Abstract
Abstract Sulfur deficiencies have become more widespread throughout the United States as a result of: (a) reduced SO2 emissions, (b) the use of high analysis fertilizers that contain less S, and (c) reduced applications of animal waste on cropland. The S status of Pennsylvania soils is not known. Studies were conducted at three locations in Pennsylvania under different soil and climatic conditions to determine crop response to S applications. The experimental sites were on a Hagerstown silt loam (Typic Hapludalf), a Gilpin channery silt loam (Typic Hapludult), and a Morrison sandy loam (Ultic Hapludalf) at Landisville, Rector, and Zion, Pa., respectively. Two S materials, elemental S and fluidized bed combustion waste material (FBM), were applied annually to alfalfa and corn at three rates of application: 34, 67, and 134 kg S/ha, with appropriate controls. Elemental S plus CaO treatment was applied to alfalfa at the same three rates. Two levels of N were used in the corn trials, 112 and 224 kg N/ha. The experimental design was a randomized complete block, replicated four times. The nutritive value of alfalfa was improved in terms of higher S concentrations and lower N:S ratios by S fertilization, but nutritive value of corn grain and silage was unaltered. Sulfur concentration in alfalfa was increased and the N:S ratio decreased approximately 9% by an application of 134 kg S/ha (mean over three years and three locations). The reduced ratios were closer to the optimum N:S ratio (10 to 13.5:1) suggested by animal nutritionists for ruminants. Protein content and dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of both crops were not altered by S fertilization. There generally were no significant differences between S sources. Fluidized bed combustion waste material (FBM), in addition to being an effective source of S, had the benefit of containing 33% CaO. Alfalfa yields were not significantly increased by S fertilization until the third year at two locations (Landisvilie and Zion). In the third year, S fertilization increased yields up to 14% at Landisville. Yields were lower at Rector and were not increased by S fertilization. Yields of corn grain and silage were not improved by S fertilization, nor was there a S X N interaction. Under similar soils and weather conditions of this study, only the most intensive management systems (yields over 11.2 MT/ha (5 tons/acre)) are likely to tax residual levels of S and benefit from applications of S.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization raised alfalfa sulfur concentration.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0 - Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- S concentrationse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutritive value of alfalfa was improved in terms of higher S concentrations and lower N:S ratios by S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization lowered alfalfa N:S ratio.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- N:S ratiose0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutritive value of alfalfa was improved in terms of higher S concentrations and lower N:S ratios by S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization did not change corn grain or silage nutritive value.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- nutritive value of corn grain and silagee0
- Direction
- unalterede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutritive value of alfalfa was improved in terms of higher S concentrations and lower N:S ratios by S fertilization, but nutritive value of corn grain and silage was unaltered”
Claim · model-written summary
134 kg S/ha increased alfalfa sulfur concentration.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- 134 kg S/hae0
- Outcome
- Sulfur concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sulfur concentration in alfalfa was increased and the N:S ratio decreased approximately 9% by an application of 134 kg S/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
134 kg S/ha decreased alfalfa N:S ratio approximately 9%.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- 134 kg S/hae0
- Outcome
- N:S ratioe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- approximately 9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sulfur concentration in alfalfa was increased and the N:S ratio decreased approximately 9% by an application of 134 kg S/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization did not change protein content in either crop.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Protein content and dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of both crops were not altered by S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization did not change dry matter digestibility in either crop.
- Taxon
- both cropse0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- dry matter digestibility (IVDMD)e0
- Direction
- not alterede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Protein content and dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of both crops were not altered by S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur sources generally did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- alfalfa and cornMedicago sativaZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- differences between S sourcese0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There generally were no significant differences between S sources”
t0“alfalfa and corn”
Claim · model-written summary
FBM was an effective sulfur source and contained 33% CaO.
- Taxon
- alfalfa and cornMedicago sativaZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- effective source of Se0
- Value
- 33% CaOe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fluidized bed combustion waste material (FBM), in addition to being an effective source of S, had the benefit of containing 33% CaO”
t0“alfalfa and corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa yield increases were significant only in year three at two locations.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- third yeare0
- Setting
- Landisvilie and Zione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Alfalfa yields were not significantly increased by S fertilization until the third year at two locations (Landisvilie and Zion)”
Claim · model-written summary
Year-three sulfur fertilization raised alfalfa yield up to 14% at Landisville.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- up to 14%e0
- Setting
- Landisvillee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the third year, S fertilization increased yields up to 14% at Landisville”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa yield was lower at Rector and did not increase with sulfur.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- not increasede0
- Setting
- Rectore0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields were lower at Rector and were not increased by S fertilization”
t0“alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization did not improve corn grain yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- Yields of corn graine0
- Direction
- not improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of corn grain and silage were not improved by S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur fertilization did not improve corn silage yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- silagee0
- Direction
- not improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of corn grain and silage were not improved by S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
No sulfur by nitrogen interaction was found for corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- S X Ne0
- Outcome
- S X N interactione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of corn grain and silage were not improved by S fertilization, nor was there a S X N interaction”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude only intensive systems above 11.2 MT/ha are likely to benefit from sulfur.
- Taxon
- alfalfa and cornMedicago sativaZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- benefit from applications of Se0
- Value
- 11.2 MT/hae0
- Qualifier
- most intensive management systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the most intensive management systems (yields over 11.2 MT/ha (5 tons/acre)) are likely to tax residual levels of S and benefit from applications of S”
t0“alfalfa and corn”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · nutrient: content · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →sulfur atom · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →sulfur atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →sulfur atom · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 137 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
158 papers more in this group
See all 162 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 papers →fertilization · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.