4.7 Article

Fertilizer recommendation for maize in China based on yield response and agronomic efficiency

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 27-34

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.013

关键词

Nutrient Expert for Hybrid Maize; Yield response; Agronomic efficiency; Indigenous nutrient supply

类别

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2013CB127405]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31272243]
  3. International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A generic but flexible and location-specific fertilizer recommendation method is necessary due to inappropriate fertilization in China. A new fertilizer recommendation method, Nutrient Expert (NE) for Hybrid Maize, was developed using maize datasets from 2000 to 2010 in main maize production areas. The results showed that the average of indigenous nutrient supply were 130,41 and 124 kg/ha, the mean of yield response were 2.1, 1.2, and 1.2 t/ha, and the average agronomic efficiency were 11.4, 15.7, and 11.8 kg/kg for N, P, and K, respectively. There was a significantly negative exponential relationship between yield response and indigenous nutrient supply, and a significant negative linear relationship between yield response and relative yield. Analysis also indicated that the quadratic curve relation was obvious between yield response and agronomic efficiency. NE system was established based on yield response and agronomic efficiency (AE) through above analysis, and on-farm field experiments were conducted in 408 farmers' fields to validate this system at seven provinces in China. The results showed that fertilizer recommendation based on NE method could maintain grain yield and profitability and improve nutrient use efficiency through 4R nutrient stewardship and it is proved to be a promising approach for fertilizer recommendation when soil testing is not timely or not available. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据