Abstract
Nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) are crucial nutrients in maize production. However, N and S application effects on accumulation and partitioning of both nutrients are not well documented for variable-yielding maize. The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of N and S fertilization on grain yield, dry mater (DM), N, and S accumulation and harvest indexes of maize growing under no tillage in different environments. Two experiments at Balcarce, Argentina (Bce I and Bce II) and two at 9 de Julio, Argentina (9dJ I and 9dJ II), were conducted during the seasons of 2005–06 (Bce I), 2006–07 (Bce II and 9dJ I), and 2007–08 (9dJ II) under different levels of N and S. The measured variables were grain yield, DM, N, and S accumulation, as well as DM, N, and S harvest indexes (DMHI, NHI, and SHI). In general, no N × S interaction was determined in any measured variable. Nitrogen fertilization increased grain yield (P < 0.01), DM (P < 0.05), N (P < 0.05), and S (P < 0.05) accumulation in all experiments. Interestingly, N fertilization increased S accumulation either in treatments with or without S fertilization. Even though the effect of S fertilization on these variables was less pronounced, this nutrient increased grain yield in three of the four experiments (Bce II, 9dJ I, and 9dJ II, P < 0.05). Relative S accumulation rate was lower than relative N accumulation rate, indicating that it would be possible to delay S application compared to N fertilization. Dry mater and nutrient harvest indexes increments in response to N and S fertilization were not stable through sites and years. In general, NHI was higher (12% on average) than SHI. Maize grain yield was strongly and linearly associated with N and S uptake regardless of the fertilization treatment. Nitrogen and S accumulation were closely and linearly associated as well. It would be convenient, however, to confirm these results in environments with a wider range of S levels in the soil.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased maize grain yield in all experiments.
- Treatment
- Nitrogen fertilizatione2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in all experimentse2
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e2“Nitrogen fertilization increased grain yield (P < 0.01), DM (P < 0.05), N (P < 0.05), and S (P < 0.05) accumulation in all experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased dry matter, N and S accumulation in all experiments.
- Treatment
- Nitrogen fertilizatione2
- Outcome
- accumulatione2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- DM (P < 0.05), N (P < 0.05), and S (P < 0.05)e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e2“Nitrogen fertilization increased grain yield (P < 0.01), DM (P < 0.05), N (P < 0.05), and S (P < 0.05) accumulation in all experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased S accumulation with or without S fertilization.
- Treatment
- N fertilizatione3
- Outcome
- S accumulatione3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- either in treatments with or without S fertilizatione3
- Comparator
- without S fertilizatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e3“Interestingly, N fertilization increased S accumulation either in treatments with or without S fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
S fertilization increased maize grain yield in three of the four experiments.
- Treatment
- S fertilizatione4
- Outcome
- grain yielde4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Qualifier
- in three of the four experimentse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e4“Even though the effect of S fertilization on these variables was less pronounced, this nutrient increased grain yield in three of the four experiments (Bce II, 9dJ I, and 9dJ II, P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative S accumulation rate was lower than relative N accumulation rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e5“Relative S accumulation rate was lower than relative N accumulation rate, indicating that it would be possible to delay S application compared to N fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
S application could be delayed relative to N fertilization.
- Outcome
- delay S applicatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e5“Relative S accumulation rate was lower than relative N accumulation rate, indicating that it would be possible to delay S application compared to N fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter and nutrient harvest index increments to N and S fertilization were not stable across sites and years.
- Treatment
- N and S fertilizatione6
- Outcome
- Dry mater and nutrient harvest indexes incrementse6
- Qualifier
- not stable through sites and yearse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e6“Dry mater and nutrient harvest indexes increments in response to N and S fertilization were not stable through sites and years”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient harvest index for N was higher than for S, by 12% on average.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e7“In general, NHI was higher (12% on average) than SHI”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield was strongly and linearly associated with N and S uptake.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e2“Maize grain yield was strongly and linearly associated with N and S uptake regardless of the fertilization treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
N and S accumulation were closely and linearly associated.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e1“Nitrogen and S accumulation were closely and linearly associated as well”
Claim · model-written summary
No N x S interaction was found in any measured variable.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“IN MAIZE”
e3“In general, no N × S interaction was determined in any measured variable”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
196 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
242 papers more in this group
See all 246 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- 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.