Effect of foliar application of nano-urea on growth, yield and quality attributes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), family Solanaceae, is a dicotyledonous, self-pollinated, warm-season vegetable crop (2𝑛 = 24) that originated in South America and now ranks second among the world's vegetable crops after potato in area and production. India is the second-largest producer of tomato after China, with a cultivated area of about 834 thousand hectares and an annual production of around 21,461 thousand tonnes; Chhattisgarh alone contributes about 857.98 thousand tonnes from roughly 49.11 thousand hectares (Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2026) [1] . Tomato is valued both for fresh consumption and for a wide range of processed products and its fruit is a rich source of water, minerals, vitamins A and C, Bcomplex vitamins and antioxidants such as lycopene (Mukesh et al., 2023) [2] . Meeting the growing demand for tomato depends heavily on efficient fertilizer management, since crop productivity is strongly linked to adequate nutrient supply (Roberts, 2009) [3] . Among the macronutrients, nitrogen is central to chlorophyll, protein, enzyme and nucleic acid synthesis and it drives vegetative growth and photosynthetic capacity; both its deficiency and its excess are detrimental to fruit yield and quality. Conventional soil-applied urea, however, suffers from low nitrogen-use efficiency owing to losses through leaching, volatilization and denitrification, which raises production costs and contributes to environmental pollution. Optimizing nitrogen use while sustaining yield is therefore central to economically and environmentally sound tomato production. Nanotechnology has opened a new avenue for improving nutrient-use efficiency through nano-fertilizers, characterized by extremely small particle size (1-100 nm), a very high surface-area-to-volume ratio and enhanced reactivity that together improve nutrient absorption and utilization (Mahil et al., 2019) [4] . Nanourea, developed and commercialized by the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), con tains about 4 % nitrogen in nanoparticulate form (20-50 nm) in a 500 mL bottle. Due of their small size, nano-urea particles penetrate leaf tissue through stomata and cuticular pathways during foliar application and are subsequently translocated through the phloem to sink organs such as fruits, giving more targeted nutrient delivery than soilapplied urea (Suthar et al., 2023) [5] . Field studies on tomato report that combining a basal nitrogen dose with foliar sprays of nano-urea improves vegetative growth, hastens flowering and fruiting and increases fruit size and total yield over conventional fertilization alone (Panda et [6, 7, 8, 9] , although fruit-quality traits respond less consistently and depend on cultivar, nitrogen level and spray schedule (Helal et al., 2023) [10] .

Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted during the Rabi season of 2025-26 at the Horticultural Research cum Instructional Farm, Department of Vegetable Science, College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to evaluate the effect of foliar application of nano-urea on growth, yield and quality attributes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design (RBD) with three replications. Ten treatments viz., 100 % RDN + foliar spray with water (control) (T 1 ), 100 % RDN + one spray of nano urea @ 4 ml/litre at 30 DAT (T 2 ), 100 % RDN + two sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/litre at 30 and 50 DAT (T 3 ), 75 % RDN + foliar spray with water (T 4 ), 75 % RDN + one spray of nano urea @ 4 ml/litre at 30 DAT (T 5 ), 75 % RDN + two sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/litre at 30 and 50 DAT (T 6 ), 50 % RDN + foliar spray with water (T 7 ), 50 % RDN + one spray of nano urea @ 4 ml/litre at 30 DAT (T 8 ) and 50 % RDN + two sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/litre at 30 and 50 DAT (T 9 ) were tested against no nitrogen (T 10 ). Tomato variety Kashi Aman' was used in the experiment. The soil of the experimental field was clay loam (dorsa) with medium organic carbon (0.60%), low available N (275.0 kg ha -1 ), medium available P (16.75 kg ha -1 ), high available K (303.0 kg ha -1 ) and near-neutral pH (7.09). They were trans-planted on 5 December 2025 at 60 cm × 45 cm spacing in 2 m × 2 m plots. Standard cultural practices were applied uniformly across all plots. In each plot, the five plants were selected randomly and tagged for the purposes of observations and recorded observations were analysed.

Results and discussion

Perusal of data showed that plant height did not differ significantly among treatments up to 45 DAT, but differences became significant from 90 DAT onward (Table 2). At harvest, T 3 recorded the tallest plants (85.48 cm), significantly taller than all other treatments, while T 10 (no nitrogen) remained the shortest (72.73 cm). The sustained height advantage of T 3 suggests that supplementing full RDN with two foliar nano-urea sprays-maintained nitrogen availability through the active vegetative phase more effectively than soil application alone; since nitrogen is a structural component of chlorophyll and protein, its continued supply supports vegetative growth (Mahantesh et al., 2023) [11] . Primary branches ranged from 3.80 (T 10 ) to 4.37 (T 3 ) and did not differ significantly, whereas secondary branch number, leaf area and all flowering/early-fruiting traits varied significantly. T 3 recorded the maximum secondary branches (11.72), flowered earliest (33.05 days to first flowering; 40.44 days to 50% flowering), produced the most flowers (4.48) and fruits (4.09) cluster -1 and reached first fruit set fastest (41.48 days); T 10 was consistently the slowest. Notably, T 5 (75 % RDN + one spray) performed close to full-RDN treatments for flowers per cluster, indicating that even a single spray can partly compensate for reduced basal nitrogen. Fruit number, fruit size, fruit weight and yield all differed significantly among treatments (Table 3). T 3 bore the maximum fruits plant -1 (41.26), followed by T 2 (39.44) and T 1 (37.74), while T 10 bore the fewest (31.40). T 3 also reached first picking earliest (69.00 days) and produced the largest fruits at the second picking, with maximum equatorial diameter (5.64 cm), polar diameter (4.67 cm) and average fruit weight (39.17 g). Note: NS = non-significant at P = 0.05; values are means of three replications.

Yield plot -1 and yield hectare -1 followed the trend of their component traits. On a hectare basis, T 3 produced the maximum yield (548.67 q ha -1

), followed by T 2 (538.25 q ha -1 ) and T 1 (518.17 q ha -1

), while T 10 recorded the lowest yield (300.83 q ha -1 ) (Fig. 1). Within each RDN level, two nano-urea sprays consistently outyielded one spray, which in turn outyielded the water-sprayed check ( 𝑇 3 > 𝑇 2 > 𝑇 1 ; 𝑇 6 > 𝑇 5 > 𝑇 4 ; 𝑇 9 > 𝑇 8 > 𝑇 7 ). Importantly, T 5 and T 6 (75% RDN with one or two sprays) yielded significantly more than T 4 (75% RDN, water spray) and remained statistically at par with several full-RDN treatments, indicating that foliar nano-urea can partly offset a reduction in basal nitrogen dose without a proportionate yield penalty. ) of tomato as influenced by RDN levels and foliar nano-urea Unlike growth and yield traits, none of the quality parameters -TSS, ascorbic acid, titratable acidity and fruit firmness -differed signifi-cantly among treatments (Table 4). TSS ranged from 3.27 °Brix (T 4 , T 10 ) to 3.50 °Brix (T 2 ); ascorbic acid ranged from 16.02 mg 100 g -1 (T 7 ) to 17.68 mg 100 g -1 (T 3 ); titratable acidity ranged from 0.24 % (T 5 ) to 0.29 % (T 3 ); and firmness ranged from 0.50 (T 10 ) to 0.59 (T 3 ). Although statistically non-significant, all four traits showed a consistent numerical advantage in the nano-urea-sprayed, full-RDN treatments over the water-sprayed and no-nitrogen treatments. This is broadly consistent with Kumar et al. (2025) [12] , who reported significantly higher TSS and ascorbic acid under a comparable two-spray, full-RDN schedule in cv. Azad T-6, although absolute values here were lower, likely reflecting cultivar, ripening environment and soilfertility differences. Helal et al. (2023) [10] , working with controlledrelease nano-urea, similarly reported that fruit-quality responses to nano-nitrogen sources are not always significant and can even show a trade-off, indicating that the response of tomato fruit quality to nanourea is cultivar-and environment-dependent rather than uniformly positive. ), followed by T 2 and T 1 , while T 10 gave the lowest returns, consistent with its lowest yield. The B:C ratio was highest in T 3 (2.94), followed by T 2 (2.89) and T 1 (2.79) and lowest in T 10 (1.75). These trends corroborate Mishra et al. (2020) [7] and Panda et al. (2020a) [8] , who also recorded their highest B:C ratios under foliar nano-fertilizer sprays combined with an adequate basal fertilizer dose in tomato.

Table 3. Effect of foliar application of nano-urea on fruit characters and yield of tomato

Conclusion

Foliar application of nano-urea, when used alongside an adequate basal dose of nitrogen, improved the growth, yield and profitability of tomato cv. Kashi Aman without significantly altering fruit biochemical quality. Application of 100 % RDN supplemented with two foliar sprays of nano-urea at 4 mL L -1 (30 and 50 DAT) consistently emerged as the best-performing treatment, producing taller plants, earlier and more abundant flowering and fruit set, larger and heavier fruits, the highest yield (548.67 q ha⁻¹) and the best economic returns (net return Rs 3,62,016.45 ha⁻¹; B:C ratio 2.94) among all treatments evaluated. Since the trial was conducted for a single season at one location on a single cultivar, multi-location, multi-season and multi-cultivar trials are recommended before these findings are generalized for wider recommendation.

References

1. Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. Agricultural statistics at a glance. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. 2026:98-110.
2. Mukesh N, Tiwari JN, Sahila A, Yadav S, Yadav S. Effect of different sources of organic manures on plant growth and flowering parameters of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) var. Kashi Aman under Bundelkhand region. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(9):85-91.
3. Roberts TL. The role of fertilizer in growing the world's food. Better Crops. 2009;93(2):12-15.
4. Mahil EIT, Kumar BNA. Foliar application of nanofertilizers in agricultural crops -A review. Journal of Farm Sciences. 2019;32(3):239-249.
5. Suthar NK, Desai CK, Desai JS. Nano urea: A review paper. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2023;7(2S):577-580.
6. Malica MA, Joshi V, Rajasekhar M, Mallesh S, Sathish G. Effect of nano fertilizers on growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(10):163-168.
7. Mishra B, Sahu GS, Mohanty LK, Swain BC, Hati S. Effect of nano fertilizers on growth, yield and economics of tomato variety Arka Rakshak. Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Biosciences. 2020;8(6):200-204.
8. Panda J, Nandi A, Pattnaik AK, Mahapatra P, Jena NK, Swain AA. Effects of nano fertilizer on vegetative growth of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020b;9(3):1980-1986.
9. Helal MID, El-Mogy MM, Khater HA, Fathy MA, Ibrahim FE, Li YC, Tong Z, Abdelgawad KF. A controlled-release nanofertilizer improves tomato growth and minimizes nitrogen consumption. Plants. 2023;12(10):1978.
10. Mahantesh BN, Ashoka P, Potdar MP. Performance of teff under planting methods and nutrient management practices. Environment and Ecology. 2023;41(3B):1689-1693.
11. Kumar S, Rajiv, Tripathi VK, Kushwaha V, Kumar D. Effect of nano urea on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Azad T-6. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2025;8(8):667-670.