Abstract
Site‐specific use of nitrification inhibitors has been proposed as one means of reducing the cost of nitrification inhibitor use on fields that vary in their potential for leaching or denitrification. This study evaluated one approach for site‐specific use of the nitrification inhibitor nitrapyrin (2‐chloro‐6‐[trichloromethyl] pyridine) based on slope and surface texture. Treatments of uniform and variable N fertilizer and nitrapyrin were applied to field length strips in a center‐pivot irrigated field planted to maize ( Zea mays L.) from 1995 to 1998. Nitrapyrin application was controlled spatially according to an arbitrary leaching potential derived from slope and surface soil texture. Growing seasons were grouped into dry, wet, or average precipitation years. Alternative approaches for nitrapyrin management zones based on fuzzy cluster analysis of grain yield or soil apparent electrical conductivity (EC a ) were compared with the slope‐texture management zone approach. There were small effects of nitrapyrin application method (none, uniform or variable) on grain yield. Uniform nitrapyrin application increased yield in a wet year. Fuzzy cluster analysis of grain yield or soil EC a identified unique patterns of yield or soil EC a Yield clusters corresponded to patterns of water availability or excess. There were small effects of N or nitrapyrin application method on soil residual NO 3 ‐N. Yield Cluster 3 soils had higher residual NO 3 ‐N levels all 4 yr. In a wet year (1996) NO 3 ‐N levels were lowest in yield Cluster 2 soils—in the other 3 yr of the study, there was no difference in NO 3 ‐N levels between yield Clusters 1 and 2. Soil EC a clusters corresponded closely to soil series. There were significant correlations between soil EC a and yield clusters. Fuzzy cluster analysis has the potential to define management zones for use of nitrification inhibitors from relatively easily obtained spatial yield or soil EC a , rather than expensive grid sampling of soil chemical and physical properties.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrapyrin application method had small effects on maize grain yield.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were small effects of nitrapyrin application method (none, uniform or variable) on grain yield.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Uniform nitrapyrin application increased maize yield in a wet year.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Uniform nitrapyrin application increased yield in a wet year.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fuzzy yield clusters corresponded to patterns of water availability or excess.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield clusters corresponded to patterns of water availability or excess.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen or nitrapyrin application method had small effects on soil residual nitrate nitrogen.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were small effects of N or nitrapyrin application method on soil residual NO 3 ‐N.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield Cluster 3 soils had higher residual nitrate nitrogen across all four years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield Cluster 3 soils had higher residual NO 3 ‐N levels all 4 yr.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In wet 1996, yield Cluster 2 soils had the lowest nitrate nitrogen levels.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In a wet year (1996) NO 3 ‐N levels were lowest in yield Cluster 2 soils”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In the other three years, residual nitrate nitrogen did not differ between yield Clusters 1 and 2.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the other 3 yr of the study, there was no difference in NO 3 ‐N levels between yield Clusters 1 and 2.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil electrical conductivity clusters corresponded closely to soil series.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil EC a clusters corresponded closely to soil series.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil electrical conductivity and yield clusters were significantly correlated.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant correlations between soil EC a and yield clusters.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fuzzy cluster analysis may define nitrapyrin management zones from spatial yield or soil conductivity data.
- Outcome
- management zones for use of nitrification inhibitorse0
- Comparator
- expensive grid sampling of soil chemical and physical propertiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fuzzy cluster analysis has the potential to define management zones for use of nitrification inhibitors from relatively easily obtained spatial yield or soil EC a , rather than expensive grid sampling of soil chemical and physical properties.”
t0“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
nitrapyrin · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 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.