Abstract
Abstract Sulfur (S) is an essential nutrient for optimizing corn ( Zea mays L.) growth and yield. While S deficiency has increased in recent years, corn response to S fertilizer application remains challenging to predict owing to complex interactions among soil, crop, and weather conditions. Forty field trials were conducted between 2009 and 2011 over a range of soil types and environments to evaluate corn grain yield response to S fertilizer and assess the ability of soil and leaf S concentration to predict yield response to S fertilizer. Rate trials included two (0 and 34 kg S ha −1 ) or five rates (0 to 52 kg S ha −1 , in 13 kg ha −1 increments), whereas S sources were evaluated at 26 kg S ha −1 (ammonium sulfate [21‐0‐0‐24S], elemental S [0‐0‐0‐90S], gypsum [0‐0‐0‐21Ca‐17S], monoammonium phosphate [MAP] MAP‐10S [12‐40‐0‐10S], MAP‐10S+Zn [12‐40‐0‐10S‐1 Zn], and MAP‐15S [13‐33‐0‐15S]). Over the 3‐year study period, we found minimal yield response to S fertilizer application with an overall response rate of 5% (two of 40 trials). In addition, neither S fertilizer evaluated increased corn grain yield relative to no S at any site; however, elemental S significantly reduced yield in one of 18 sites. While S application generally increased soil and earleaf S concentration, this did not translate into yield increases; hence, the lack of relationship between relative yield and soil and earleaf S. Under the study's conditions, these results indicate that S fertilization is unlikely to increase corn yields, and standard diagnostic tests such as soil S and earleaf S concentration are unreliable in predicting yield response in the upper US Midwest. Future research should incorporate other organic and inorganic soil S fractions to improve understanding and prediction of crop response to S fertilization.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Over three years, S fertilizer gave a minimal corn yield response, 5% overall, in two of 40 trials.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- S fertilizer applicatione1
- Outcome
- yield response to S fertilizer applicatione1
- Value
- 5%e1
- Qualifier
- two of 40 trialse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e1“Over the 3‐year study period, we found minimal yield response to S fertilizer application with an overall response rate of 5% (two of 40 trials)”
Claim · model-written summary
No S fertilizer source increased corn grain yield relative to no S at any site.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- S fertilizere1
- Outcome
- corn grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- at any sitee1
- Comparator
- no Se1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e1“neither S fertilizer evaluated increased corn grain yield relative to no S at any site”
Claim · model-written summary
Elemental S significantly reduced corn yield in one of 18 sites.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- elemental Se1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Qualifier
- in one of 18 sitese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e1“elemental S significantly reduced yield in one of 18 sites”
Claim · model-written summary
S application generally increased soil and earleaf S concentration.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- S applicatione1
- Outcome
- soil and earleaf S concentratione1
- Direction
- increasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e1“While S application generally increased soil and earleaf S concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
The relationship between relative yield and soil and earleaf S concentration was lacking.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- relationship between relative yield and soil and earleaf Se1
- Setting
- upper US Midweste2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e1“the lack of relationship between relative yield and soil and earleaf S”
e2“standard diagnostic tests such as soil S and earleaf S concentration are unreliable in predicting yield response in the upper US Midwest”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil and earleaf S concentration tests are unreliable for predicting corn yield response in the upper US Midwest.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- soil S and earleaf S concentratione2
- Outcome
- predicting yield responsee2
- Direction
- unreliablee2
- Setting
- upper US Midweste2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e2“standard diagnostic tests such as soil S and earleaf S concentration are unreliable in predicting yield response in the upper US Midwest”
Claim · model-written summary
S fertilization is unlikely to increase corn yields under the study conditions.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- increase corn yieldse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois”
e1“S fertilization is unlikely to increase corn yields”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction
This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.