Paper · 1993 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Timing sulfur applications for corn (Zea mays L.) production on irrigated sandy soil

G. W. Rehm

6
claims
11
verbatim quotes
9
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract The importance of sulfur (S) for corn (Zea mays L.) production on sandy soils has been noted for a number of years. Yet, there has been no extensive evaluation of the timing of S applications on corn production in these specific situations. This study was conducted for the purpose of measuring the effect of split applications of fertilizer S on com grown on irrigated sandy soils. The study was conducted in 1985 and 1986. Fourrâtes of fertilizer S (0, 6.5, 13, and 26 kg/ha) were combined with six times of application schemes in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Granular gypsum was used as the source of S. Corn responded to the use of fertilizer S in 1986 only. Time of application had no significant effect on yield in either year. There were no advantages to the use of split applications. The S concentration in the ear leaf tissue at silking was affected by both rate and time of S application at each experimental site. The current recommendation is to apply fertilizer S, when needed, in a starter fertilizer at planting. The results of this study indicate that there is no need to change this recommendation.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn responded to sulfur fertilizer only in 1986.

Treatment
fertilizer Se0
Outcome
Corn respondede0
Qualifier
1986 onlye0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Corn responded to the use of fertilizer S in 1986 only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 646–700 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Application timing did not significantly affect yield in either year.

Treatment
Time of applicatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
no significant effecte0
Qualifier
either yeare0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Time of application had no significant effect on yield in either year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–771 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Split applications gave no advantages.

Treatment
split applicationse0
Outcome
no advantagese0
Direction
no advantagese0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were no advantages to the use of split applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 773–830 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfur rate affected ear leaf sulfur concentration at silking at each site.

Organ / stage
ear leaf tissue at silkinge0
Treatment
ratee0
Outcome
S concentration in the ear leaf tissuee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The S concentration in the ear leaf tissue at silking was affected by both rate and time of S application at each experimental site”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–963 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfur application timing affected ear leaf sulfur concentration at silking at each site.

Organ / stage
ear leaf tissue at silkinge0
Treatment
time of S applicatione0
Outcome
S concentration in the ear leaf tissuee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The S concentration in the ear leaf tissue at silking was affected by both rate and time of S application at each experimental site”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–963 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–49 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that the starter fertilizer sulfur recommendation need not change.

Outcome
apply fertilizer S, when needed, in a starter fertilizer at plantinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The current recommendation is to apply fertilizer S, when needed, in a starter fertilizer at planting. The results of this study indicate that there is no need to change this recommendation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1154 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–49 · show in text ↑

fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

162 papers: 137 positive, 25 negative or no effect

136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

158 papers more in this group

See all 162 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.