Abstract
Research was conducted in soils of the Chesapeake Bay area to determine the effects of tillage practice and nitrogen (N) fertilizer application rates on N leaching from corn fields. Three well known computer models (NTRM, CERES-Maize, and VT-MAIZE) were tested to determine their ability to predict the distribution of N in (a) soil and crop, (b) the components of the N cycle, and (c) corn yields. To accomplish the above objectives, two field sites were selected on agronomically important soils for either a corn (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) or a continuouscorn rotation. The corn-wheat-soybean rotation was located on a Suffolk sandy loam soil (coarse loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Hapludult) in the immediate Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. The continuous-corn rotation was located on a Groseclose silt loam soil (clayey, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult) typical of finer-textured soils located in the upper reaches of tributaries that drain into the Chesapeake Bay. Management practices evaluated included tillage system and rate, source, and time of N application. Specifically, we looked at conventional vs. no-till; inorganic N vs. sewage sludge; preplant vs. split application of N; and a variety of N application rates. The N treatments for corn were 0, 75, 150, and 225 kg N ha-1 applied preplant; 150 kg N ha-1 applied 4 weeks after emergence; and 150 kg of mineralizable N ha-1 from anaerobically digested and either lime- or polymer-conditioned sewage sludge. The N treatments for wheat were 20 kg N ha-1 applied in the fall and 30, 60, or 90 kg N ha-1 applied in the spring; 60 kg N ha-1 split application; and 80 kg of mineralizable N ha-1 applied in the fall from either lime- or polymer-conditioned sewage sludge. In the Groseclose soil, there was an increase in total yield and N uptake when sewage sludge was applied compared to the split and preplant application of inorganic N. There was no difference between polymer-or lime-conditioned sewage sludge application. Also, there were no differences between preplant and split application of N. Where no-till was used, there was an increase in both yield and N uptake compared with conventional till. In the Suffolk soil, tillage management did not influence yield or N uptake where time and source of N application were studied. This lack of response on the Suffolk soil is attributed to severe moisture deficits that were present during the growing season on this coarse-textured soil. Nitrogen losses from the soil profile were directly related to the quantity of N remaining in the upper 1 m of the soil profile after the crop was harvested. Larger quantities of N were lost from the Groseclose soil where conventional till was employed during the first year of the study. This was attributed to enhanced mineralization where no-till was converted to conventional till and to lower yields and lower N recovery with conventional till. Losses of N tended to be higher from the conventional till plots because of the larger quantities remaining at the end of the growing season. It should be noted that the years during which these xvii studies were conducted were extremely dry, and the in the Groseclose soil where no-till management was employed resulted in increased yield and increased N recovery. This study also emphasizes the need for better methods for making N recommendations for crop production. The model performances varied from year to year and from one tillage practice to another. Because they were written for average soil and climatic conditions, they did not make satisfactory predictions in many instances. Such models require adjustment to reflect the moisture stress conditions that often prevail in this region for corn production.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Sewage sludge application increased total yield and N uptake in the Groseclose soil compared with split and preplant inorganic N in corn.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- sewage sludge was appliede1
- Outcome
- total yield and N uptakee1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Comparator
- split and preplant application of inorganic Ne1
- Setting
- Groseclose soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“In the Groseclose soil, there was an increase in total yield and N uptake when sewage sludge was applied compared to the split and preplant application of inorganic N”
Claim · model-written summary
Polymer-conditioned and lime-conditioned sewage sludge did not differ in their effect on corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- polymer-or lime-conditioned sewage sludge applicatione2
- Direction
- no differencee2
Not reportedComparatorOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e2“There was no difference between polymer-or lime-conditioned sewage sludge application”
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant and split application of N did not differ in their effect on corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- split application of Ne3
- Direction
- no differencese3
- Comparator
- preplante3
Not reportedOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e3“Also, there were no differences between preplant and split application of N”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till increased both yield and N uptake in corn compared with conventional till.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- no-tille4
- Outcome
- yield and N uptakee4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Comparator
- conventional tille4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e4“Where no-till was used, there was an increase in both yield and N uptake compared with conventional till”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage management did not influence corn yield or N uptake in the Suffolk soil where time and source of N application were studied.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- tillage managemente5
- Outcome
- yield or N uptakee5
- Direction
- did not influencee5
- Qualifier
- where time and source of N application were studiede5
- Setting
- Suffolk soile5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e5“In the Suffolk soil, tillage management did not influence yield or N uptake where time and source of N application were studied”
Claim · model-written summary
The lack of corn response to tillage in the Suffolk soil is attributed to severe moisture deficits during the growing season.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- lack of response on the Suffolk soile6
- Qualifier
- severe moisture deficitse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e6“This lack of response on the Suffolk soil is attributed to severe moisture deficits that were present during the growing season on this coarse-textured soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen losses from the soil profile were directly related to the amount of N remaining in the upper 1 m after harvest in corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- quantity of N remaining in the upper 1 m of the soil profilee7
- Outcome
- Nitrogen losses from the soil profilee7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e7“Nitrogen losses from the soil profile were directly related to the quantity of N remaining in the upper 1 m of the soil profile after the crop was harvested”
Claim · model-written summary
Larger quantities of N were lost from the Groseclose soil under conventional till during the first year.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- conventional tille1
- Outcome
- quantities of N were loste1
- Direction
- Largere1
- Qualifier
- during the first year of the studye1
- Setting
- Groseclose soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“Larger quantities of N were lost from the Groseclose soil where conventional till was employed during the first year of the study”
Claim · model-written summary
N losses tended to be higher from conventional till plots, attributed to larger N remaining at the end of the growing season.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- conventional till plotse1
- Outcome
- Losses of Ne1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- because of the larger quantities remaining at the end of the growing seasone1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“Losses of N tended to be higher from the conventional till plots because of the larger quantities remaining at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
The larger N losses under conventional till are attributed to enhanced mineralization where no-till was converted to conventional till.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- quantities of N were loste1
- Qualifier
- enhanced mineralizatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“Larger quantities of N were lost from the Groseclose soil where conventional till was employed during the first year of the study”
e2“This was attributed to enhanced mineralization where no-till was converted to conventional till and to lower yields and lower N recovery with conventional till”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional till gave lower corn yields than no-till.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- conventional tille1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“This was attributed to enhanced mineralization where no-till was converted to conventional till and to lower yields and lower N recovery with conventional till”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional till gave lower N recovery in corn than no-till.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- conventional tille1
- Outcome
- N recoverye1
- Direction
- lowere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“This was attributed to enhanced mineralization where no-till was converted to conventional till and to lower yields and lower N recovery with conventional till”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend better methods for making N recommendations for crop production.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- better methods for making N recommendations for crop productione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“This study also emphasizes the need for better methods for making N recommendations for crop production”
Claim · model-written summary
The performance of the three N models varied from year to year and from one tillage practice to another.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- model performancese1
- Direction
- variede1
- Comparator
- from one tillage practice to anothere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“The model performances varied from year to year and from one tillage practice to another”
Claim · model-written summary
The N models did not make satisfactory predictions of corn N distribution or yield in many instances.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- satisfactory predictionse1
- Direction
- did not makee1
- Comparator
- average soil and climatic conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N leaching from corn fields”
e1“Because they were written for average soil and climatic conditions, they did not make satisfactory predictions in many instances”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend adjusting the models to reflect the moisture stress conditions that prevail for corn production in the region.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- adjustment to reflect the moisture stress conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Such models require adjustment to reflect the moisture stress conditions that often prevail in this region for corn production”
The same questions in other papers
organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.