Next Article in Journal
Potential of Plant-Based Agents as Next-Generation Plant Growth-Promotors and Green Bactericides Against Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi
Previous Article in Journal
Differential Physiological Changes in Stomata in Polyploid Agave spp. Could Indicate Flexibility in CO2 Fixation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy15040818
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Soybean Physiology and Productivity Through Foliar Application of Soluble Monoammonium Phosphate

by
Vitor Alves Rodrigues
1,
Luiz Gustavo Moretti
1,
Israel Alves Filho
1,
Marcela Pacola
1,
Josiane Viveiros
1,
Lucas Moraes Jacomassi
1,
Sirlene Lopes Oliveira
1,
Amine Jamal
2,
Tatiani Mayara Galeriani
1,
Murilo de Campos
1,
José Roberto Portugal
1,
João William Bossolani
1 and
Carlos Alexandre Costa Crusciol
1,*
1
School of Agricultural Sciences (FCA), Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu 18610-034, Brazil
2
OCP Nutricrops, Casablanca 20200, Morocco
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(4), 818; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040818
Submission received: 13 February 2025 / Revised: 17 March 2025 / Accepted: 21 March 2025 / Published: 26 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phosphorus (P) is essential for crop growth, but its complex behavior in tropical soils necessitates alternative management strategies, such as foliar supplementation. Foliar-applied nutrients act as biostimulants, enhancing stress tolerance and plant productivity. This study assessed the physiological responses of soybean to foliar application of soluble monoammonium phosphate (MAP; at a rate of 5 kg ha−1 each application) at different phenological stages (two during vegetative stages V4 and V6 and two during reproductive stages R1 and R3 or all four stages) across two growing seasons in tropical field conditions. Key parameters analyzed included leaf nutrient content, photosynthetic pigments, Rubisco activity, carbohydrate content, gas exchange (photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration, water use efficiency, and carboxylation efficiency), oxidative stress markers, and productivity indicators (100-grain weight and grain yield). MAP application improved all parameters, particularly at R1 and R3. Total chlorophyll increased by 29.2% at R1 and 30.0% when applied at all four stages, while the net photosynthetic rate rose by 15.8% and 18.4%, respectively. Water use efficiency improved by 20.0% at R1 and all four stages, while oxidative stress indicators, such as H2O2 levels, decreased. Rubisco activity increased most at R3 (46.0%) and all four stages (59.9%). Grain yield was highest with MAP spread at all four stages (12.3% increase), though a single application at R1 still boosted yield by 7.4%, compared to the control treatment.

1. Introduction

Soybean is the most important crop cultivated in Brazil, which was responsible for 39% of global soybean production in 2023–2024 [1]. Over the last 20 years, soybean production in Brazil has more than doubled. Although this growth is primarily due to an increase in the planted area, it also reflects an increase in yields of almost 25% due to better genetics and improved crop management practices [2]. These increases notwithstanding, soybean producers are continually evaluating methods and techniques, such as foliar fertilization with phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N), that can improve crop management and increase yields [3,4,5].
Nitrogen is a component of proteins, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), membrane lipids, ATP (energy transfer), NADH, NADPH, co-enzymes, photosynthetic pigments, secondary metabolites, and other organic compounds [6]. Nitrogen is the nutrient required in the greatest quantity by plants, reaching up to 5% of plant dry biomass [7]. Because soybean is a legume, the greatest part of its N demand is supplied by biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) through symbiosis with Bradyrhizobium bacteria [8,9]. However, the increases in soybean yield attributable to plant breeding and crop system innovations may create a need for N complementation. Low-dose N foliar application has been shown to be viable for soybeans [10,11].
Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient and is required for many metabolic functions. It is involved in vital processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, energy transfer, nucleic acid synthesis (DNA and RNA), and enzyme activation [12,13]. It also participates in the formation of ATP, the main molecule for energy storage and transfer in cells. Furthermore, P has a key role in the synthesis of phospholipids, which are the main components of cell membranes and are necessary to maintain cell integrity and regulate the transport of nutrients, water, and other molecules in and out of the cell. Few studies have shown the effect of P foliar spray in enhancing photosynthesis and biochemical characteristics in plants [14] and improving fruit quality [15]. P deficiency can lead to stunted growth, reduced biomass production, and, consequently, lower crop yields [16,17]. Tropical croplands frequently have weathered soils and high P sorption (P fixation) capacity due to high concentrations of iron and aluminum oxides. These oxides fix P added to the soil before it can be absorbed by crops, resulting in retention of P in the solid fraction of the soil [18,19]. Adequate availability of P is essential for healthy plant growth, as it promotes root development and initial seedling establishment [7,20].
During soybean cultivation, fertilizer is typically applied to the soil, and the nutrients are absorbed by the roots. However, plants can also absorb nutrients through leaves [21,22,23]. Foliar fertilization can function as a complementary alternative to supply enough nutrients throughout the crop cycle [24,25]. For foliar applications, soluble monoammonium phosphate (MAP), which is formed through the reaction of ammonium with phosphoric acid, can be used as a source of both N and P. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of foliar MAP application at different phenological stages of soybean on photosynthetic pigment content, photosynthetic parameters, oxidative stress indicators, and soybean grain yield.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The studies were carried out during the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 growing seasons at the Lageado Experimental Farm, São Paulo State University (UNESP), in Botucatu in southeastern São Paulo, Brazil (48°26′ W, 22°51′ S, elevation of 786 m altitude). According to the Köppen-Geiger climatic classification system, the climate in the region is characterized as Cwa, i.e., a humid subtropical climate with dry winters and hot summers [26]. The average rainfall is 1360 mm year−1, and the average annual air temperature is 20.7 °C [27]. The soil is classified as an Oxisol [28], which corresponds to a clayey textural class, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Haplorthox [29]. The experimental area is managed under no tillage. The soil characteristics (chemical properties), precipitation, and temperature at the site during the two growing seasons of the experiment are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1.

2.2. Experimental Design and Treatment Descriptions

A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was used with four replicates for each treatment. The six treatments differed in the physiological stage at which soluble monoammonium phosphate (MAP 12-61-00) was sprayed on the leaves of soybean:
(I)
Control (no treatment);
(II)
Foliar spraying of soluble MAP at the V4 vegetative phenological stage [30];
(III)
Foliar spraying of soluble MAP at the V6 vegetative phenological stage [30];
(IV)
Foliar spraying of soluble MAP at the R1 reproductive phenological stage [30];
(V)
Foliar spraying of soluble MAP at the R3 reproductive phenological stage [30];
(VI)
Foliar spraying of soluble MAP in all phenological stages—V4, V6, R1, and R3.
Spraying was carried out using a backpack sprayer propelled by CO2 at a constant pressure of 1.8 bar. The sprayer was equipped with a spray boom containing 6 flat fan nozzles (TTI 110 02 VP TeeJet) with a spacing of 0.50 m between nozzles. The soluble MAP rate used for foliar application was 5 kg ha−1, which corresponds to 3.1 kg ha−1 of P2O5 and 0.55 kg ha−1 of NH4+. An organosilicon adjuvant (polydimethylsiloxane, d = 1.1 g cm−3) was added at a rate of 30 mL ha−1 to improve spray performance, and the spray volume rate was 150 L ha−1 for each treatment.

2.3. Management Practices

The soybean cultivar was NEO 580 IPRO. The seeds were treated previously with fungicides (100 g a.i. carboxin + 100 g a.i. thiram 100 kg−1 seeds) and inoculated with SEMIA 5079 (Bradyrhizobium japonicum) and SEMIA 5080 (Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens) [31,32]. Mechanized sowing was performed to obtain a population of approximately 330,000 plants ha−1. Fertilization management consisted of 80 kg ha−1 of P2O5 as base fertilization and 70 kg ha−1 of K2O applied in topdressing for both growing seasons. Each plot consisted of 10 rows with an inter-row spacing of 0.45 m and a row length of 10 m, corresponding to an area of 45 m2. Weed, pest, and disease management was carried out when necessary, following the recommendations [33].

2.4. Nutritional Analyses (Crop Nutrition)

To assess the nutritional status of soybean plants, the third fully expanded leaf with petiole from the apex to the base was sampled from 20 plants per plot at the R3 phenological stage (beginning of pod formation) [34]. The N concentration in the plant material was determined by sulfuric-perchloric acid digestion and the Kjeldahl distillation method. The concentrations of potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), boron (B), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) in the leaves were measured by atomic absorption spectrometry after nitroperchloric digestion. Additionally, the concentration of P in the leaves was determined by colorimetry [35].

2.5. Photosynthetic Pigments and Enzyme

To quantify photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total carotenoids, and total chlorophylls), five discs with a diameter of 0.5 cm were cut from the last fully expanded leaf, between the edge and midrib. These samples were stored for 24 h in glass vials wrapped in aluminum foil and containing 2 mL of N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) [36]. Pigment contents were quantified spectrophotometrically at wavelengths of 664 nm for chlorophyll a, 647 nm for chlorophyll b, and 480 nm for carotenoids [37].
To quantify ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase enzyme activity (Rubisco), the third fully expanded leaf without petiole was collected at the R4 phenological stage [30]. Rubisco activity was calculated from the difference between absorbance readings obtained at 0 and 1 min (without removing the cuvette from the spectrophotometer) and expressed in µmol min−1 mg protein−1 [38].

2.6. Gas Exchange Parameters

To determine gas exchange parameters, a portable infrared gas analyzer (CIRAS-3 Portable Photosynthesis System, PP Systems Inc., Amesbury, MA, USA) was used. The parameters were 380–400 mol mol−1 atmospheric CO2, 1100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) supplied by LED lamps, 25–27 °C leaf chamber temperature, and 60–70% relative humidity. The measurements were performed at the R4 phenological stage using the central intact leaflet of the third fully expanded leaf from the plant apex on the main stem. The following parameters were determined: net photosynthetic rate (A; μmol CO2 m−2 s−1), stomatal conductance (Gs; mol H2O m−2 s−1), internal CO2 concentration in the substomatal cavity (Ci; μmol mol−1), and transpiration (E; mmol H2O m−2 s−1). The water use efficiency (WUE; μmol CO2 (mmol H2O) was calculated as the A/E ratio, and the carboxylation efficiency was calculated as the A/Ci ratio. The measurements were performed between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m.

2.7. Total Soluble Sugar Concentration

The total soluble sugar concentration was determined by the sulfur phenol method, which consists of using sulfuric acid to dehydrate simple sugars and form complexes with phenol, changing the color of the solution. This color change, measurable in the visible spectrum, is directly proportional to the total sugar content in the sample [39]. The concentrations were determined by comparing them to a standard sucrose curve and expressed in g kg−1.

2.8. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Enzymes

The same leaves used for Rubisco determination were used to measure the levels of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and malondialdehyde (MDA) and the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD; EC: 1.15.1.1), catalase (CAT; EC:1.11.1.6), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX; EC:1.11.1.11).
Malondialdehyde content (Lipid peroxidation) was calculated using a molar extinction coefficient of 155 mM−1 cm−1 and expressed in nmol MDA g−1 fresh weight [40]. H2O2 content was calculated based on a calibration curve and expressed in μmol H2O2 g−1 fresh weight [41]. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity was quantified and expressed in units (U) of SOD mg−1 protein [42]. Catalase (CAT) activity was measured and expressed in μmol min−1 mg−1 protein [43]. Ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activity was determined and expressed in nmol min−1 mg−1 protein [44].

2.9. Agronomic Parameters and Grain Yield

In both growing seasons (2020–2021 and 2021–2022), 100-grain weight and grain yield were determined. For grain yield, the soybean plants in 2 m sections of each of 4 rows were harvested (1.8 m2), threshed, and weighted. The weight was adjusted to 13% moisture and then converted to kg ha−1. The 100-grain weight was determined by counting 10 samples of 100 grains, which were weighed and adjusted to 13% moisture

2.10. Statistical Analysis

The data collected from both studies were subjected to normality [45] homoscedasticity [46] analyses. Next, statistical analysis was performed using a double factorial design (treatments vs. growing seasons). The first factor was the application of soluble MAP, and the second factor was the growing season (2020–2021 or 2021–2022). The data were then analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the significance of differences was assessed using the least significant difference (LSD) test at a significance level of 5%. This analysis is summarized in the Supplementary Material. No significant effects of growing seasons or interactions between factors were observed, and the averages of the two growing seasons are presented for each treatment. All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software Sisvar®, and the figures were generated using SigmaPlot version 15.0.

3. Results

The principal component analysis—PCA (Figure 2)—revealed a clear separation between the two growing seasons, indicating that variables related to environmental conditions, such as temperature, precipitation, and water availability, played a determining role in the crop’s performance each growing season. Precipitation was 30% higher in the second growing season than in the first growing season, a difference that can be very significant for a rainfed field in a tropical country. Based on this analysis, it was decided to present the consolidated data as the average of the two agricultural years in the subsequent sections. This approach highlights the general trends of the applied treatments and mitigates interannual variability, providing a more robust view of the treatments’ behavior over the evaluated period.
There were few variations in leaf nutrient content between the MAP foliar application treatments and the control. For nutrients that differed, the concentration was always higher in the treatment with MAP than in the control (non-sprayed) (Supplementary Table S1). Despite the differences noticed, all elements are within the ranges proposed for soybean crops [31].
The applications in R1, R3, and MAP All increased chlorophyll a content by 27.1%, 22.2%, and 29.4%, respectively (Figure 3A). All of the treatments increased chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll contents compared with the control, but the increases were largest in R1, R3, and MAP All (Figure 3B,C). Compared with the control, all treatments increased total carotenoid content, which was highest in MAP All (Figure 3D). R3 and MAP All increased Rubisco activity by 46.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with the control (Figure 3E).
Compared with the control, sugar content decreased the most in R3 (11.7%) and MAP All (Figure 4A). R3, MAP All, and R1 increased sucrose content by 64.1%, 61.0%, and 47.0%, respectively (Figure 4B), whereas MAP All and R1 increased total sugar content by 29.8% and 24.5%, respectively (Figure 4C). MAP All was most effective in reducing starch content, decreasing it by 38.9% compared with the control (Figure 4D).
Among photosynthetic parameters, A, gs, and WUE were highest in MAP All (Figure 5A,B,D). Ci was lowest in R3 and MAP All, with decreases of 5.4% in both treatments compared with the control (Figure 5C). R3 and MAP All also had the largest effects on A/Ci, increasing it by 21.4% and 25%, respectively, compared with the control (Figure 5E). E did not differ significantly between the treatments and the control.
MAP application, particularly MAP All, reduced all oxidative stress indicators (Figure 6). The concentration of H2O2 decreased by 28.0% and 27.3% in R1 and MAP All, respectively, compared with the control (Figure 6A). MDA content, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activities, and proline content were 26.1%, 12.5%, 54.5%, 29.2%, and 18.9% lower, respectively, in MAP All than in the control (Figure 6B–F).
These improvements were reflected in soybean yield (Figure 7). MAP All had the best performance with respect to 100-grain weight and grain yield. All MAP treatments increased 100-grain weight, but MAP All increased 100-grain weight by 5.0% compared with the control (Figure 7A). Grain yield did not differ between V4 and the control, but all other MAP treatments increased grain yield (Figure 7B). MAP All resulted in superior performance, increasing grain yield by 12.3% compared with the control.

4. Discussion

Soluble MAP foliar spraying has become a very common supplementary fertilization practice adopted by farmers to supply N and P to crops, especially soybean plants. The macronutrients P and N play fundamental roles in plant metabolism and are directly related to protein synthesis, photosynthesis, energy storage, and DNA and RNA synthesis [47,48]. The foliar application of these nutrients is a viable option to improve fertilizer use efficiency. Numerous studies have demonstrated that foliar fertilization with N and P not only increases nutrient use efficiency but also reduces losses compared to soil applications because the nutrient is supplied directly to the leaves, where it is absorbed and translocated to the rest of the plant [13,16,18,49]. However, several studies have shown that nutritionally deficient plants do not absorb foliar-applied fertilizers as efficiently as well-nourished plants [3,24,50]. In addition, several studies have demonstrated positive effects of the separate foliar application of N [6,51], but few have studied the combined application of these two nutrients.
The efficiency of P and N use by plants is affected by various physiological processes, and low availability of these nutrients can lead to deficient plants with low concentrations of nutrients in their leaves [13,52]. In this study, foliar levels of P and N did not differ between the treatments and were within an adequate range for soybean cultivation [53]. This can be explained by the dilution effect—the exogenous application of a small amount of nutrient is not enough to increase foliar levels due to the large amount of dry matter [24]. Well-nourished plants are more likely to express their maximum genetic potential and have a greater ability to absorb foliar fertilizers [54]. In an analysis of the permeability of foliar-applied P in wheat plants, the deficiency altered the surface structure and functioning of leaves, with fewer stomata and trichomes on both the adaxial and abaxial sides, making them less permeable to foliar-applied P [55].
Our results showed that foliar application of MAP did not affect foliar nutrient levels but increased chlorophyll content, which is related to the increased supply of N and P in later phenological stages [19]. Chlorophyll and accessory pigments absorb light energy for photosynthesis and are considered non-limiting in the photosynthetic process unless the plant is experiencing some degree of nutrient deficiency [56]. Although N levels did not differ between the treatments, foliar chlorophyll content is directly related to foliar nutrient levels and the synthesis of reducing sugars and sucrose, which is directly proportional to photosynthetic activity and carbohydrate transport [57], consistent with our results. The high starch concentration in the control treatment reflects the roles of P in regulating metabolic pathways and sugar transport. Sugar transport to the cytoplasm, where sucrose is synthesized, requires a sufficient concentration of P in the chloroplast, and a lack of N can increase starch concentrations in leaves [14,15,57].
Nitrogen and P deficiencies reduce the photosynthetic capacity of plants because N is an essential component of several critical molecules in the photosynthetic process, such as chlorophyll, enzymes, and proteins involved in photosynthesis [14]. Phosphorus is essential for many functions during plant growth and development but is particularly critical for the storage and transfer of energy in the form of ATP and ADP. A lack of P results in low availability of inorganic phosphate ions as an energy substrate for ATP synthesis [50,52]. In addition, P is highly important as a structural component of nucleic acids, coenzymes, phospholipids, and nucleotides, most of which are involved in the photosynthetic process [7,52].
Our results showed that the foliar application of MAP during the reproductive stages of soybean plants or at all developmental stages increased A, gs, WUE, and A/Ci and reduced Ci, which can be explained by greater activity of Rubisco, the enzyme responsible for assimilating atmospheric CO2 [58]. The application of MAP resulted in higher A and gs in well-nourished plants with P, indicating that foliar nutrient application can increase A and gs. The increase in A can be explained by the increase in chlorophyll levels, as plants with higher pigment concentrations are more photosynthetically active. The improvement in WUE is related to the improvement in A since WUE is the ratio of A to E (A/E).
Cultivated plants are subjected to various abiotic stresses, including extreme temperatures, drought, nutrient deficiency, salt stress, and even heavy metals, which can trigger the uncontrolled production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). The main forms of ROS produced are O2− and H2O2 [59]. The plant antioxidant system, which includes enzymes such as SOD, CAT, and APX, protects against the harmful effects of these ROS by helping to eliminate these toxic substances [44].
In the present study, the plants in the control treatment had higher contents of H2O2 and MDA than the plants that were treated with MAP. Consequently, SOD, CAT, and APX activities were higher in the control treatment, as these enzymes were needed to neutralize the toxic effects of ROS. SOD converts singlet oxygen (O2−) into H2O2, and CAT and APX convert H2O2 to H2O [60]. However, soybean productivity is compromised when air temperatures exceed 30 °C, which may indicate that high temperatures can cause thermal stress in plants [33]. During both soybean growing seasons, air temperatures exceeded 30 °C several times, likely causing heat stress in the plants. Periods without rain are also common during soybean cultivation in tropical regions, limiting water availability for plants and potentially causing water stress [61].
Even with environment-limiting factors, the treatments in which MAP was sprayed had a better yield performance compared to the control, except when sprayed at V4. The yield increase, especially in MAP All, is likely due to an improvement in the parameters previously discussed. Therefore, MAP foliar application cannot be used to replace fertilization and can play an important role in mitigating plant stresses, which can lead to a higher yield.

5. Conclusions

Foliar application of soluble MAP greatly improved photosynthetic parameters and enzyme activities, leading to greater grain yield, especially when MAP was sprayed during the reproductive stages of soybean plants. Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential for plant growth and development. Although foliar application of MAP has beneficial effects, it cannot replace traditional fertilization. However, foliar spraying allows application to be scheduled during crucial periods of crop development, and MAP is a good option for fertilization because it contains both P and N.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15040818/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A.C.C., L.G.M., A.J. and V.A.R.; methodology, M.P., L.M.J. and M.d.C.; software, J.W.B.; validation, V.A.R. and C.A.C.C.; formal analysis, V.A.R. and T.M.G.; investigation, I.A.F. and S.L.O.; resources, A.J. and C.A.C.C.; data curation, V.A.R., J.R.P. and J.V.; writing—original draft preparation, V.A.R. and L.G.M.; writing—review and editing, V.A.R. and C.A.C.C.; visualization, I.A.F.; supervision, C.A.C.C.; project administration, L.G.M.; funding acquisition, A.J. and C.A.C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The first author received a scholarship from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) #grant: 140267/2021-2.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The thirteenth author would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for an award for excellence in research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MAPMonoammonium phosphate
ANet photosynthetic rate
gsStomatal conductance
CiInternal CO2 concentration in the substomatal cavity
ETranspiration
WUEWater use efficiency
ROSReactive oxygen species
H2O2Hydrogen peroxide
MDAMalondialdehyde
SODSuperoxide dismutase
CATCatalase
APXAscorbate peroxidase

References

  1. USDA. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USDA-Agricultural-Projections-to-2030.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  2. CONAB. Acompanhamento Da Safra Brasileira—Quinto Levantamento Safra 2024/25; National Supply Company (CONAB): Brasília, Brazil, 2025; Volume 8.
  3. Fageria, N.K.; Filho, M.P.B.; Moreira, A.; Guimarães, C.M. Foliar Fertilization of Crop Plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2009, 32, 1044–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oliveira, S.L.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Rodrigues, V.A.; Galeriani, T.M.; Portugal, J.R.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moretti, L.G.; Calonego, J.C.; Cantarella, H. Molybdenum Foliar Fertilization Improves Photosynthetic Metabolism and Grain Yields of Field-Grown Soybean and Maize. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 887682. [Google Scholar]
  5. Guelfi, D.R.; Chagas, W.F.T.; Lacerda, J.R.; Chagas, R.M.R.; de Souza, T.L.; Andrade, A.B. Monoammonium Phosphate Coated with Polymers and Magnesium for Coffee Plants. Ciência E Agrotecnologia 2018, 42, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rodrigues, V.A.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Portugal, J.R.; Moretti, L.G.; Bernart, L.; Vilela, R.G.; Galeriani, T.; Lollato, R.P. Foliar Nitrogen as Stimulant Fertilization Alters Carbon Metabolism, Reactive Oxygen Species Scavenging, and Enhances Grain Yield in a Soybean–Maize Rotation. Crop Sci. 2021, 61, 3687–3701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rengel, Z.; Cakmak, I.; White, P.J. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; ISBN 0323853528. [Google Scholar]
  8. Moretti, L.G.; Lazarini, E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Parente, T.L.; Caioni, S.; Araujo, R.S.; Hungria, M. Can Additional Inoculations Increase Soybean Nodulation and Grain Yield? Agron. J. 2018, 110, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Momesso, L.; Garcia, A.; Kuramae, E.E.; Hungria, M. Bacterial Consortium and Microbial Metabolites Increase Grain Quality and Soybean Yield. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 1923–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bossolani, J.W.; dos Santos, F.L.; Meneghette, H.H.A.; Sanches, I.R.; Moretti, L.G.; Parra, L.F.; Lazarini, E. Soybean in Crop Rotation with Maize and Palisade Grass Intercropping Enhances the Long-Term Effects of Surface Liming in No-till System. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Kuramae, E.E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moreira, A.; Costa, N.R.; Alves, C.J.; Pascoaloto, I.M.; Rondina, A.B.L.; Hungria, M. Effects of Growth-Promoting Bacteria on Soybean Root Activity, Plant Development, and Yield. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Moretti, L.G.; Aquino, G.S. Phosphorus, Potassium and Sulfur Interactions in Soybean Plants on a Typic Hapludox. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Moretti, L.G. Yield, Yield Components, Soil Chemical Properties, Plant Physiology, and Phosphorus Use Efficiency in Soybean Genotypes. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 2464–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ahmad, Z.; Waraich, E.A.; Rehman, M.Z.U.; Ayub, M.A.; Usman, M.; Alharby, H.; Bamagoos, A.; Barutçular, C.; Raza, M.A.; Çiğ, F.; et al. Foliar Application of Phosphorus Enhances Photosynthesis and Biochemical Characteristics of Maize under Drought Stress. Phyton 2021, 90, 503–514. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hudina, M.; Stampar, F. Effect of Phosphorus and Potassium Foliar Fertilization on Fruit Quality of Pears. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foliar Nutrition of Perennial Fruit Plants 594, Meran, Italy, 10–15 September 2001; pp. 487–493. [Google Scholar]
  16. Moreira, A.; Fageria, N.K.; Garcia, A.G.Y. Effect of Liming on the Nutritional Conditions and Yield of Alfalfa Grown in Tropical Conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2011, 34, 1107–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Souza, L.G.M.; Bruno, I.P. Bioavailability of Nutrients in Seeds from Tropical and Subtropical Soybean Varieties. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 888–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moreira, A.; Sfredo, G.J.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Fageria, N.K. Agronomic Efficiency of Two Types of Lime and Phosphate Fertilizer Sources in Brazilian Cerrado Soils Cultivated with Soybean. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 2319–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Viveiros, J.; Moretti, L.G.; Alves Filho, I.; Pacola, M.; Jacomassi, L.M.; Rodrigues, V.A.; Jamal, A.; Bossolani, J.W.; Portugal, J.R.; Carbonari, C.A.; et al. Can Foliar Application of Soluble Monoammonium Phosphate Effectively Alleviate Herbicide-Induced Oxidative Stress in Key Crops? Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1504244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Viveiros, J.; Moretti, L.G.; Pacola, M.; Jacomassi, L.M.; de Souza, F.M.; Rodrigues, V.A.; Bossolani, J.W.; Portugal, J.R.; Carbonari, C.A.; Crusciol, C.A.C. Foliar Application of Phosphoric Acid Mitigates Oxidative Stress Induced by Herbicides in Soybean, Maize, and Cotton Crops. Plant Stress. 2024, 13, 100543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fageria, N.K.; Nascente, A.S. Management of Soil Acidity of South American Soils for Sustainable Crop Production; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 128, ISBN 9780128021392. [Google Scholar]
  22. Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; de Melo, T.R.; Heinrichs, R.; Moretti, L.G. Management of Copper for Crop Production. In Advances in Agronomy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; Volume 173, pp. 257–298. ISBN 9780323989558. [Google Scholar]
  23. Santos, L.O.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Petineli, R.; Moretti, L.G.; Moreira, A. Yield, Yield Components, Soil Fertility, and Nutritional Status of Soybean as Influenced by Limestone and Copper Interactions. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 2445–2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fernández, V.; Brown, P.H. From Plant Surface to Plant Metabolism: The Uncertain Fate of Foliar-Applied Nutrients. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 289. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hussein, H.A.Z.; Awad, A.A.M.; Beheiry, H.R. Improving Nutrients Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Moraes Gonçalves, J.L.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s Climate Classification Map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 2013, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Unicamp Center of Meteorological and Climatic Research Applied to Agriculture. Municipalities Climate of São Paulo State: Botucatu, Brazil. Available online: www.cpa.unicamp.br (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  28. Jahn, R.; Blume, H.P.; Asio, V.B.; Spaargaren, O.; Schad, P. Guidelines for Soil Description, 4th ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  29. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fehr, W.R.; Caviness, C.E. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Special Report 80; Iowa State University of Science and Technology: Ames, IA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  31. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Leite, M.F.A.; Momesso, L.; Bossolani, J.W.; Costa, O.Y.A.; Hungria, M.; Kuramae, E.E. Diverse Bacterial Consortia: Key Drivers of Rhizosoil Fertility Modulating Microbiome Functions, Plant Physiology, Nutrition, and Soybean Grain Yield. Environ. Microbiome 2024, 19, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Calonego, J.C.; Moreira, A.; Garcia, A.; Momesso, L.; Kuramae, E.E.; Hungria, M. Beneficial Microbial Species and Metabolites Alleviate Soybean Oxidative Damage and Increase Grain Yield during Short Dry Spells. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 127, 126293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Embrapa Soybean Production Technologies. Production Systems 17; Embrapa Soybean: Londrina, Brazil, 2020; Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/en/soja (accessed on 24 January 2025).
  34. Ambrosano, E.J.; Tanaka, R.T.; Mascarenhas, H.A.A.; van Raij, B.; Quaggio, J.A.; Cantarella, H. Leguminosas e Oleaginosas. In Recomendações de Adubação e Calagem para o Estado de São Paulo; van Raij, B., Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J.A., Furlani, A.M.C., Eds.; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 1997; pp. 187–203. [Google Scholar]
  35. Malavolta, E.; Vitti, G.C.; Oliveira, S.A. Evaluation of the Nutritional Status of Plants: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed.; POTAFOS: Piracicaba, Brazil, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lichtenthaler, H.K. Chlorophylls and Carotenoids: Pigments of Photosynthetic Biomembranes. In Methods in Enzymology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1987; Volume 148, pp. 350–382. ISBN 0076-6879. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wellburn, A.R. The Spectral Determination of Chlorophylls a and b, as Well as Total Carotenoids, Using Various Solvents with Spectrophotometers of Different Resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 1994, 144, 307–313. [Google Scholar]
  38. Reid, C.D.; Tissue, D.T.; Fiscus, E.L.; Strain, B.R. Comparison of Spectrophotometric and Radioisotopic Methods for the Assay of Rubisco in Ozone-treated Plants. Physiol. Plant 1997, 101, 398–404. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nelson, N. A Photometric Adaptation of the Somogyi Method for the Determination of Glucose. J. Biol. Chem. 1944, 3, 375–380. [Google Scholar]
  40. Heath, R.L.; Packer, L. Photoperoxidation in Isolated Chloroplasts: I. Kinetics and Stoichiometry of Fatty Acid Peroxidation. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1968, 125, 189–198. [Google Scholar]
  41. Alexieva, V.; Sergiev, I.; Mapelli, S.; Karanov, E. The Effect of Drought and Ultraviolet Radiation on Growth and Stress Markers in Pea and Wheat. Plant Cell Environ. 2001, 24, 1337–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Giannopolitis, C.N.; Ries, S.K. Superoxide Dismutases: I. Occurrence in Higher Plants. Plant Physiol. 1977, 59, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Azevedo, R.A.; Alas, R.M.; Smith, R.J.; Lea, P.J. Response of Antioxidant Enzymes to Transfer from Elevated Carbon Dioxide to Air and Ozone Fumigation, in the Leaves and Roots of Wild-type and a Catalase-deficient Mutant of Barley. Physiol. Plant 1998, 104, 280–292. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gratao, P.L.; Monteiro, C.C.; Peres, L.E.P.; Azevedo, R.A. The Isolation of Antioxidant Enzymes from Mature Tomato (Cv. Micro-Tom) Plants. HortScience 2008, 43, 1608–1610. [Google Scholar]
  45. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Levene, H. Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in …; Olkin, I., Ghurye, S.G., Hoeffding, W., Madow, W.G., Mann, H.B., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1960; Volume 69, pp. 278–292. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cakmak, I.; Hengeler, C.; Marschner, H. Partitioning of Shoot and Root Dry Matter and Carbohydrates in Bean Plants Suffering from Phosphorus, Potassium and Magnesium Deficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 1994, 45, 1245–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cakmak, I.; Hengeler, C.; Marschner, H. Changes in Phloem Export of Sucrose in Leaves in Response to Phosphorus, Potassium and Magnesium Deficiency in Bean Plants. J. Exp. Bot. 1994, 45, 1251–1257. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fageria, N.K.; Stone, L.F. Micronutrient Deficiency Problems in South America. In Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production; Alloway, B.J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 245–266. ISBN 9781402068607. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fernández, V.; Gil-Pelegrín, E.; Eichert, T. Foliar Water and Solute Absorption: An Update. Plant J. 2021, 105, 870–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Schroth, G.; Becker, F.J.; Mandarino, J.M.G. Soybean Yield and Nutritional Status Response to Nitrogen Sources and Rates of Foliar Fertilization. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eichert, T.; Fernández, V. Uptake and Release of Elements by Leaves and Other Aerial Plant Parts. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Plants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 105–129. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cantarella, H.; Quaggio, J.; Mattos, D., Jr.; Boaretto, R.; van Raij, B. Bulletin 100: Fertilization and Liming Recommendations for the State of São Paulo; Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J.A., Mattos, D., Jr., Boaretto, R.M., van Raij, B., Eds.; Agronomic Institute: Campinas, Brazil, 2022; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ruiz-Navarro, A.; Fernández, V.; Abadía, J.; Abadía, A.; Querejeta, J.I.; Albaladejo, J.; Barberá, G.G. Foliar Fertilization of Two Dominant Species in a Semiarid Ecosystem Improves Their Ecophysiological Status and the Use Efficiency of a Water Pulse. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 167, 103854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Henningsen, J.N.; Görlach, B.M.; Fernández, V.; Dölger, J.L.; Buhk, A.; Mühling, K.H. Foliar P Application Cannot Fully Restore Photosynthetic Capacity, P Nutrient Status, and Growth of P Deficient Maize (Zea mays L.). Plants 2022, 11, 2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fiedor, L.; Kania, A.; Myśliwa-Kurdziel, B.; Orzeł, Ł.; Stochel, G. Understanding Chlorophylls: Central Magnesium Ion and Phytyl as Structural Determinants. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Bioenerg. 2008, 1777, 1491–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, Z.Z.; Ying, Y.Q.; Zhang, Y.B.; Bi, Y.F.; Wang, A.K.; Du, X.H. Alleviation of Drought Stress in Phyllostachys Edulis by N and P Application. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Maheshwari, C.; Garg, N.K.; Hassan, M.; Tyagi, A. An Insight: Impact of Reduced Rubisco on Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 91, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidant Machinery in Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Crop Plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar]
  60. Farooq, M.A.; Niazi, A.K.; Akhtar, J.; Saifullah; Farooq, M.; Souri, Z.; Karimi, N.; Rengel, Z. Acquiring Control: The Evolution of ROS-Induced Oxidative Stress and Redox Signaling Pathways in Plant Stress Responses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 141, 353–369. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Cunningham, C. Characterization of Dry Spells in Southeastern Brazil during the Monsoon Season. Int. J. Climatol. 2020, 40, 4609–4621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00818 g001
Figure 1. Rainfall and minimum and maximum temperatures during the first and second growing seasons (2020/21–2021/22).
Figure 1. Rainfall and minimum and maximum temperatures during the first and second growing seasons (2020/21–2021/22).
Agronomy 15 00818 g001
Agronomy 15 00818 g002
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) between the first (2020–2021) and second (2021–2022) growing seasons.
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) between the first (2020–2021) and second (2021–2022) growing seasons.
Agronomy 15 00818 g002
Agronomy 15 00818 g003
Figure 3. Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll, total carotenoids, and Rubisco (A–E) levels in soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3. Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll, total carotenoids, and Rubisco (A–E) levels in soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00818 g003
Agronomy 15 00818 g004
Figure 4. Reducing sugar, sucrose, total sugar, and starch (A–D) contents in soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4. Reducing sugar, sucrose, total sugar, and starch (A–D) contents in soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00818 g004
Agronomy 15 00818 g005
Figure 5. Net photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci), water use efficiency (WUE), carboxylation efficiency (A/Ci), and leaf transpiration (E) (A–F) of soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 5. Net photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci), water use efficiency (WUE), carboxylation efficiency (A/Ci), and leaf transpiration (E) (A–F) of soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00818 g005
Agronomy 15 00818 g006
Figure 6. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) content; malondialdehyde (MDA) superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activities; and proline content (A–F) of soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 6. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) content; malondialdehyde (MDA) superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activities; and proline content (A–F) of soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00818 g006
Agronomy 15 00818 g007
Figure 7. The 100-grain weight and grain yield (A,B) of soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 7. The 100-grain weight and grain yield (A,B) of soybean plants sprayed with MAP in different phenological stages. Bars for the same parameter and growing season with different letters are significantly different by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00818 g007
Table 1. Soil chemical properties. Lageado Experimental Farm, São Paulo, Brazil.
Table 1. Soil chemical properties. Lageado Experimental Farm, São Paulo, Brazil.
AttributesValuesUnit/Extractant
pH 5.2CaCl2
Soil organic matter24g dm−3
Phosphorus 25mg dm−3
Sulfur 14mg dm−3
Potential acidity [H + Al+3]31mmolc dm−3
Potassium 3.9mmolc dm−3
Calcium 38mmolc dm−3
Magnesium11mmolc dm−3
Cation exchange capacity 79CECpH 7.0
Base saturation (BS) 55%
Iron13mg dm−3
Copper1.6mg dm−3
Manganese15mg dm−3
Zinc3.0mg dm−3
Boron0.6mg dm−3
Clay520g kg−1
Sandy360g kg−1
Silt120g kg−1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodrigues, V.A.; Moretti, L.G.; Alves Filho, I.; Pacola, M.; Viveiros, J.; Jacomassi, L.M.; Oliveira, S.L.; Jamal, A.; Galeriani, T.M.; Campos, M.d.; et al. Enhancing Soybean Physiology and Productivity Through Foliar Application of Soluble Monoammonium Phosphate. Agronomy 2025, 15, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040818

AMA Style

Rodrigues VA, Moretti LG, Alves Filho I, Pacola M, Viveiros J, Jacomassi LM, Oliveira SL, Jamal A, Galeriani TM, Campos Md, et al. Enhancing Soybean Physiology and Productivity Through Foliar Application of Soluble Monoammonium Phosphate. Agronomy. 2025; 15(4):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040818

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodrigues, Vitor Alves, Luiz Gustavo Moretti, Israel Alves Filho, Marcela Pacola, Josiane Viveiros, Lucas Moraes Jacomassi, Sirlene Lopes Oliveira, Amine Jamal, Tatiani Mayara Galeriani, Murilo de Campos, and et al. 2025. "Enhancing Soybean Physiology and Productivity Through Foliar Application of Soluble Monoammonium Phosphate" Agronomy 15, no. 4: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040818

APA Style

Rodrigues, V. A., Moretti, L. G., Alves Filho, I., Pacola, M., Viveiros, J., Jacomassi, L. M., Oliveira, S. L., Jamal, A., Galeriani, T. M., Campos, M. d., Portugal, J. R., Bossolani, J. W., & Crusciol, C. A. C. (2025). Enhancing Soybean Physiology and Productivity Through Foliar Application of Soluble Monoammonium Phosphate. Agronomy, 15(4), 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040818

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