4.5 Article

Corn response to starter fertilizer and tillage across and within fields having no-till management histories

Journal

AGRONOMY JOURNAL
Volume 96, Issue 3, Pages 776-785

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2004.0776

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Corn (Zea mays L.) early growth often is slower in no-tilled than tilled soils. Starter fertilization usually increases early plant growth but has inconsistent effects on grain yield. This study assessed (i) starter and tillage effects on corn grain yield, dry weight (DW), and N, P, and K uptake at the V5-V6 stage and (ii) the within-field variation of responses. Seven replicated strip trials were conducted on fields previously managed with no-tillage using yield monitors and global positioning systems (GPS). Treatments were no-starter and liquid starter with or without tillage and were applied in addition to farmers' normal broadcast NPK rates. Starter applied 3.9 to 27.2 kg N ha(-1), 5.2 to 24.2 kg P ha(-1), and 0 to 4.1 kg K ha(-1) across fields. The tillage treatment was spring disking or strip tillage. Tillage increased (P less than or equal to 0.05) yield in four fields (210-500 kg ha(-1)), starter increased yield in three fields (93-522 kg ha(-1)), and both treatments usually increased DW and nutrient uptake. There were no treatment interactions. Tillage and starter fertilization did not influence yield variability but increased DW and nutrient uptake variability. Soil test results (P, K, pH, and organic matter) or soil series could not always identify fields where starter would increase yield. However, in two fields, starter increased yield only in areas with Bray-1 soil P < 16 mg P kg(-1). On average, tillage increased yield 2.5%, starter increased yield 1.1%, and DW or nutrient uptake responses to either treatment were 20 to 30%. Large DW and nutrient uptake responses to starter did not translate into large or frequent yield responses.

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