Abstract
Core Ideas Corn response to N at different gypsum application rates and frequencies was evaluated. Gypsum did not improve corn response to N at any of the study sites. Corn yield response to gypsum applications was very inconsistent and site‐specific. Frequent gypsum applications at lower rates were better than a one‐time large application. ABSTRACT The effects of gypsum as a soil amendment and its interaction with nitrogen (N) applications in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production are largely unknown. A 4‐yr field study was conducted in Ohio, USA to evaluate (i) the effects of gypsum rates and rate frequencies at varying fertilizer N rates on corn grain yields, ear‐leaf and grain nutrient concentrations, and on soil nutrients, and (ii) the interactive effects between N and gypsum applications. A split‐plot experimental design was used with N rates (0, 84, 168, and 252 kg N ha −1 ) as the main plot factor and either gypsum application rate (0, 1.1 and 2.2 Mg ha −1 ) or application rate frequencies (i.e., 1.1 Mg ha −1 annually, 2.2 Mg ha −1 bi‐annually, and 4.4 Mg ha −1 once every four years) as subplot factors. Overall, corn yield response to gypsum applications was inconsistent. A positive corn yield response to gypsum application occurred only in 2017 at the Northwest site. Gypsum applied at 4.4 Mg ha −1 significantly decreased yields at the Northwest site in 2017 and at the Wooster site in 2016 suggesting that the best management strategy may be to apply lower gypsum rates either annually or biannually. Gypsum applications did not improve corn response to N at either study site but significantly increased tissue, grain and extractable soil S concentrations with concentrations decreasing as the application frequency decreased. This suggests that where S deficiencies may occur, an annual rate of 1.1 Mg ha −1 or a bi‐annual application of 2.2 Mg ha −1 would increase S availability.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield response to gypsum applications was inconsistent.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- gypsum applicationse2
- Outcome
- corn yield responsee2
- Setting
- Ohio, USAe1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e1“field study was conducted in Ohio, USA”
e2“Overall, corn yield response to gypsum applications was inconsistent”
Claim · model-written summary
A positive corn yield response to gypsum application occurred only in 2017 at the Northwest site.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- gypsum applicatione3
- Outcome
- corn yield responsee3
- Direction
- positivee3
- Qualifier
- only in 2017e3
- Setting
- Northwest sitee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e3“A positive corn yield response to gypsum application occurred only in 2017 at the Northwest site”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum applied at 4.4 Mg ha −1 significantly decreased corn yields at the Northwest site in 2017 and the Wooster site in 2016.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Gypsum applied at 4.4 Mg ha −1e4
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- decreasede4
- Setting
- the Northwest site in 2017 and at the Wooster site in 2016e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e4“Gypsum applied at 4.4 Mg ha −1 significantly decreased yields at the Northwest site in 2017 and at the Wooster site in 2016”
Claim · model-written summary
The best management strategy may be to apply lower gypsum rates either annually or biannually.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- apply lower gypsum rates either annually or biannuallye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e1“the best management strategy may be to apply lower gypsum rates either annually or biannually”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum did not improve corn response to N at either study site.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Gypsum applicationse5
- Outcome
- corn response to Ne5
- Direction
- did not improvee5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e5“Gypsum applications did not improve corn response to N at either study site”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum applications significantly increased tissue, grain and extractable soil S concentrations.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Gypsum applicationse6
- Outcome
- tissue, grain and extractable soil S concentrationse6
- Direction
- increasede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e6“Gypsum applications did not improve corn response to N at either study site but significantly increased tissue, grain and extractable soil S concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
S concentrations decreased as gypsum application frequency decreased.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- application frequencye7
- Outcome
- concentrationse7
- Direction
- decreasinge7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e7“with concentrations decreasing as the application frequency decreased”
Claim · model-written summary
Frequent gypsum applications at lower rates were better than a one-time large application.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Frequent gypsum applications at lower ratese7
- Outcome
- were bettere7
- Direction
- bettere7
- Comparator
- a one-time large applicatione7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e7“Frequent gypsum applications at lower rates were better than a one-time large application”
Claim · model-written summary
Where S deficiency may occur, gypsum at a low frequency would increase S availability.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- S availabilitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in corn ( Zea Mays L.) production”
e1“would increase S availability”
The same questions in other papers
lime · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
215 papers more in this group
See all 219 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.