Abstract
Understanding nutrient balances in changing cropping systems is critical to appropriately adjust agronomic recommendations and inform breeding efforts to increase nutrient efficiencies. Research to determine the season‐long P, K, and S uptake and partitioning dynamics in maize ( Zea mays L.) as affected by low, medium, and high plant density (PD) and N rate factors and their interactions was conducted over four site‐years in Indiana. Plant nutrient contents at maturity responded predominantly to N rate. Relative nutrient contents at silking compared with those at maturity were 47% for P, 100% for K, and 58% for S. Concentrations of P, K, and S varied less in leaf vs. stem (vegetative stage) and in ear vs. shoot (reproductive stage). Equivalent stoichiometric ratios were documented for N and S partitioning in leaf, stem, and ear components. The PD and N rate treatments did not modify P, K, and S nutrient partitioning to plant components during vegetative or reproductive periods (except for an N rate effect on leaf vs. stem P partitioning). Near silking, relative nutrient partitioning to the ear followed the order P > S > K. This mimicked the nutrient harvest indices observed at maturity, suggesting genetic modulation. Ratios of N to P, K, and S in whole‐plant tissues were influenced by N content changes in response to N rate but not by PD. As the season progressed, PD and N rates changed the absolute P, K, and S quantities (primarily reflecting biomass responses) but had little influence on nutrient ratios.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Plant nutrient contents at maturity responded predominantly to N rate.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e1“Plant nutrient contents at maturity responded predominantly to N rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative nutrient content at silking compared with maturity was 47% for P.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e2“Relative nutrient contents at silking compared with those at maturity were 47% for P, 100% for K, and 58% for S”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative nutrient content at silking compared with maturity was 100% for K.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e2“Relative nutrient contents at silking compared with those at maturity were 47% for P, 100% for K, and 58% for S”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative nutrient content at silking compared with maturity was 58% for S.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e2“Relative nutrient contents at silking compared with those at maturity were 47% for P, 100% for K, and 58% for S”
Claim · model-written summary
P, K and S concentrations varied less between leaf and stem, and between ear and shoot, than between the other plant parts.
- Organ / stage
- leaf vs. steme3
- Outcome
- Concentrations of P, K, and Se3
- Direction
- varied lesse3
- Qualifier
- ear vs. shoot (reproductive stage)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e3“Concentrations of P, K, and S varied less in leaf vs. stem (vegetative stage) and in ear vs. shoot (reproductive stage)”
Claim · model-written summary
Equivalent stoichiometric ratios were documented for N and S partitioning in leaf, stem and ear components.
- Organ / stage
- leaf, stem, and ear componentse4
- Outcome
- N and S partitioninge4
- Qualifier
- Equivalent stoichiometric ratiose4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e4“Equivalent stoichiometric ratios were documented for N and S partitioning in leaf, stem, and ear components”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density and N rate treatments did not modify P, K and S partitioning to plant components during vegetative or reproductive periods.
- Treatment
- PD and N rate treatmentse5
- Outcome
- P, K, and S nutrient partitioning to plant componentse5
- Direction
- did not modifye5
- Qualifier
- during vegetative or reproductive periodse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e5“The PD and N rate treatments did not modify P, K, and S nutrient partitioning to plant components during vegetative or reproductive periods”
Claim · model-written summary
N rate affected leaf vs. stem P partitioning.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e5“except for an N rate effect on leaf vs. stem P partitioning”
Claim · model-written summary
Near silking, relative nutrient partitioning to the ear followed the order P > S > K.
- Organ / stage
- the eare6
- Outcome
- relative nutrient partitioning to the eare6
- Qualifier
- followed the order P > S > Ke6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e6“Near silking, relative nutrient partitioning to the ear followed the order P > S > K”
Claim · model-written summary
The ear partitioning order mimicked the harvest indices at maturity, suggesting genetic modulation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e7“This mimicked the nutrient harvest indices observed at maturity, suggesting genetic modulation”
Claim · model-written summary
N rate influenced whole-plant nutrient ratios through N content changes.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e6“Ratios of N to P, K, and S”
e7“were influenced by N content changes in response to N rate but not by PD”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density did not influence whole-plant nutrient ratios of N to P, K and S.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e6“Ratios of N to P, K, and S”
e7“were influenced by N content changes in response to N rate but not by PD”
Claim · model-written summary
As the season progressed, plant density and N rate changed the absolute P, K and S quantities.
- Treatment
- PD and N ratese1
- Outcome
- absolute P, K, and S quantitiese1
- Direction
- changede1
- Qualifier
- primarily reflecting biomass responsese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e1“As the season progressed, PD and N rates changed the absolute P, K, and S quantities (primarily reflecting biomass responses) but had little influence on nutrient ratios”
Claim · model-written summary
As the season progressed, plant density and N rate had little influence on nutrient ratios.
- Treatment
- PD and N ratese1
- Outcome
- nutrient ratiose1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Qualifier
- As the season progressede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Nutrient Accumulation and Partitioning in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate”
e1“As the season progressed, PD and N rates changed the absolute P, K, and S quantities (primarily reflecting biomass responses) but had little influence on nutrient ratios”
The same questions in other papers
density · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 403 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
485 papers more in this group
See all 489 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.