Giovani Preza Fontes, John Jones, Kristin D. Greer, Daniel Schaefer, Daniel Kaiser, Fabián G. Fernández
{"title":"Corn response to sulfur fertilizer rate and source in Illinois","authors":"Giovani Preza Fontes, John Jones, Kristin D. Greer, Daniel Schaefer, Daniel Kaiser, Fabián G. Fernández","doi":"10.1002/agj2.70169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Sulfur (S) is an essential nutrient for optimizing corn (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) growth and yield. While S deficiency has increased in recent years, corn response to S fertilizer application remains challenging to predict owing to complex interactions among soil, crop, and weather conditions. Forty field trials were conducted between 2009 and 2011 over a range of soil types and environments to evaluate corn grain yield response to S fertilizer and assess the ability of soil and leaf S concentration to predict yield response to S fertilizer. Rate trials included two (0 and 34 kg S ha<sup>−1</sup>) or five rates (0 to 52 kg S ha<sup>−1</sup>, in 13 kg ha<sup>−1</sup> increments), whereas S sources were evaluated at 26 kg S ha<sup>−1</sup> (ammonium sulfate [21-0-0-24S], elemental S [0-0-0-90S], gypsum [0-0-0-21Ca-17S], monoammonium phosphate [MAP] MAP-10S [12-40-0-10S], MAP-10S+Zn [12-40-0-10S-1 Zn], and MAP-15S [13-33-0-15S]). Over the 3-year study period, we found minimal yield response to S fertilizer application with an overall response rate of 5% (two of 40 trials). In addition, neither S fertilizer evaluated increased corn grain yield relative to no S at any site; however, elemental S significantly reduced yield in one of 18 sites. While S application generally increased soil and earleaf S concentration, this did not translate into yield increases; hence, the lack of relationship between relative yield and soil and earleaf S. Under the study's conditions, these results indicate that S fertilization is unlikely to increase corn yields, and standard diagnostic tests such as soil S and earleaf S concentration are unreliable in predicting yield response in the upper US Midwest. Future research should incorporate other organic and inorganic soil S fractions to improve understanding and prediction of crop response to S fertilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":7522,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy Journal","volume":"117 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/agj2.70169","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.70169","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
Sulfur (S) is an essential nutrient for optimizing corn (Zea mays L.) growth and yield. While S deficiency has increased in recent years, corn response to S fertilizer application remains challenging to predict owing to complex interactions among soil, crop, and weather conditions. Forty field trials were conducted between 2009 and 2011 over a range of soil types and environments to evaluate corn grain yield response to S fertilizer and assess the ability of soil and leaf S concentration to predict yield response to S fertilizer. Rate trials included two (0 and 34 kg S ha−1) or five rates (0 to 52 kg S ha−1, in 13 kg ha−1 increments), whereas S sources were evaluated at 26 kg S ha−1 (ammonium sulfate [21-0-0-24S], elemental S [0-0-0-90S], gypsum [0-0-0-21Ca-17S], monoammonium phosphate [MAP] MAP-10S [12-40-0-10S], MAP-10S+Zn [12-40-0-10S-1 Zn], and MAP-15S [13-33-0-15S]). Over the 3-year study period, we found minimal yield response to S fertilizer application with an overall response rate of 5% (two of 40 trials). In addition, neither S fertilizer evaluated increased corn grain yield relative to no S at any site; however, elemental S significantly reduced yield in one of 18 sites. While S application generally increased soil and earleaf S concentration, this did not translate into yield increases; hence, the lack of relationship between relative yield and soil and earleaf S. Under the study's conditions, these results indicate that S fertilization is unlikely to increase corn yields, and standard diagnostic tests such as soil S and earleaf S concentration are unreliable in predicting yield response in the upper US Midwest. Future research should incorporate other organic and inorganic soil S fractions to improve understanding and prediction of crop response to S fertilization.
硫(S)是优化玉米(Zea mays L.)生长和产量的必需营养素。虽然近年来S缺乏症有所增加,但由于土壤、作物和天气条件之间复杂的相互作用,预测玉米对S肥施用的反应仍然具有挑战性。2009年至2011年间,在不同土壤类型和环境下进行了40项田间试验,以评估玉米籽粒对S肥的产量响应,并评估土壤和叶片S浓度对S肥产量响应的预测能力。速率试验包括两种速率(0和34 kg S ha -1)或五种速率(0到52 kg S ha -1,以13 kg ha -1为增量),而S源在26 kg S ha -1时进行评估(硫酸铵[21-0-0-24S]、元素S [0-0-0- 90s]、石膏[0-0-0- 0- 21ca - 17s]、磷酸一铵[MAP] MAP- 10s [12-40-0-10S]、MAP- 10s +Zn [12-40-0-10S-1 Zn]和MAP- 15s [13-33-0- 15s])。在3年的研究期间,我们发现S肥施用对产量的响应最小,总体响应率为5%(40个试验中的两个)。此外,在任何地点,施用两种S肥对玉米产量的影响均大于不施用S肥;然而,元素S显著降低了18个位点中一个位点的产量。施S一般会增加土壤和耳叶的S浓度,但这并没有转化为产量的增加;因此,相对产量与土壤和穗叶S之间缺乏相关性。在本研究条件下,这些结果表明施S肥不太可能提高玉米产量,土壤S和穗叶S浓度等标准诊断测试在预测美国中西部上部产量响应时不可靠。未来的研究应纳入其他有机和无机土壤S组分,以提高对作物对S施肥反应的认识和预测。
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.