 8.29 (seed‐treated plus foliar sprayed plants × 60 ppm). Table 2 shows the effect of SNPs on number of pods plant−1. The highest number of pods plant−1 was produced by PF‐400 (22.67) followed by Climax (21.10) and Meteor (17.80). All the varieties of pea were statistically different to each other with respect to number of pods plant−1 when treated with SNPs. Among concentrations of SNPs, 60 ppm gave number of pods plant−1 (24.82), statistically well different from 90 (21.04), 30 (19.83) and 0 ppm (16.40). The 0 ppm SNPs, which was used as control, showed lowest number of pods plant−1 which indicates that application of SNPs increased number of pods plant−1. It was also found that when SNPs applied through STFS gave highest number of pods plant−1 (21.41). A significant improvement in HSW was also found when SPNs were applied (Table 3). Among the varieties of pea, Climax achieved maximum HSW (43.86 g) which was non‐significant to PF‐400 (43.09 g). However, both of these were significantly different to Meteor which gained lowest HSW (32.56 g). Again, the application of 60 ppm SNPs gave highest HSW (44.33 g), which was significantly different to 90 (40.05 g), (38.76 g) and 0 ppm (36.21 g). The control has lowest HSW as compared with SNPs. BY was calculated as total biomass with pods of the harvested plants from each plot was weighed, and then it was converted to hectare basis (Table 4). The variety Climax gave high BY (7.65 t ha−1) significantly different from PF‐400 (7.32 t ha−1) and Meteor (6.03 t ha−1) under the supplement of SNPs. Among the concentrations of SNPs used, highest BY was obtained from the plants treated with 60 ppm SNPs (7.93 t ha−1), statistically different from plants treated with 90 (6.95 t ha−1), 30 (6.24 t ha−1) and 0 ppm (5.21 t ha−1). GPY is the measure of weight of total pods of the harvested plants in each plot. Highest GPY was recorded for variety PF‐400 (5.65 t ha−1) followed by Climax (5.01 t ha−1) and Meteor (3.98 t ha−1). All the varieties were statistically different with respect to GPY (Table 5). In case of concentrations of SNPs, plants treated with 60 ppm gained highest pod yield (5.77 t ha−1), which were significantly different from the plants treated with 90 (4.90 t ha−1), 30 (4.86 t ha−1) and 0 ppm (3.99 t ha−1).
Table 1.
Effect of SNPs on number of seeds per pod of P. sativum L. (pea) varieties
| Varieties | ST | FS | STFS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climax | 6.49 ns | 6.64 | 6.29 | 6.48 Aa |
| Meteor | 5.18 | 5.58 | 5.37 | 5.38 B |
| PF‐400 | 7.02 | 7.12 | 6.99 | 7.04 A |
| SNPs concentrations | ||||
| 0 ppm | 4.83 d | 5.16 d | 4.96 d | 4.98 Ca |
| 30 ppm | 6.17 bc | 5.94 c | 6.11 bc | 6.07 B |
| 60 ppm | 8.02 a | 7.98 a | 8.29 a | 6.10 A |
| 90 ppm | 5.90 c | 6.71 b | 5.51 cd | 6.04 B |
| Interactions | ||||
| Climax × 0 ppm | 5.5 ns | 5.23 | 4.97 | 5.24 ea |
| Climax × 30 ppm | 6.57 | 6.43 | 6.10 | 6.37 c |
| Climax × 60 ppm | 8.23 | 7.97 | 8.30 | 8.17 b |
| Climax × 90 ppm | 5.63 | 6.93 | 5.80 | 6.12 cd |
| Meteor × 0 ppm | 3.57 | 4.13 | 4.37 | 4.02 f |
| Meteor × 30 ppm | 5.17 | 5.27 | 5.27 | 5.23 e |
| Meteor × 60 ppm | 6.43 | 7.00 | 6.77 | 6.73 c |
| Meteor × 90 ppm | 5.57 | 5.93 | 5.07 | 5.52 de |
| PF‐400 × 0 ppm | 5.40 | 6.10 | 5.53 | 5.68 de |
| PF‐400 × 30 ppm | 6.77 | 6.13 | 6.97 | 6.62 c |
| PF‐400 × 60 ppm | 9.40 | 8.97 | 9.80 | 9.39 a |
| PF‐400 × 90 ppm | 6.50 | 7.27 | 5.67 | 6.48 c |
| means | 6.23 ns | 6.45 | 6.22 | — |
a Note: Any two means carrying the same letter (s) in a column or row are non‐significantly different at P = 0.05 by Duncan's multiple range test.
ns – non‐significant, ST – seed treatment, FS – foliar spray and STFS – seed treatment plus foliar spray.
Table 2.
Effect of SNPs on number of pods per plant of P. sativum L. (pea) varieties
| Varieties | ST | FS | STFS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climax | 19.81 ns | 21.54 | 21.95 | 21.10 Ba |
| Meteor | 16.93 | 17.69 | 18.78 | 17.80 C |
| PF‐400 | 22.03 | 22.47 | 23.51 | 22.67 A |
| SNPs concentrations | ||||
| 0 ppm | 15.32 f | 17.28 ef | 16.60 ef | 16.40 Da |
| 30 ppm | 18.20de | 20.86 c | 20.44 c | 19.83 C |
| 60 ppm | 24.34ab | 24.48ab | 25.63 a | 24.82 A |
| 90 ppm | 20.49 c | 19.66cd | 22.97 b | 21.04 B |
| Interactions | ||||
| Climax × 0 ppm | 15.13 ns | 18.53 | 16.70 | 16.79 ns |
| Climax × 30 ppm | 17.77 | 21.47 | 20.07 | 19.77 |
| Climax × 60 ppm | 24.67 | 26.53 | 27.07 | 26.09 |
| Climax × 90 ppm | 21.67 | 19.63 | 23.97 | 21.76 |
| Meteor × 0 ppm | 12.93 | 14.37 | 14.43 | 13.91 |
| Meteor × 30 ppm | 16.47 | 17.57 | 18.80 | 17.61 |
| Meteor × 60 ppm | 20.63 | 19.83 | 21.47 | 20.64 |
| Meteor × 90 ppm | 17.67 | 19.00 | 20.40 | 19.02 |
| PF‐400 × 0 ppm | 17.90 | 18.93 | 18.67 | 18.50 |
| PF‐400 × 30 ppm | 20.37 | 23.53 | 22.47 | 22.12 |
| PF‐400 × 60 ppm | 27.73 | 27.07 | 28.37 | 27.72 |
| PF‐400 × 90 ppm | 22.13 | 20.33 | 24.53 | 22.33 |
| means | 19.59Ba | 20.57AB | 21.41 A | — |
aNote: Any two means carrying the same letter (s) in a column or row are non‐significantly different at P = 0.05 by Duncan's multiple range test.
ns – non‐significant, ST – seed treatment, FS – foliar spray and STFS – seed treatment plus foliar spray.
Table 3.
Effect of SNPs on HSW (g) of P. sativum L. (pea) varieties
| Varieties | ST | FS | STFS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climax | 41.44 ns | 43.52 | 46.61 | 43.86 Aa |
| Meteor | 33.28 | 33.69 | 30.70 | 32.56 B |
| PF‐400 | 41.52 | 43.52 | 44.24 | 43.10 A |
| SNPs concentrations | ||||
| 0 ppm | 35.41 ns | 37.12 | 36.10 | 36.21 Ca |
| 30 ppm | 35.87 | 40.19 | 40.20 | 38.76 B |
| 60 ppm | 43.97 | 44.39 | 44.62 | 44.33 A |
| 90 ppm | 39.73 | 39.27 | 41.15 | 40.05 B |
| Interactions | ||||
| Climax × 0 ppm | 39.25 ns | 42.31 | 38.31 | 39.96 ns |
| Climax × 30 ppm | 36.41 | 42.59 | 45.98 | 41.66 |
| Climax × 60 ppm | 47.72 | 48.41 | 52.21 | 49.45 |
| Climax × 90 ppm | 42.36 | 40.78 | 49.94 | 44.36 |
| Meteor × 0 ppm | 27.42 | 29.05 | 27.72 | 28.06 |
| Meteor × 30 ppm | 31.73 | 33.64 | 31.97 | 32.45 |
| Meteor × 60 ppm | 38.34 | 37.74 | 33.07 | 36.38 |
| Meteor × 90 ppm | 35.63 | 34.32 | 30.06 | 33.34 |
| PF‐400 × 0 ppm | 39.56 | 40.02 | 42.27 | 40.62 |
| PF‐400 × 30 ppm | 39.47 | 44.34 | 42.66 | 42.16 |
| PF‐400 × 60 ppm | 45.85 | 47.02 | 48.59 | 47.15 |
| PF‐400 × 90 ppm | 41.20 | 42.70 | 43.45 | 42.45 |
| means | 38.75 ns | 40.24 | 40.52 | — |
a Note: Any two means carrying the same letter (s) in a column or row are non‐significantly different at P = 0.05 by Duncan's multiple range test.
ns – non‐significant, ST – seed treatment, FS – foliar spray and STFS – seed treatment plus foliar spray.
Table 4.
Effect of SNPs on BY (tons h−1) of P. sativum L. (pea) varieties
| Varieties | ST | FS | STFS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climax | 7.65 ns | 7.63 | 7.67 | 7.65 Aa |
| Meteor | 6.11 | 5.69 | 6.29 | 6.03 C |
| PF‐400 | 7.65 | 7.09 | 7.23 | 7.32 B |
| SNPs concentrations | ||||
| 0 ppm | 5.86 ns | 5.58 | 5.89 | 5.78Da |
| 30 ppm | 6.93 | 6.61 | 6.94 | 6.82 C |
| 60 ppm | 8.47 | 8.24 | 8.11 | 8.27 A |
| 90 ppm | 7.28 | 6.78 | 7.31 | 7.12 B |
| Interactions | ||||
| Climax × 0 ppm | 6.65 ns | 5.93 | 6.65 | 6.41 ns |
| Climax × 30 ppm | 7.31 | 7.31 | 7.80 | 7.47 |
| Climax × 60 ppm | 8.79 | 9.18 | 8.56 | 8.84 |
| Climax × 90 ppm | 7.85 | 8.12 | 7.66 | 7.87 |
| Meteor × 0 ppm | 4.72 | 4.72 | 5.03 | 4.82 |
| Meteor × 30 ppm | 5.67 | 5.41 | 6.02 | 5.70 |
| Meteor × 60 ppm | 7.57 | 6.58 | 7.42 | 7.19 |
| Meteor × 90 ppm | 6.47 | 6.04 | 6.69 | 6.40 |
| PF‐400 × 0 ppm | 6.22 | 6.10 | 6.08 | 6.11 |
| PF‐400 × 30 ppm | 7.80 | 7.18 | 6.98 | 7.30 |
| PF‐400 × 60 ppm | 9.05 | 8.97 | 8.35 | 8.79 |
| PF‐400 × 90 ppm | 7.53 | 6.18 | 7.59 | 0.10 |
| means | 7.13 ns | 6.80 | 7.06 | — |
aNote: Any two means carrying the same letter (s) in a column or row are non‐significantly different at P = 0.05 by Duncan's multiple range test.
ns – non‐significant, ST – seed treatment, FS – foliar spray and STFS – seed treatment plus foliar spray.
Table 5.
Effect of SNPs on GPY (tons h−1) of P. sativum L. (pea) varieties
| Varieties | ST | FS | STFS | Means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climax | 4.88 ns | 5.02 | 5.12 | 5.01Ba |
| Meteor | 3.82 | 3.65 | 4.49 | 3.98 C |
| PF‐400 | 5.47 | 5.59 | 5.90 | 5.65 A |
| SNPs concentrations | ||||
| 0 ppm | 3.95 ns | 3.71 | 4.31 | 3.99Ca |
| 30 ppm | 4.74 | 4.68 | 5.16 | 4.86 B |
| 60 ppm | 5.71 | 5.57 | 6.03 | 5.77 A |
| 90 ppm | 4.49 | 5.04 | 5.17 | 4.90 B |
| Interactions | ||||
| Climax × 0 ppm | 4.07 ns | 3.83 | 4.37 | 4.09 ns |
| Climax × 30 ppm | 4.93 | 5.19 | 5.15 | 5.09 |
| Climax × 60 ppm | 5.81 | 5.93 | 6.03 | 5.92 |
| Climax × 90 ppm | 4.70 | 5.13 | 4.91 | 4.91 |
| Meteor × 0 ppm | 3.05 | 2.95 | 3.45 | 3.15 |
| Meteor × 30 ppm | 3.61 | 3.52 | 4.42 | 3.85 |
| Meteor × 60 ppm | 4.66 | 4.16 | 5.35 | 4.72 |
| Meteor × 90 ppm | 3.95 | 3.95 | 4.73 | 4.21 |
| PF‐400 × 0 ppm | 4.73 | 4.35 | 5.12 | 4.73 |
| PF‐400 × 30 ppm | 5.68 | 5.34 | 5.90 | 5.64 |
| PF‐400 × 60 ppm | 6.64 | 6.61 | 6.70 | 6.65 |
| PF‐400 × 90 ppm | 4.82 | 6.04 | 5.88 | 5.58 |
| means | 4.72 ns | 4.75 | 5.17 | — |
aNote: Any two means carrying the same letter (s) in a column or row are non‐significantly different at P = 0.05 by Duncan's multiple range test.
ns – non‐significant, ST – seed treatment, FS – foliar spray and STFS – seed treatment plus foliar spray.
Rise in yield of pea by application of SNPs has been proposed. SNPs increasing the yield maybe due to growth, stimulating effect of Ag [16]. Effect of SNPs on yield of pea has not been reported so far. A stimulatory effect of SNPs was found in our paper. Previous studies have also suggested stimulatory effect on NPs. Highest yield and chemical composition was obtained with application of SNPs to mung [17]. Application of Fe oxide NPs increased grain yield of soybean [9]. Application of zinc oxide NPs (2 g 15 l−1) had significantly increased the number of pods per plant in peanut [18]. Increase in yield of soyabean has also been recorded when nanocrystalline powders [Fe, cobalt (Co) and Cu] applied [19]. We first time report highly favourable effects of SNPs at 30–60 ppm on number of seeds pod−1, number of pods plant−1, HSW, BY and GPY in pea.
Our paper also shows that effect of SNPs is concentration dependent. When SNPs concentration increased from 30 to 60 ppm, it promoted the yield of pea. However, yield dropped again when 90 ppm SNPs applied. Salama et al. also reported similar results [20]. They observed that increasing concentration of SNPs from 20 to 60 ppm led to an increase in shoot and root lengths, leaf surface area, chlorophyll, carbohydrate and protein contents of common bean and corn. Additional increase in level of SNPs resulted in reduction of these parameters. NPs stimulate growth at low dose but retard growth at high dosage [21]. Application of nano Ag from 20 to 60 ppm enhanced the seed yield as compared with control in borage plants, see Seifsahandi et al. [22].
Other NPs also have similar effect. Fe‐based NPs at low concentration promoted growth of maize but retarded at high concentration [23]. Ethylene is thought to be strong inhibitor of flowering. Wilmowicz et al. [24] treated seedlings with ethylene and no flower bud formation was observed in treated seedling; however, Ag prevents the action of ethylene. In this research, SNPs treated plants produced increased number of pods per plant which was due to inhibition of undesired ethylene action by Ag on flowering. It is also suggested that abscission may cause retardation in seed yield. The main cause of abscission is the imbalance in phytohormones, e.g. ethylene and it has been proven that Ag ions prevent ethylene to connect to its receptors in plant cell [25] which inhibits its action. Seeds abscission is reduced which results in more seed yield.
Another suggestion is that increase in yield maybe due to improvement of cellular electron exchange efficiency by SNPs which reduces the formation of reactive oxygen species by arresting electron leakage [13]. Furthermore, it is proven that ethylene decreases the height of plants. Study of Pessarakli [26] revealed that mutants of tobacco and Arabidopsis have lesser height contrast to their wild species, because mutants produce ethylene in high concentration. As Ag prevents the action of ethylene, so plants under the application of SNPs showed better growth and yield.
A significant role of nanotechnology in agriculture was found but it may cause some negative impacts on our environment and ecosystem. The potential risks related with the discharge of nanomaterials in the environment are still indistinct to scientists. Ruitenberg [27] reported the harmful effects of nanomaterials on the digestive system of a beneficial organism earthworm. Xu et al. [28] summarised the increased safety concerns over application of nanomaterials in food and agriculture. They emphasised their study on main exposure routes and determinants of nano toxicities involving particle size, surface, structure, chemical composition and dosage. Toxic effects of Ag, Cu, aluminium, nickel and Co in both soluble salts and NP form on aquatic organisms such as zebrafish, daphnids and an algal species have been studied by Griffitt et al. [29] and found toxicity of nano Ag on all tested organisms. Similarly, an adverse impact of SNPs was found on plants and microorganisms [30]. Control application of SNPs can minimise these negative impacts on environment.
The latent application of nanomaterials in diverse agricultural applications needs further research investigation with respect to synthesis, toxicology and its effective application at field level. Present research and development is still at bench‐top scale. Further struggles are mandatory in commercialisation of nanomaterials for agricultural applications, which need accurate protection necessities, testing concerns, risk assessment and regulatory management at global level. From economic point of view, biosynthesised SNPs can be a suitable choice because of easily synthesised and small amount can give large‐scale production. These are the best alternative to chemical fertiliser. So, the application of these NPs on other crops may revolutionise the agriculture and economy of country.
4 Conclusion
To understand the possible benefits of using NPs in agriculture, it is important to grow the crops under the effect of NPs. Considering this, positive effect of SNPs have been found, when they apply on P. sativum. High yield of pea varieties was recorded for the plants treated with 60 ppm AgNPs, which indicated that this concentration of SNPs is optimum for obtaining maximum yield. Sensible usage of SNPs can promote yield of crops. However, additional trials are required to explore precise concentration, appropriate mode and best time of application to realise the growth and yield improving ability of SNPs for pea and other crops in environment‐friendly means.
5 References
- 1. Wheeler S.: ‘Factors influencing agricultural professional's attitudes toward organic agriculture and biotechnology’ (Center for Regulation and Market Analysis, University of South Australia, 2005) [Google Scholar]
- 2. Carmen I.U. Chithra P. Huang Q. et al.: ‘Nanotechnology: a new frontier in food science’, Food Technol., 2003, 57, pp. 24 –29 [Google Scholar]
- 3. Walker L.: ‘Nanotechnology for agriculture, food and the environment’. Presentation at Nanotechnology Biology Interface: Exploring models for oversight, University of Minnesota, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Zheng L. Hong F. Lu S. et al.: ‘Effect of nano‐TiO2 on strength of naturally growth aged seeds of spinach’, Biol. Trace Elem. Res., 2005, 104, pp. 83 –91 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Nel A. Xia T. Mädler L. et al.: ‘Toxic potential of materials at the nano level’, Science, 2006, 311, pp. 622 –627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Ma Y. Kuang L. He X. et al.: ‘Effect of rare earth oxide nanoparticles on root elongation of plants’, Chemosphere, 2012, 78, pp. 273 –279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Shah V. Belozerova I.: ‘Influence of metal nanoparticles on the soil microbial community and germination of lettuce seeds’, Water Air Soil Pollut., 2009, 197, pp. 143 –148 [Google Scholar]
- 8. Lu C. Zhang C. Wen J. et al.: ‘Research of the effect of nanometer materials on germination and growth enhancement of Glycine max and its mechanism’, Soybean Sci., 2002, 21, pp. 168 –171 [Google Scholar]
- 9. Sheykhbaglou R. Sedghi M. Shishevan M.T. et al.: ‘Effect of nano‐iron oxide particles on agronomic traits of soybean’, Notulae Sci. Biol., 2010, 2, pp. 112 –113 [Google Scholar]
- 10. Razzaq A. Ammara R. Jhanzab H.M. et al.: ‘A novel nanomaterial to enhance growth and yield of wheat’, J. Nanosci. Technol., 2016, 2, (1), pp. 55 –58 [Google Scholar]
- 11. Vakhrouchev A.V. Golubchikov V.B.: ‘Numerical investigation of the dynamics of nanoparticle systems in biological processes of plant nutrition’, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2007, 61, pp. 31 –35 [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ma X. Geiser‐Lee J. Deng Y. et al.: ‘Interactions between engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) and plants: phytotoxicity, uptake and accumulation’, Sci. Total Environ., 2010, 408, pp. 3043 –3061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Sharma P. Bhatt D. Zaidi M.G.H. et al.: ‘Silver nanoparticle‐mediated enhancement in growth and antioxidant status of Brassica juncea ’, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 2012, 167, (8), pp. 2225 –2233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Quardos M.E. Mar L.C.: ‘Environmental and human health risks of aerosolized silver nano particles’, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 2010, 60, pp. 770 –781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. An J. Zhang M. Wang S. et al.: ‘Physical, chemical and microbiological changes in stored green Asparagus spears as affected by coating of silver nanoparticles‐PVP’, LWT‐Food Sci. Technol., 2008, 41, pp. 1100 –1107 [Google Scholar]
- 16. Sharon M. Choudhary A. Kumar R.: ‘Nanotechnology in agriculture disease and food safety’, J. Phytol., 2010, 2, (4), pp. 83 –92 [Google Scholar]
- 17. Najafi S. Jamei R.: ‘Effect of silver nanoparticles and Pb(NO3)2 on the yield and chemical composition of mung bean (Vigna radiata)’, J. Stress Physiol. Biochem., 2014, 10, pp. 316 –325 [Google Scholar]
- 18. Prasad T. Sudhakar P. Sreenivasulu Y. et al.: ‘Effect of nanoscale zinc oxide particles on the germination, growth and yield of peanut’, J. Plant Nutr., 2012, 35, pp. 905 –927 [Google Scholar]
- 19. Ngo Q.B. Dao T.H. Nguyen H.C. et al.: ‘Effects of nanocrystalline powders (Fe, Co and Cu) on the germination, growth, crop yield and product quality of soybean (Vietnamese species DT‐51)’, Nanosci. Nanotechnol., 2014, 5, pp. 015 –016 [Google Scholar]
- 20. Salama H.: ‘Effects of silver nanoparticles in some crop plants, common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and corn (Zea mays L.)’, Int. Res. J. Biotechnol., 2012, 3, pp. 190 –197 [Google Scholar]
- 21. Calabrese E. Baldwin L.: ‘Defining hormesis’, Hum. Exp. Toxicol., 2002, 21, pp. 91 –97 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Seifsahandi M. Sorooshzadeh A. Rezazadeh S. et al.: ‘Effect of nano silver and silver nitrate on seed yield of borage’, J. Med. Plant Res., 2011, pp. 171 –175 [Google Scholar]
- 23. Racuciu M. Creanga D.: ‘TMA‐OH coated magnetic nanoparticles internalized in vegetal tissue’, Rom. J. Phys., 2007, 52, pp. 395 –402 [Google Scholar]
- 24. Wilmowicz E. Kęsy J. Kopcewicz J.: ‘Ethylene and ABA interactions in the regulation of flower induction in Pharbitis nil ‘, J. Plant Physiol., 2008, 165, pp. 1917 –1928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Mishra A. Khare S. Trivedi P. et al.: ‘Effect of ethylene, 1‐MCP, ABA and IAA on break strength, cellulase and polygalacturonase activities during cotton leaf abscission’, South Afr. J. Bot., 2008, 74, pp. 282 –287 [Google Scholar]
- 26. Pessarakli M.: ‘Handbook of plant and crop physiology’ (CRC Press, USA, 2014) [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ruitenberg R.: ‘Earthworm health hurt by nanoparticles in soil in Alterra study’ (Bloomberg, New York, 2013) [Google Scholar]
- 28. Xu L. Liu Y. Bai R. et al.: ‘Applications and toxicological issues surrounding nanotechnology in the food industry’, Pure Appl. Chem., 2010, 82, pp. 349 –372 [Google Scholar]
- 29. Griffitt R.J. Luo J. Gao J. et al.: ‘Effects of particle composition and species on toxicity of metallic nanomaterials in aquatic organisms’, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2008, 27, pp. 1972 –1978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Colman B.P. Arnaout C.L. Anciaux S. et al.: ‘Low concentrations of silver nanoparticles in biosolids cause adverse ecosystem responses under realistic field Scenario’, PLoS ONE, 2013, 8, p. e57189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]