Abstract
Potassium (K) is an essential macronutrient for maintaining crop productivity, but the economic benefit of K fertilizer often has been neglected. We collected a database from 60 maize field experimental sites in Northeast China between 2005 and 2012 to study the impacts of potassium (K) application rates on yield, K concentrations in grain and straw, plant K uptake, and to evaluate the economic optimum K rate (EOKR) for maize under different levels of soil indigenous K supply (IKS). The results showed that the average maize yield in Krec treatment (the recommended K rate) was highest and was 32.1% higher than that in K0 treatment (no K fertilization). Compared to K0, the application of K did not significantly increase grain K concentration, whereas it significantly increased K concentration in the straw. Plant K uptake in K150 treatment (150% of the recommended K rate) was higher than that in Krec treatment, but grain yield was lower than that in Krec treatment. Thus, the result indicates that luxury K absorption occurred in K150% treatment due to excessive K application. Thus, the application rate of K should be further optimized. Based on the modified Mitscherlich model, the average economic optimum K rate (EONR) was 135.24, 124.27, and 96.54 kg K2O/ha for the low, medium, and high levels of soil indigenous K supply (IKS), respectively. The average economic optimum yield (EOY) at a high IKS level was similar to the average yield in Krec treatment, whereas the EOKR could reduce by a K rate of 37.9–63.7 kg K2O/ha compared to Krec treatment. This study highlights the importance of K application to improve grain yield and provides a promising fertilizer recommendation method for minimizing fertilizer inputs and optimizing maize production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Average maize yield in the recommended K rate treatment (Krec) was highest and 32.1% higher than with no K fertilization (K0).
- Treatment
- Krec treatment (the recommended K rate)e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 32.1%e0
- Comparator
- K0 treatment (no K fertilization)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average maize yield in Krec treatment (the recommended K rate) was highest and was 32.1% higher than that in K0 treatment (no K fertilization)”
Claim · model-written summary
K application did not significantly increase grain K concentration compared with K0.
- Treatment
- application of Ke0
- Outcome
- grain K concentratione0
- Direction
- did not significantly increasee0
- Comparator
- K0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Compared to K0, the application of K did not significantly increase grain K concentration, whereas it significantly increased K concentration in the straw”
Claim · model-written summary
K application significantly increased K concentration in the straw compared with K0.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Compared to K0, the application of K did not significantly increase grain K concentration, whereas it significantly increased K concentration in the straw”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant K uptake in K150 (150% of the recommended K rate) was higher than in Krec.
- Treatment
- K150 treatment (150% of the recommended K rate)e0
- Outcome
- Plant K uptakee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Krec treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Plant K uptake in K150 treatment (150% of the recommended K rate) was higher than that in Krec treatment, but grain yield was lower than that in Krec treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield in K150 was lower than in Krec.
- Treatment
- K150 treatment (150% of the recommended K rate)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- Krec treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Plant K uptake in K150 treatment (150% of the recommended K rate) was higher than that in Krec treatment, but grain yield was lower than that in Krec treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that luxury K absorption occurred in the K150 treatment because of excessive K application.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“the result indicates that luxury K absorption occurred in K150% treatment due to excessive K application”
Claim · model-written summary
The average economic optimum K rate was 135.24 kg K2O/ha at the low level of soil indigenous K supply.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Based on the modified Mitscherlich model, the average economic optimum K rate (EONR) was 135.24, 124.27, and 96.54 kg K2O/ha for the low, medium, and high levels of soil indigenous K supply (IKS), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The average economic optimum K rate was 124.27 kg K2O/ha at the medium level of soil indigenous K supply.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Based on the modified Mitscherlich model, the average economic optimum K rate (EONR) was 135.24, 124.27, and 96.54 kg K2O/ha for the low, medium, and high levels of soil indigenous K supply (IKS), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The average economic optimum K rate was 96.54 kg K2O/ha at the high level of soil indigenous K supply.
- Outcome
- economic optimum K rate (EONR)e0
- Value
- 96.54 kg K2O/hae0
- Qualifier
- high levels of soil indigenous K supply (IKS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“Based on the modified Mitscherlich model, the average economic optimum K rate (EONR) was 135.24, 124.27, and 96.54 kg K2O/ha for the low, medium, and high levels of soil indigenous K supply (IKS), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The average economic optimum yield at a high soil indigenous K supply was similar to the average yield in the Krec treatment.
- Outcome
- average economic optimum yield (EOY)e0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- high IKS levele0
- Comparator
- Krec treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“The average economic optimum yield (EOY) at a high IKS level was similar to the average yield in Krec treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The economic optimum K rate could reduce the K rate by 37.9-63.7 kg K2O/ha compared with Krec.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“the EOKR could reduce by a K rate of 37.9–63.7 kg K2O/ha compared to Krec treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend that the K application rate should be further optimized.
- Outcome
- application rate of Ke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Economic Optimum K Rate of Maize”
e0“the application rate of K should be further optimized”
The same questions in other papers
potassium · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
290 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
316 papers more in this group
See all 320 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.