4.5 Article

Characterizing and Classifying Variability in Corn Yield Response to Nitrogen Fertilization on Subfield and Field Scales

Journal

AGRONOMY JOURNAL
Volume 101, Issue 2, Pages 269-277

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2008.0168

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Marked spatial and temporal variability in yield response to N fertilizer observed in individual yield response trials creates a high degree of uncertainty when estimating economic optimum rates (EORs) of N for a group of trials and when extrapolating these rates from one location to another. A survey was conducted to characterize and classify variability in yield response to N on subfield and field scales. Fertilizer N was applied at five rates (56, 84, 112, 140, and 168 kg N ha(-1)) in many (6-12) replicated strips within three 18- to 24-ha no-till fields during two corn (Zea mays L.) growing seasons. Yield responses or yield differences between two adjacent strips were measured in 22 to 25 grid cells ha(-1) within each field. Cumulative probability distributions (CPDs) were used to estimate the probability that a given N rate produces a yield response less or equal to a specified quantity. The yield responses were classified into potential categories with different N fertilizer requirements using apparent soil electrical conductivity (EC(a)), digital soil map units, and relative elevation. Analysis indicated that the classifications explained <3% variability in yield response to N applied in the near-optimal range, where probabilities of receiving positive and negative marginal returns were the same. Presenting probabilities of yield response observed at different ranges of N fertilization may provide the basis for assessing the uncertainty associated with the variable effects of weather and variable supply of N when assessing economic risk and benefits of N fertilization in large-scale on-farm studies.

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