Yuhei Nakayama, Patricia Leon, Michael Douglass, Talon Becker, Andrew J. Margenot
{"title":"Optimum source, rate, timing, and placement of phosphorus fertilizer for Illinois soybean","authors":"Yuhei Nakayama, Patricia Leon, Michael Douglass, Talon Becker, Andrew J. Margenot","doi":"10.1002/agj2.21707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Consistent increases in soybean (<i>Glycine max</i> L.) grain yields over the past decades in Illinois have co-increased P demand, but—as for many US Midwest states—P fertilizer recommendations are outdated. We evaluated soybean grain yield, P uptake and removal with grain harvest, and P use efficiency in 4 site-years of field trials on Argiudolls-Endoaquolls and Fragiudalfs-Hapludalfs under annual P application treatments of source (monoammonium phosphate [MAP], diammonium phosphate [DAP], triple superphosphate [TSP]), rate (partial vs. full maintenance rate), and timing–placement combination (fall and spring broadcast, spring banding). Substituting ammonium phosphate fertilizers, the most commonly used P fertilizers in the US Midwest, with N-free TSP supported similar yields and resulted in similar P removal as hypothesized, while avoiding co-applied N that can be subject to losses primarily via leaching. Soybean yield and grain P removal were unresponsive to rate, timing, and placement even at the partial rate, although banding and spring application may have reduced N loss risk for MAP and DAP. Given the challenges in accurately estimating P removal rate by grain harvest due to the variability in yield and grain P concentrations across years, assessment of P use efficiency should focus on long-term balance between fertilization (input) and crop removal (output).</p>","PeriodicalId":7522,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy Journal","volume":"116 6","pages":"3300-3314"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/agj2.21707","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21707","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Consistent increases in soybean (Glycine max L.) grain yields over the past decades in Illinois have co-increased P demand, but—as for many US Midwest states—P fertilizer recommendations are outdated. We evaluated soybean grain yield, P uptake and removal with grain harvest, and P use efficiency in 4 site-years of field trials on Argiudolls-Endoaquolls and Fragiudalfs-Hapludalfs under annual P application treatments of source (monoammonium phosphate [MAP], diammonium phosphate [DAP], triple superphosphate [TSP]), rate (partial vs. full maintenance rate), and timing–placement combination (fall and spring broadcast, spring banding). Substituting ammonium phosphate fertilizers, the most commonly used P fertilizers in the US Midwest, with N-free TSP supported similar yields and resulted in similar P removal as hypothesized, while avoiding co-applied N that can be subject to losses primarily via leaching. Soybean yield and grain P removal were unresponsive to rate, timing, and placement even at the partial rate, although banding and spring application may have reduced N loss risk for MAP and DAP. Given the challenges in accurately estimating P removal rate by grain harvest due to the variability in yield and grain P concentrations across years, assessment of P use efficiency should focus on long-term balance between fertilization (input) and crop removal (output).
期刊介绍:
After critical review and approval by the editorial board, AJ publishes articles reporting research findings in soil–plant relationships; crop science; soil science; biometry; crop, soil, pasture, and range management; crop, forage, and pasture production and utilization; turfgrass; agroclimatology; agronomic models; integrated pest management; integrated agricultural systems; and various aspects of entomology, weed science, animal science, plant pathology, and agricultural economics as applied to production agriculture.
Notes are published about apparatus, observations, and experimental techniques. Observations usually are limited to studies and reports of unrepeatable phenomena or other unique circumstances. Review and interpretation papers are also published, subject to standard review. Contributions to the Forum section deal with current agronomic issues and questions in brief, thought-provoking form. Such papers are reviewed by the editor in consultation with the editorial board.