Abstract
Little information is available comparing agronomic performance and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) for N application methods such as foliar spray, soil application, and ear injection in maize (Zea mays L.). The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of various N application methods on total stover dry matter, grain yield, and NUE of maize hybrids using a 15 N-labeling approach. A field experiment was conducted on a Dalhousie clay loam in Ottawa and a Guelph loam in Guelph for 2 yr (1999 and 2000). Three N application methods were tested on two maize hybrids, Pioneer 3893 and Pioneer 38P06 Bt. At planting, 60 kg N ha -1 as ammonium nitrate was applied to all treatments. In addition, 6.5 kg N ha -1 and 13.5 kg N ha -1 as 15 N-labeled urea were applied to either foliage (Treatment I) or soil (Treatment II) at V6 and V12 stages, respectively. In Treatment III, 20 kg N ha -1 as 15 N-labeled urea was injected into space between ear and husks at silking. The results showed that compared with soil N application neither foliar spray nor injection through ear affected grain yield or stover dry matter. The NUE values ranged from 12 to 76% for N fertilizer applied at V6 a nd V12 stages, or at silking for all treatments. There was no interaction of hybrid × N application methods on any variables measured with the only exception that for soil N application, grain NUE in Pioneer 38P06 Bt was significant higher than in Pioneer 3893. The difference in total N and NUE of grain and stover between soil N application and foliar N spray was inconsistent. However, NUE was substantially higher for N injection through the ear than for foliar or soil application without differential responses between the two hybrids. Nitrogen injection through the ear at silking might have altered N redistribution within the plant and improved NUE. Hence, it can potentially enhance grain protein content. Foliar N spray is not advocated for maize production in Ontario. Key words: Maize, Zea mays, nitrogen application methods, nitrogen-15, yield, nitrogen use efficiency
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar spray did not affect grain yield or stover dry matter compared with soil N application.
- Treatment
- foliar spraye0
- Outcome
- grain yield or stover dry mattere0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Comparator
- soil N applicatione0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“compared with soil N application neither foliar spray nor injection through ear affected grain yield or stover dry matter”
Claim · model-written summary
Injection through the ear did not affect grain yield or stover dry matter compared with soil N application.
- Treatment
- injection through eare0
- Outcome
- grain yield or stover dry mattere0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Comparator
- soil N applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“compared with soil N application neither foliar spray nor injection through ear affected grain yield or stover dry matter”
Claim · model-written summary
N injection through the ear gave higher NUE than foliar or soil application.
- Treatment
- N injection through the eare0
- Outcome
- NUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- foliar or soil applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“NUE was substantially higher for N injection through the ear than for foliar or soil application”
Claim · model-written summary
NUE values of N fertilizer in maize ranged from 12 to 76%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“The NUE values ranged from 12 to 76%”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain NUE of Pioneer 38P06 Bt was higher than that of Pioneer 3893 under soil N application.
- Material
- Pioneer 38P06 Bte0
- Treatment
- soil N applicatione0
- Outcome
- grain NUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Pioneer 3893e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“for soil N application, grain NUE in Pioneer 38P06 Bt was significant higher than in Pioneer 3893”
Claim · model-written summary
No interaction of hybrid and N application method was found for any variable measured.
- Treatment
- N application methodse0
- Outcome
- interaction of hybrid × N application methodse0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“There was no interaction of hybrid × N application methods on any variables measured”
Claim · model-written summary
The difference in total N and NUE of grain and stover between soil and foliar N spray was inconsistent.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in maize”
e0“The difference in total N and NUE of grain and stover between soil N application and foliar N spray was inconsistent”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar N spray is not advocated for maize production in Ontario.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar N spray is not advocated for maize production in Ontario”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
141 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
190 papers more in this group
See all 194 papers →application · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 575 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
625 papers more in this group
See all 629 papers →application · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.