4.4 Article

Illinois soil nitrogen test predicts southeastern US corn economic optimum nitrogen rates

Journal

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 735-744

Publisher

SOIL SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2006.0135

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An accurate and quick soil N test is needed for N fertilizer recommendations for corn (Zea mays L.) for the humid southeastern USA. The Illinois soil N test (ISNT) has been used to distinguish fertilizer-responsive from unresponsive sites in Illinois. We determined relationships between economic optimum N rates (EONR) and ISNT levels in representative southeastern soils in 35 N-response trials in the Piedmont (n = 4) and Middle (n = 8) and Lower (n = 23) Coastal Plains of North Carolina from 2001 to 2004. The ISNT was strongly correlated with EONR for well or poorly drained sites (r(2) = 0.87 [n = 20] and 0.78 [n = 10], respectively); data were insufficient for establishing correlations for very poorly drained or severely drought-stressed sites. Expressing ISNT on a mass per unit volume basis vs. EONR improved the correlations slightly (r(2) = 0.88 and 0.79 for well and poorly drained sites, respectively), but these improvements would not justify the necessary soil bulk density determinations. Regressions of ISNT vs. minimum, average, and maximum EONR based on different N-fertilizer cost/corn price ratios (11.4:1, 7.6:1, and 5:1, respectively) showed strong correlations with EONR for well-drained sites (r(2) = 0.77, 0.87, and 0.87, respectively) and poorly drained sites (r(2) = 0.84, 0.78, 0.70, respectively). The ISNT-EONR correlations were different among the cost/price ratios for well-drained sites, but not different for poorly drained sites. Because ISNT predicted EONR robustly to different cost/price ratios, ISNT has the potential to modify or replace current N recommendation methods for corn.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available