This season we have talked about how nutrients behave in your soil, the nitrogen that escapes, the phosphorus that gets fixed, the potassium that competes with calcium and magnesium; in the previous blog, we saw that with cations, applying more of one can take away from another. But now we need to talk about some that almost no one pays attention to, and those are the micronutrients.
Iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo), chlorine (Cl), and nickel (Ni) are the eight essential micronutrients for plants. They are called "micro" because the plant needs them in tiny amounts, measured in parts per million, less than 1,000 micrograms per gram of dry tissue. But that smallness is deceiving. The lack of any of them causes as much damage as that of a macronutrient, and here is the part that costs money since a deficient or blocked micronutrient can prevent your crop from utilizing the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium you already paid for; for example, molybdenum is the metal that allows the plant to process nitrogen; without it, the world's most expensive urea is useless.
However, it is not just about adding more products to the mix, but understanding a balance that is invisible to the naked eye, how these elements move, how they become available, and how they block each other, because that balance defines the real health of your crop.
The Invisible Problem: Deficiencies Confused with Macronutrients
Let's start with what makes this topic so difficult, as micronutrient deficiencies almost never appear as what they are; they look very much alike.
Chlorosis due to iron deficiency, that yellowing of the leaves, looks very much like a nitrogen deficiency. Yellowing due to zinc can be confused with phosphorus deficiency. A producer looks at the pale crop, assumes it lacks nitrogen, applies more urea... and the problem is not solved because the problem was never nitrogen. Meanwhile, the macronutrient analysis may come back "normal," which increases the confusion. The symptom is visible, but the real cause is an element that the plant needs in milligrams.
And it is not a rare problem. An evaluation of agricultural soils worldwide estimated that, once macronutrients are corrected, about 49% are deficient in zinc, 31% in boron, 15% in molybdenum, 14% in copper, 10% in manganese, and 3% in iron. Zinc is by far the most widespread micronutrient deficiency on the planet, affecting basic crops like corn, rice, and wheat. Boron is second, hitting broadleaf species and fruit trees harder than grasses and cereals.
For Latin America, this has special relevance as micronutrient deficiencies are more common in humid tropics precisely due to the intense leaching caused by heavy rains and the degree of weathering of the soils; the older and more leached a soil is, the fewer available micronutrients it retains. Highly weathered tropical soils are among those that record the lowest concentrations of available micronutrients [5]; among the most common, we see in avocado, iron and zinc deficiency is a frequent problem; in coffee, zinc and boron deficiencies appear time and again. Not because the producer is doing something wrong, but because the soil, by its nature, has them scarce or blocked.
Mobility in the Plant: Which Move and Which Get Trapped
There is a practical question that saves you many diagnostic errors: where do the symptoms appear, in the old leaves or in the new ones? The answer depends on something called phloem mobility, which is the nutrient's ability to move within the plant once absorbed, and divides nutrients into two groups.
Mobile nutrients are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, chlorine, and sulfur; they can be transferred from one tissue to another. When they are scarce, the plant "rescues" them from the old leaves and sends them to the new shoots, which are the priority. That is why the deficiency of a mobile nutrient appears first in the old or lower leaves. Of intermediate mobility are Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Molybdenum (Mo), and Boron. On the other hand, immobile nutrients like calcium and manganese do the opposite; once they reach a tissue, they stay there and do not redistribute [4]. So when the supply is lacking, symptoms first appear in the new leaves and shoots because the recent growth is left without supply. Iron is the typical case; its deficiency is seen in young leaves, with green veins on a yellow background. Zinc is an intermediate case; its mobility is between that of very mobile elements like potassium and that of calcium, which is almost immobile, and that is why its symptoms usually show first in the middle leaves.
This distinction is not an exam fact but a tool in the field. If you see yellowing in the old leaves, think of those mobile elements. If you see it in the new shoots, the suspicion is more on the intermediate mobility or immobile ones. Knowing how to read where the symptom appears cuts the list of possible culprits in half and prevents you from applying nitrogen when the problem is iron.
Availability in the Soil: When the Micronutrient is There, but the Plant Cannot Reach It
Here, a story you already know about phosphorus repeats itself: just because a nutrient is present in the soil does not mean the plant can take it up. With micronutrients, the factor that most governs that availability is again pH.
The general rule for all micronutrients except molybdenum is that the higher the pH, the less available they become. Iron, manganese, zinc, and copper become progressively less accessible as the soil becomes alkaline because they form insoluble compounds that the root cannot absorb even though the element is abundant in the soil. Molybdenum is the exception that confirms the rule and behaves the opposite way; in acidic soils, it is usually the one that is scarce, while liming helps to correct it.
This explains a paradox in fruit trees like avocado; a soil that has been excessively limed or is naturally alkaline can induce iron chlorosis, yellowing due to lack of iron, even though the analysis shows iron in the soil; the pH has put it out of reach. Raising the pH to correct acidity can inadvertently block several micronutrients at once.
The pH does not act alone; other soil factors modulate availability. Iron and manganese depend heavily on redox conditions; in waterlogged soils, their chemistry changes; copper and zinc strongly bind to organic matter, which can protect them; and boron, not binding well to soil particles, easily leaches in sandy soils and under heavy rains, just like nitrogen. That is why the same crop can show different deficiencies in two plots depending on their pH, drainage, texture, and organic matter.
The Main Sources of Micronutrients
When an analysis confirms that a micronutrient is lacking and is not simply blocked by pH, correction is made with specific fertilizers. It is useful to know the three major families because choosing poorly costs money.
Inorganic salts are the most common and economical option. For zinc, copper, and manganese, the usual source is sulfates; zinc sulfate (around 36% Zn and 14% sulfur) is the most used dry material, very soluble in water. Oxides (like zinc oxide) are more concentrated but almost insoluble: they only work if finely ground. Boron is applied as borax, boric acid, or Solubor (sodium borate), and molybdenum as sodium or ammonium molybdate.
Chelates are the second family. A chelate is a micronutrient "wrapped" by an organic molecule that protects it, like a clamp that holds the ion and prevents it from reacting with the soil and becoming insoluble [9]. This makes them much more stable and efficient, although more expensive to achieve the same effect; the dose of a chelate can be up to ten times lower than that of a mineral salt. Not all chelates are the same. For iron, their effectiveness in high pH soils is ordered as follows: Fe-EDDHA > Fe-DTPA > Fe-EDTA > iron sulfate. Fe-EDDHA is the only one that remains stable in alkaline soils above pH 7.5; using the wrong chelate in an alkaline soil can be as useless as applying sulfate directly. The third family, natural organic complexes (lignosulfonates, for example), is generally less efficient and more variable than synthetic chelates.
Two practical decisions are worth their weight in gold. The first: in many cases, foliar application of micronutrients is more efficient than soil application because it delivers the element directly to the leaf and avoids soil blockages, especially useful for correcting specific deficiencies in the middle of the season. The second, and the most cost-effective in the long term: soils that receive regular organic matter inputs rarely show micronutrient deficiencies. Organic matter acts as a pantry that releases micronutrients gradually and keeps them in available forms through natural chelation. Before buying chelates, it is worth asking whether the soil has the organic base to retain them.
Do you know if the deficiencies you see in your crop are due to a real lack of micronutrients or because the pH has them blocked? They are two distinct problems with opposite solutions. Harvis crosses pH, organic matter, and the history of each plot to distinguish when to apply a micronutrient and when, in reality, the soil needs correction. Talk to us here →
Antagonisms and Synergisms: The Balance That Almost No One Calculates
Let’s remember what we saw with calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Micronutrients do not act in isolation: they interact with each other and with macronutrients, and those interactions can add (synergism) or subtract (antagonism).
A scientific review that analyzed 116 nutrient interactions found that most antagonisms occur between cations: zinc, copper, iron, calcium, magnesium, and proposed an elegant explanation, as these elements compete for the same transport proteins in the root [6]. If all those "doors" are occupied absorbing zinc, copper cannot enter. It is exactly the same competition mechanism we saw between potassium and magnesium, but on a micronutrient scale.
The key antagonisms that most affect your harvest are concrete. The most important is the phosphorus-zinc antagonism; high levels of phosphorus inhibit zinc absorption to the point that it is recommended to maintain a P:Zn ratio close to 10:1 for both to function. This means that applying a lot of phosphorus, something common in tropical soils due to the fixation we have already seen, can induce a zinc deficiency. Excess phosphorus also reduces the absorption of iron, copper, calcium, and potassium. Then there is the iron-manganese pair; they are mutually antagonistic, so an excess of manganese can cause iron deficiency, and vice versa. Zinc and manganese often go deficient together, especially in citrus. And zinc absorption is also reduced by liming and excess copper or iron. Even potassium plays a role; an excess of potassium reduces magnesium availability but, curiously, stimulates manganese absorption.
Not everything is competition. There are also synergisms that you can take advantage of; a good supply of micronutrients increases the percentage of utilization of macronutrients and the plant's resistance to stress. The practical strategy suggested by research is that when two nutrients are antagonistic, applying one of them foliar, instead of putting everything in the soil where they compete, prevents them from blocking each other. Separating in time and application method the elements that fight is often more effective than increasing doses.
The Balance That Closes the Circle
And here is what ties together everything we have seen this season. You can have nitrogen perfectly calculated, phosphorus well applied, and potassium in balance with calcium and magnesium... and still, your crop may not respond because a blocked or unbalanced micronutrient is putting a ceiling on it. Nutrition is a chain, and the chain breaks at the weakest link, even if that link weighs milligrams.
Think about it in the crops of this region. An avocado with iron chlorosis will produce less even if it has plenty of nitrogen and potassium because without iron it cannot produce enough chlorophyll. A crop with zinc deficiency induced by excess phosphorus will yield small fruits no matter how much it is fertilized. A coffee plant with boron deficiency will poorly set its fruits because boron is key in flowering and fruit formation, regardless of how much is invested in macronutrients. In all three cases, the money spent on N, P, and K yields below its potential due to a micronutrient that no one measured.
The key is to take samples as frequently as possible, separate the plots by characteristics that group them, and by crossing this information, it can be observed how the plots with the worst performance are not always the worst fertilized in macronutrients. Often, they are the ones with a pH that blocks iron, or an excess of phosphorus that sequesters zinc, or a sandy soil that leached boron. That variation is practically invisible; it does not appear on the fertilizer bill or in an analysis that only looks at N, P, and K. It only emerges when integrating pH, organic matter, nutrient relationships, and the history of each plot. The weak link is rarely the most noticeable; it is the one that no one was measuring.
Differentiating, plot by plot, whether a deficiency is due to a real lack of a micronutrient or a blockage of availability, and whether that blockage comes from pH, antagonism, or leaching, is what turns nutrition into a complete decision and not just a list of products. That is the balance that closes the circle, seeing nutrients not one by one, but as the interconnected system they truly are.
As we already addressed in our blog What Do Machines Really See in Your Crops?, which you can read here, many signals from your crop are invisible to the untrained eye and get confused with each other. The same happens with micronutrients: the symptom you see rarely tells you, by itself, what the cause is, and getting it right requires crossing data, not guessing.
Don't let an invisible element put a ceiling on your investment. Integrate the analysis of your soil, the relationships between nutrients, and the conditions of each plot to tell you exactly which micronutrient to correct, in what form and by what means, so that every dollar spent on fertilization yields the maximum.
References Consulted
- Alloway B.J. (ed.) (2008). Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production. Springer, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-1-4020-6859-1. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4020-6860-7
- Graham, R.D. (2008). Micronutrient Deficiencies in Crops and Their Global Significance. In: Alloway, B.J. (eds) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6860-72 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6860-72
- Lilay G.H. et al. (2024). Linking the key physiological functions of essential micronutrients to their deficiency symptoms in plants. New Phytologist, 242(3). https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19645
- White, P. J. (2012). Long-distance Transport in the Xylem and Phloem. In P. Marschner (Ed.), Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants (3rd ed., pp. 49-70). Academic Press. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123849052/marschners-mineral-nutrition-of-higher-plants
- Shukla, A.K., Behera, S.K., Prakash, C. et al. Deficiency of phyto-available sulphur, zinc, boron, iron, copper and manganese in soils of India. Sci Rep 11, 19760 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99040-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99040-2
- Rietra R.P.J.J. et al. (2017). Effects of Nutrient Antagonism and Synergism on Yield and Fertilizer Use Efficiency. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 48(16), 1895–1920. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00103624.2017.1407429
- Essel B. et al. (2021/2023). Mechanisms for nutrient interactions from organic amendments and mineral fertilizer inputs under cropping systems: a review. (P:Zn ratio 10:1; Fe–Mn antagonism). PMC10081454. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10081454/
- Shuman L.M. Micronutrient Fertilizers. Journal of Crop Production / CRC Press. (Sources of micronutrients and pH effect). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J144v01n02_07
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Micronutrient Fertilizers (PASSeL, Plant & Soil Sciences eLibrary). (Sulfates, oxides, EDTA/DTPA/EDDHA chelates; efficiency). https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/d01bf6ce5f62/7
- Cakmak et al., “Micronutrients,” Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Plants, pp. 283–385, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819773-8.00017-4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128197738000174
- Fageria N.K. Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Field Crops (3rd ed.). CRC Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/b10160
- Osorio N.W. (2014). Nutrient Management in Tropical Soils. National University of Colombia. ISBN 978-958-44-9746-8. https://www.bioedafologia.com/informacion-libro
- Assunção AGL, Cakmak I, Clemens S, González-Guerrero M, Nawrocki A, Thomine S. Micronutrient homeostasis in plants for more sustainable agriculture and healthier human nutrition. J Exp Bot. 2022 Mar 15;73(6):1789-1799. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erac014. PMID: 35134869; PMCID: PMC8921004. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8921004/
- Couëdel A, Alletto L and Justes É (2023) The acquisition of macro- and micronutrients is synergistic in species mixtures: example of mixed crucifer-legume cover crops. Front. Agron. 5:1223639. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2023.1223639 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/agronomy/articles/10.3389/fagro.2023.1223639/full