Abstract
With the demand for maize increasing, production has spread into more water limited regions. Couple this with increasing resource costs and environmental concerns and the need for efficient nutrient and water management practices has increased. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effects of different nitrogen (N) fertilizer application methods and timings on maize grain yield, N use efficiency (NUE), and water use efficiency (WUE) under irrigated and rain-fed conditions. Four site-years of data were collected. Fertilizer treatments consisted of all N applied preplant, split surface applied, and split foliarly applied. Irrigation applied prior to and during reproductive growth increased grain yield, NUE, and WUE compared to rain-fed treatments for all site-years. Split surface applied N fertilizer applications typically increased NUE, but not always grain yield compared to preplant applications. The use of split foliar N fertilizer applications was only beneficial in the site-years when leaf burn was not as severe.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation applied before and during reproductive growth increased maize grain yield, NUE and WUE compared with rain-fed treatments.
- Treatment
- Irrigation applied prior to and during reproductive growthe1
- Outcome
- grain yield, NUE, and WUEe1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- rain-fed treatmentse1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated and rain-fed maize response to different nitrogen fertilizer application methods”
e1“Irrigation applied prior to and during reproductive growth increased grain yield, NUE, and WUE compared to rain-fed treatments for all site-years”
Claim · model-written summary
Split surface applied N typically increased NUE compared with preplant applications in maize.
- Treatment
- Split surface applied N fertilizer applicationse2
- Outcome
- NUEe2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- typicallye2
- Comparator
- preplant applicationse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated and rain-fed maize response to different nitrogen fertilizer application methods”
e2“Split surface applied N fertilizer applications typically increased NUE, but not always grain yield compared to preplant applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Split surface applied N did not always increase maize grain yield compared with preplant applications.
- Treatment
- Split surface applied N fertilizer applicationse2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Qualifier
- not alwayse2
- Comparator
- preplant applicationse2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated and rain-fed maize response to different nitrogen fertilizer application methods”
e2“Split surface applied N fertilizer applications typically increased NUE, but not always grain yield compared to preplant applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Split foliar N applications were beneficial in maize only in site-years when leaf burn was not as severe.
- Treatment
- split foliar N fertilizer applicationse3
- Outcome
- beneficiale3
- Qualifier
- when leaf burn was not as severee3
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated and rain-fed maize response to different nitrogen fertilizer application methods”
e3“The use of split foliar N fertilizer applications was only beneficial in the site-years when leaf burn was not as severe”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
173 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 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
- positive
- negative
190 papers more in this group
See all 194 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.