4.5 Article

Soybean Response to Sulfur Fertilizer Applied as a Broadcast or Starter Using Replicated Strip Trials

Journal

AGRONOMY JOURNAL
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages 1189-1198

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2013.0023

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Minnesota Soybean Research Promotion Council
  2. Minnesota Agricultural Fertilizer Research and Education Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sulfur fertilizer is not recommended for soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production in the northern Corn Belt even though responses to S have been occurring more frequently in other crops. The objectives of this study were to determine the impact of fluid fertilizer combinations containing N, P, and S on early S uptake, soybean grain yield, and S removal and to evaluate various soil and plant tissue testing factors for predicting S need. Field trials were conducted at four locations, one with a sandy soil and three locations with finer soil textures. Preplant broadcast S was compared with liquid starter N and NP combinations applied with and without S 5 cm beside and below the seed row. Nitrogen increased soybean early plant mass while S increased plant S concentration, uptake, S removal in grain, and grain protein concentration but decreased seed oil concentration. Soybean grain yield was increased by S at one location and was not increased by N or P. Grain yield response to S occurred only when soil organic matter concentration was<20 g kg(-1). The factor best correlated to yield response to S was grain S concentration, followed by tissue S concentration at the R2 growth stage and whole-plant S concentration at the V5 stage. Extractable SO4-S in the soil was negatively correlated to yield response to S. The data indicate that soybean plants will accumulate S in higher quantities than needed for growth and development and that yield response is possible under limited circumstances.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available