Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 395–401 | Cite as

Foliar Phosphorus Applications in the Forms of Phosphate and Phosphite Have Contrasting Effects on Wheat Performance Under Field Conditions

  • Fernando CB ZambrosiEmail author
Research Article


Since phosphite (Phi) cannot replace phosphate (Pi) as source of phosphorus (P) for plants, and grain crops might experience P deficiency after anthesis, this study hypothesized that Phi and Pi sprays during the reproductive period would have contrasting effects on wheat productivity. The treatments consisted of a factorial combination of P sources applied at three rates (1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kg ha-1 P in the form of Pi or Phi), plus a control without P. Foliar P application influenced wheat grain yield and post-anthesis shoot dry matter (SDM) production in a source-dependent manner, with Phi and Pi linearly decreasing and increasing these parameters, respectively. Foliar Pi application increased post-flowering shoot P uptake, but Phi usage produced the opposite result. However, internal P efficiency did not vary across treatments, revealing that P acquisition rather than its conversion into biomass governed yield responses. Moreover, SDM remobilization and contribution to grain yield were linearly increased and decreased, respectively, following Phi and Pi spray, suggesting alterations in the plant’s capacity to sustain carbon assimilation. It is concluded that while foliar Pi application during reproductive growth could be a suitable option to improve wheat grain yield, Phi usage might be detrimental for crop productivity.

Key words

Nutritional stress phosphorus efficiency nutrient remobilization remobilization efficiency Triticum aestivum 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armstrong RD, Dunsford K, McLaughlin MJ, McBeath T, Mason S, Dunbabin VM. 2015. Phosphorus and nitrogen fertiliser use efficiency of wheat seedlings grown in soils from contrasting tillage systems. Plant Soil 396: 297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrow NJ, Debnath A. 2014. Effect of phosphate status on the sorption and desorption properties of some soils of northern India. Plant Soil 378: 383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bataglia OC, Furlani AMC, Teixeira JPF, Furlani PR, Gallo JR. 1983. Método de análise química de plantas. (Boletim técnico n. 78) 48. Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: Instituto AgronômicoGoogle Scholar
  4. Ercoli L, Lulli L, Mariotti M, Masoni A, Arduini A. 2008. Post-anthesis dry matter and nitrogen dynamics in durum wheat as affected by nitrogen supply and soil water availability. Eur. J. Agron. 28: 138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fernández V, Brown PH. 2013. From plant surface to plant metabolism: the uncertain fate of foliarapplied nutrients. Front Plant Sci. 4: 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernández V, Guzmán P, Peirce CAE, McBeath TM, Khayet M, McLaughlin MJ. 2014. Effect of wheat phosphorus status on leaf surface properties and permeability to foliar applied phosphorus. Plant Soil 384: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Girma K, Martin KL, Freeman KW, Mosali J, Teal RK, Raun R, Moges SM, Arnall DB. 2007. Determination of optimum rate and growth stage for foliar-applied phosphorus in corn. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 38: 1137–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant CA, Flaten DN, Tomasiewicz DJ, Sheppard SC. 2001. The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81: 211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jost R, Pharmawati M, Lapis-Gaza HR, Rossig C, Berkowitz O, Lambers H, Finnegan PM. 2015. Differentiating phosphate-dependent and phosphate independent systemicphosphate-starvation response networks in Arabidopsis thaliana through the application of phosphite. J. Exp. Bot. 66: 2501–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marschner H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed., San Diego: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Maydup ML, Antonietta M, Guiamet JJ, Graciano C, López JR, Tambussi EA. 2010. The contribution of ear photosynthesis to grain filling in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Field Crops Res. 119:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McBeath TM, McLaughlin MJ, Kirby JK, Armstrong RD. 2012. The effect of soil water status on fertiliser, topsoil and subsoil phosphorus utilisation by wheat. Plant Soil 358: 337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McLaughlin MJ, McBeath TM, Smernik RJ, Stacey SP, Ajiboye B, Guppy C. 2011. The chemical nature of P accumulation in agricultural soils-implications for fertiliser management and design: an Australian perspective. Plant Soil 349: 69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mosali J, Desta K, Teal RK, Freeman KW, Lawles JW, Raun WR. 2006. Effect of foliar application of phosphorus on winter wheat grain yield, phosphorus uptake, and use efficiency. J. Plant Nutr. 29: 2147–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Noack SR, McBeath TM, McLaughlin MJ. 2010. Potential for foliar phosphorus fertilization of dryland cereal crops: a review. Crop Pasture Sci. 61: 659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Papakosta DK. 1994. Phosphorus Accumulation and translocation in wheat as affected by cultivar and nitrogen fertilization. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 173: 260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raij BV, Andarade JC, Cantarella H, Quaggio JA. 2001. Análise química para avaliação da fertilidade de solos tropicais. Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: Instituto AgronômicoGoogle Scholar
  18. Raij BV, Cantarella H, Quaggio JA, Furlani AMC. 1997. Recomendações de adubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo, 2nd ed., p. 285. (Boletim técnico, 100). Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: Instituto AgronômicoGoogle Scholar
  19. Ratjen AM, Gerendás J. 2009. A critical assessment of the suitability of phosphite as a source of phosphorus. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172: 821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rezende PM, Gris CF, Carvalho JG, Gomes LL, Bottino L. 2005. Adubação foliar. I. Épocas de aplicação de fósforo na cultura da soja. Ciênc Agrotec. 29: 1105–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shen J, Yuan L, Zhang J, Li H, Bai Z, Chen X, Zhang W, Zhang F. 2011. Phosphorus dynamics: from soil to plant. Plant Physiol. 156: 997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sinclair TR, Rufty TW. 2012. Nitrogen and water resources commonly limit crop yield increases, not necessarily plant genetics. Glob. Food Sec. 1: 94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thao HTB, Yamakawa T, Shibata K, Sarr PS, Myint AK. 2008. Growth response of komatsuna (Brassica rapa var. peruviridis) to root and foliar applications of phosphite. Plant Soil. 308: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vandame R, Rose T, Saito K, Jeong K, Wissuwa M. 2016. Integration of P acquisition efficiency, P utilization efficiency and low grain P concentrations into P-efficient rice genotypes for specific target environments. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 104: 413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Withers PJA, Sylvester-Bradley R, Jones DL, Healey JR, Talboys PJ. 2014. Feed the crop not the soil: rethinking phosphorus management in the food chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48: 6523–6530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang D, Luo Y, Ni Y, Yin Y, Yang W, Peng D, Cui Z, Wang Z. 2014. Effects of exogenous ABA application on post-anthesis dry matter redistribution and grain starch accumulation of winter wheat with different staygreen characteristics. Crop J. 2: 144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zambrosi FCB. 2016. Phosphite and phosphate have contrasting effects on nutrient status of plants. J. Crop Improv. 30: 421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zambrosi FCB, Mattos Jr D, Syvertsen JP. 2011. Plant growth, leaf photosynthesis, and nutrient-use efficiency of citrus rootstocks decrease with phosphite supply. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 174: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zambrosi FCB, Mesquita GL. 2016. Foliar phosphorus application enhances nutrient balance and growth of phosphorus deficient sugarcane. J. Agr. Rural Dev. Trop. Subtrop. 117: 203–210Google Scholar
  30. Zambrosi FCB, Mesquita GL, Menino G, Tanaka FAO, Mattos D, Quaggio JA. 2017. Anatomical and ultrastructural damage to citrus leaves from phosphite spray depends on phosphorus supply to roots. Plant Soil. 418: 557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zambrosi FCB, Quaggio JA. 2017. Micronutrient supply through granular-coated single superphosphate under field conditions. J. Crop Improv. 31: 311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Crop Science and Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Solos e Recursos AmbientaisInstituto Agronômico (IAC)Campinas-SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations