Introduction
In Serbia, maize (Zea
mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops. The concept of
fertilizer use efficiency in maize implies not only the maximum crop uptake but
also the availability of the applied nutrients under variable climatic, and
soil conditions (physical, chemical and biological) (Đalović et al. 2015). The three macroelements, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P)
and potassium (K) are essential for maize growth and grain development
(Setiyono et al. 2010). Improving
nutrient use efficiency, (biomass or grain production per unit of nutrient
available in soil) is important for ensuring global food production, reducing
fertilizer inputs and potential environmental risks (Gao et al. 2009).
The understanding of plant physiology (uptake and
partitioning in different plants parts) could help in better nutrient
homeostasis. The dry matter in maize grain is obtained by photosynthesis after
silking (Lee and Tollenaar 2007), while during grain filling (45–65% N) is
contributed by vegetative organs’ N remobilization (Yue et al. 2018). For maize cultivation, the optimum rate of N
fertilizers depends on many factors as genotype, agronomic and environmental
conditions. The fertilizer application affects the maize yield by affecting the
photosynthetic efficiency, leaf area duration and leaf area index. The response
of maize yield to N availability is determined by vegetative storage capacity,
root uptake, source to sink efficiency (vegetative to developing kernels) and strength
of kernel sink (Huber et al. 1994).
In a study, it was found that in maize the variation in N utilization at low N
input was greater at before or after flowering compared to high N input (Gallais and Coque 2005). In new
maize hybrids, there is high tolerance of low resource availability, which
enable them to perform better under stress environments compared to old ones
(Araus et al. 2008). In low and high input agriculture, growing of
N-efficient genotypes is an important prerequisite for integrated nutrient
management (Mi et al. 2007). One crucial technology used to accomplish
high yield per hectare is the use of genotypes that have higher NUE. Phosphorus
along with N is another vital mineral nutrient which influence the dry matter
accumulation in plants. The genotypes of maize have variation in adaptibility to
different soil types and P uptake and utilization efficiency. To maintain
maximum rate of photosynthesis the adequate amount of P is important for plants
(Marschner 2012). In plants, like N and P, the K is also a mobile element and
exists as cationic form and influence the enzyme activities, osmosis balance,
translocation of soluble metabolites and protein synthesis (Hawkesford et
al. 2012). Ciampitti et al. (2013) reported that in K-deficient
soil, crop yield and the efficiency of N and P is reduced.
One of the most important
factor influencing the maize grain mineral composition is fertilizer
application. Nutrient management is a complex process, however, improving the
understanding of how, when and where to apply nutrients in maize helps to
optimize fertilizer application rates and timings. In plants, the uptake of
nutrients and their translocation and accumulation depends on the environmental
factors and the genotypes (Sui et al.
2013). This study was conducted with the objective to know the interactive effects
of fertilizers (N, P and K) and genotypes on maize yield along with N, P and K
contents in leaves and grains which could be helpful in explaining the response
of different genotypes to selected nutrient levels in order to improve
production of maize.
Materials and Methods
Study site, soil treatments and experimental design
Field trials were conducted for two years at the
Experimental Station of Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, Novi Sad,
Serbia. The soil was typical calcareous chernozem in nature. Before the
experimentation, the soil samples were taken at soil depth of 30 cm with auger
(end of March 2011) and soil analysis report showed that the total soil N was
(0.26 g kg−1), P2O5 (18.70 mg kg-1)
and K2O (21.00 mg kg−1). The weather data during
the growing season of both years is given in Table 1.
Standard agronomic practices were followed for growing
maize. The preceding crop for maize was winter wheat. Selected plots were
plowed every October up to 27–30 cm depth and seedbed preparation was done
before sowing with heavy duty cultivators (Multi-Tiller) to 15 cm depth in
March. Four divergent maize hybrids (NS 4023, NS 640, NS 6010 and NS 6030) were
sown under 8 treatment combinations as: 1: P60K60; 2: P60K60 +
Nmin spring; 3: P60K60 + N40autumn +
Nmin spring; 4: P60K60 + N60spring;
5: P60K60 + N100spring; 6: P60K60
+ N40autumn + N60spring + Zn; 7: P60K60
+ N40autumn + N80spring + Zn; 8: P60K60
+ N160spring + Zn in both years of study. Zn was applied as zinc sulfate (ZnSO4) in
the amount of 1.0 kg ha–1 with foliar spraying, in the fourth and
sixth week after sowing. The crop was sown on 10 April 2011 and 18 April 2012
using a Wintersteiger AG pneumatic precision seed drill to a depth of 5 cm. The
plot dimensions were 5 × 2.8 m, having intra-row spacing of 22 cm and row
spacing of 70 cm. In both years weed control was carried out by conventional
chemical methods.
Table 1: Total monthly precipitation and
mean air-temperatures at the experimental station during 2012 and 2013
|
Years |
Monthly precipitation (mm) |
Monthly mean air-temperatures (°C) |
||||||||||||
|
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Total |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Mean |
|
|
22.8 |
63.0 |
36.9 |
61.5 |
1.5 |
25.4 |
174.2 |
13.2 |
16.8 |
20.9 |
22.1 |
23.0 |
20.4 |
19.4 |
|
|
2012 |
82.8 |
52.2 |
27.5 |
47.7 |
3.5 |
13.1 |
226.8 |
13.0 |
17.5 |
23.0 |
25.2 |
24.6 |
19.8 |
20.5 |
|
*1961-90 |
47 |
57 |
83 |
61 |
55 |
36 |
339 |
11.4 |
16.6 |
19.6 |
21.1 |
20.6 |
16.9 |
17.7 |
*Average of
1961–1990 (SHS
2012, 2013)
Measurements
Plant tissue analyses included concentration of N, P and
K in leaves and grain. Leaf samples (25 leaves) were taken under the cob in the
silking stage (the second half of July). After maize harvest from each elementary plot cobs were
taken for grain chemical analysis. Samples of the plant material (leaves and
grain) were prepared and milled in a mill for plant material grinding. Using AOAC
Official method 972.43:2000, the total N was determined. Using ICP-AES the P and K were
determined. Varian Vista-PRO Simultaneous ICP-AES, with axially mounted plasma
was used for these measurements. The 1000-grain weight was evaluated by
counting and weighting of 4 × 250 of unbroken maize kernels. The two center
rows were used to collect yield data following Wasaya et al. (2017) and the two adjacent rows were used for plant
sampling. Protein content was estimated as the total nitrogen by the Kjeldahl method
multiplied by 6.25 (AOAC 2017).
Economic analysis
Economic analysis was performed to investigate the
economic feasibility of
treatments (fertilizer rates). Economic analysis was done using the prevailing
market prices for all inputs used at planting and for outputs at the time the
crop was harvested. Furthermore net income was calculated by subtracting total
cost from gross income, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) was determined as ratio of
gross income to total cost (Wasaya et al.
2018).
Data analysis
For the purpose of data analysis,
statistical testing combined the results of the
individual years of research. The basic model used for data analyses was
divided subplots (Gomez and Gomez 1984). The effects of the main factors (year,
fertilization systems and hybrids) were tested, as well as mutual interactions
of the first and the second order. The
plan involved calculating conferred subplots three experimental error which is
done by testing the statistical significance of effects in the model. The mathematical model of the plan is
divided subplots:
%201141-1148_files/image002.png){kind=small}
%201141-1148_files/image004.png){kind=small}
- the value of the analyzed capacity; %201141-1148_files/image006.png){kind=small}
- general mean;%201141-1148_files/image008.png){kind=small}
- The effect of the i-th repetition %201141-1148_files/image010.png){kind=small}
(i
= 1,...,r), %201141-1148_files/image012.png){kind=small}
(k
= 1,..., b) and %201141-1148_files/image014.png){kind=small}
(l = 1,...,c) the main effects of the factors, fertilization
systems and hybrids; %201141-1148_files/image016.png){kind=small}
, %201141-1148_files/image018.png){kind=small}
, %201141-1148_files/image020.png){kind=small}
and
%201141-1148_files/image022.png){kind=small}
the interaction of the first and
second order; %201141-1148_files/image024.png){kind=small}
,%201141-1148_files/image026.png){kind=small}
and %201141-1148_files/image028.png){kind=small}
the experimental errors with the
assumptions about their distribution: %201141-1148_files/image030.png){kind=small}
; %201141-1148_files/image032.png){kind=small}
and %201141-1148_files/image034.png){kind=small}
. Statistical
analysis of divided plot model was carried out by using a mixed linear model,
where they are treated as fixed main effects of the factors and their
interactions and the repetition with experimental error treated as random
effects. The differences between the
levels of factors were tested by using Tukey-test
with correction of the errors of the Type I (Hochberg and Tamhane 2011)
(StatSoft Inc, Tulsa, OK, USA).
Results
Maize leaf and grain mineral
contents (N, P and K) and grain
yield
Different fertilizer combinations and maize hybrids had
significant effect on leaf N, P and K concentartions of maize except the
non-significant effect of fertilizer combinations on leaf K and hybrids on leaf
P (Table 2). Years and interaction betweeen years and fertilizer combinations
had significant effect only on leaf N of maize (Table 2). Interaction between
years and hybrids had significant effect only on leaf N and K concentrations.
Two-way interaction among fertilizer combinations and hybrids and three-way
interaction among years, fertilizers and hybrids had non-significant effect on
leaf NPK concentrations (Table 2).
Table 2: Influence of
fertilizer application on leaf nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentrations in different
maize hybrids
|
Nitrogen (%) |
Phosphorus (%) |
Potassium (%) |
|
|
Years (A) |
|||
|
2011 |
2.35
± 0.3NS |
0.22 ±
0.02 b |
1.11 ±
0.03 b |
|
2012 |
2.31
± 0.2 |
0.23 ±
0.01 a |
2.23 ±
0.16 a |
|
Treatments (B) |
|||
|
P60K60 |
1.91
± 0.1 d |
0.19
± 0.02 d |
1.63
± 0.60 b |
|
P60K60+ Nmin spring |
2.38
± 0.1 b |
0.22
± 0.01 bc |
1.74
± 0.65 a |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + Nmin spring |
2.57
± 0.1 a |
0.24
± 0.01 a |
1.69
± 0.63 ab |
|
P60K60 + N60 spring |
2.04
± 0.1 cd |
0.20 ±
0.01 d |
1.69
± 0.61 ab |
|
P60K60 + N100 spring |
2.45
± 0.1 ab |
0.23
± 0.01 ab |
1.63
± 0.58 b |
|
P60K60+N40
autumn+N60 spring+Zn |
2.58
± 0.1 a |
0.24 ±
0.01 a |
1.62
± 0.56 b |
|
P60K60+N40 autumn+N80 spring+Zn |
2.58
± 0.1 a |
0.24
± 0.01 a |
1.67
± 0.60 ab |
|
P60K60 + N160 spring + Zn |
2.14
± 0.3 c |
0.21
± 0.02 c |
1.67
± 0.63 ab |
|
Hybrids
(C) |
|||
|
NS 4023 |
2.39
± 0.3 a |
0.22
± 0.02NS |
1.61 ±
0.50 b |
|
NS 640 |
2.29
± 0.3 b |
0.22
± 0.02NS |
1.60 ±
0.50 b |
|
NS 6010 |
2.37
± 0.3 a |
0.22
± 0.02NS |
1.73
± 0.66 a |
|
NS 6030 |
2.27
± 0.2 b |
0.22
± 0.02NS |
1.73 ±
0.65 a |
|
ANOVA |
|||
|
Year (A) |
ns |
* |
** |
|
Treatment (B) |
** |
** |
* |
|
Hybrid (C) |
** |
ns |
** |
|
A × B |
** |
** |
ns |
|
A × C |
ns |
** |
** |
|
B × C |
ns |
ns |
ns |
|
A × B × C |
ns |
ns |
ns |
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter and
variable, don’t differ significantly at P
≤ 0.05
*
= significant at P < 0.05; ** =
significant at P < 0.01; ns = non-significant;
ANOVA = analysis of variance
Analysis of variance showed a significant effect of
treatments (P
< 0.05), and highly significant effect of hybrid (P <
0.01) for maize grain N concentrations.
The treatment and year (A × B) and year × hybrid (A × C) also showed a highly significant effect (P < 0.01). A
statistically significant difference was observed between years for grain N concentrations but not for P and K (Table 3). Grain yield was also statistically
significantly affected by the year. The higher grain yield was obtained in 2012
than in 2011. In 2012, favourable climatic conditions might have resulted in
more grain yield. Among fertilizer
combinations, P60K60 + N40autumn + Nmin spring, P60K60 + N40autumn + N60spring + Zn and P60K60
+ N40autumn + N80spring + Zn had
higher yield while control (P60K60) observed the minimum
yield. Likewise maize hybrid NS 6010 out yielded the other hybrids and NS 4023
was at the bottom in this regard (Table 3). Analysis of variance for TGW
revealed a statistically significant effect of year (A) (P < 0.05) and a statistically significant effect for treatment
(B) and hybrids (C) (P < 0.01).
Testing for variance analysis also found a statistically significant
interaction effect between years tested and hybrid (A × C) (P < 0.05) and a statistically
significant interaction effect between year and treatment (A × B) (P < 0.01) (Table 4). The average protein content of
maize kernels for all fertilizer variants and hybrids by years of research
ranged from 7.7% in 2011 to 8.5 in 2012. Significantly, the lowest protein content was found for the dose of
fertilizers of 60 kg ha-1 P and 60 kg ha-1 K (6.9%) in
comparison to the other levels of this factor. Grain protein content was significantly affected by the
year, hybrids, fertilization strategies and their interactions (Table 4). Mean comparison of the two year data revealed that
higher protein content was recorded in 2012. These results could be obtained
due to plant stress in August, 2011 when the rainfall was low (1.5 mm) (Table
1). Similarly, Fowler et al. (1990)
also reported higher grain protein content due to limited water availability in
soil. These results are related to the finding of Gallais et al. (2008), who reported that different application fertilizers
and at different timing had significant effect on grain protein content and
maize yield.
During year 2011, the N (r = 0.670**) and P (r =
0.725**) content in maize leaves had highly positive correlation with grain
yield. Leaf N content had also highly significant correlation with P content (r = 0.945**). Potassium, although essential macro element
in 2011 did not showed a significant relationship with yield, or with other
macronutrients in maize leaves. In year 2011, grain yield had highly positive
correlation with grain N and P contents, and positive with K content (r = 0.365*). It is interesting that for the extremely
dry year 2012, grain yield showed no significant correlation with grain P and K
content and these correlations were even slightly negative. During year 2011, grain N content had
highly positive correlation with grain
P (r = 0.576**), and positive with
grain K contents (r = 0.371*) (Table 5).
The Economic
benefit of fertilizer use is affected by fertilizer cost, grain prices and
ultimately how maize responds to fertilizer application. The cost of each input
is given in Table 6. The highest net benefit of 2091.6 and 2043.9 $ ha-1
was obtained in treatments: P60K60 + N40 autumn
+ N60 spring + Zn and P60K60 + N40 autumn
+ Nmin spring. The present investigation revealed that
treatment combination, P60K60 + N40 autumn + N60
spring + Zn gave the highest benefit (2091$ ha-1) and
cost ratio (4.92). The economic net benefit of 1371.5 $ ha-1 was
achieved from maize genotype NS 6010 (Table 6).
Table 5: Correlation
between leaf N, P and K contents and maize grain yield and correlation between
grain N, P and K content and maize grain yield
|
|
Yield |
N in leaf |
P in leaf |
K in leaf |
||||
|
2011 |
2012 |
2011 |
2012 |
2011 |
2012 |
2011 |
2012 |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
0.670** |
0.395* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P |
0.725** |
0.513** |
0.945** |
0.792** |
|
|
|
|
|
K |
-0.003 NS |
0.362* |
0.300NS |
-0.031NS |
0.174 NS |
0.065 NS |
|
|
|
|
Yield |
N in grain |
P in grain |
K in grain |
||||
|
2011 |
2012 |
2011 |
2012 |
2011 |
2012 |
2011 |
2012 |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
0.686** |
0.391* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P |
0.585** |
-0.054NS |
0.576** |
0.260 NS |
|
|
|
|
|
K |
0.365* |
-0.292NS |
0.371* |
0.089 NS |
0.797** |
0.853** |
|
|
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter and
variable, don’t differ significantly at P
≤ 0.05
* = significant at P
< 0.05; ** = significant at P <
0.01; ns = non-significant; ANOVA = analysis of variance
Table 6: Economic analysis of different NPK fertilizers application rates
(two-year average)
|
Treatments |
Gross income ($ ha-1) |
Total Cost ($ ha-1) |
Net Benefits ($ ha-1) |
Benefit Cost Ratio |
|
Fertilizer combinations |
||||
|
P60K60 |
1576.3 |
491 |
1085.3 |
3.21 |
|
P60K60 + Nmin spring |
2315.2 |
512 |
1803.2 |
4.52 |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + Nmin spring |
2566.4 |
522.5 |
2043.9 |
4.91 |
|
P60K60 + N60 spring |
2307.2 |
512 |
1795.2 |
4.51 |
|
P60K60 + N100 spring |
2443.7 |
526 |
1917.7 |
4.65 |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn
+ N60 spring + Zn |
2624.6 |
533 |
2091.6 |
4.92 |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + N80 spring + Zn |
2565.0 |
540 |
2025.0 |
4.75 |
|
P60K60 + N160 spring + Zn |
2254.5 |
554 |
1700.5 |
4.07 |
|
Hybrids |
||||
|
NS 4023 |
2187.7 |
1047.5 |
1140.2 |
2.09 |
|
NS 640 |
2366.8 |
1047.5 |
1319.3 |
2.26 |
|
NS 6010 |
2419.0 |
1047.5 |
1371.5 |
2.31 |
|
NS 6030 |
2353.0 |
1047.5 |
1305.5 |
2.25 |
Discussion
Understanding the effects by the application of Table 3: Influence of fertilizer application on grain nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium in different maize hybrids
|
Years (A) |
Nitrogen (%) |
Phosphorus (%) |
Potassium (%) |
Maize yield (t ha–1) |
|
2011 |
1.22
±
0.12 b |
0.23 ± 0.01 b |
0.26
±
0.01 a |
10.380 ±
1.82 a |
|
2012 |
1.36
±
0.18 a |
0.25 ±
0.02 a |
0.25
±
0.02 a |
7.140 ±
0.85 b |
|
Treatment (B) |
||||
|
P60K60 |
1.11
±
0.08 d |
0.24
±
0.02 ab |
0.26
±
0.01 a |
5.924
± 0.63 d |
|
P60K60 + Nmin spring |
1.27
±
0.08 b |
0.23
±
0.02 b |
0.25
±
0.01 a |
8.701
± 1.55 c |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + Nmin spring |
1.42
±
0.12 a |
0.25
±
0.02 ab |
0.26
±
0.02 a |
9.645
± 1.71 a |
|
P60K60 + N60 spring |
1.16
±
0.09 cd |
0.23
±
0.02 b |
0.25
±
0.01 a |
8.671
± 1.49 c |
|
P60K60 + N100 spring |
1.35
±
0.13 a |
0.24
±
0.02 ab |
0.25
±
0.02 a |
9.184
± 1.89 b |
|
P60K60
+ N40 autumn + N60 spring + Zn |
1.41
±
0.11 a |
0.25
±
0.02 a |
0.26
±
0.01 a |
9.864
± 2.38 a |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + N80 spring + Zn |
1.42
±
0.14 a |
0.24
±
0.02 ab |
0.26
±
0.01 a |
9.640
± 2.81 a |
|
P60K60 + N160 spring + Zn |
1.22
±
0.21 bc |
0.24
±
0.02 ab |
0.26
±
0.02 a |
8.473
± 2.02 c |
|
Hybrid
(C) |
||||
|
NS 4023 |
1.29
±
0.16 b |
0.24
±
0.02 bc |
0.26
±
0.01 ab |
8.222
± 2.23 c |
|
NS 640 |
1.32
±
0.18 ab |
0.25
±
0.02 a |
0.26
±
0.01 a |
8.895
± 2.21 b |
|
NS 6010 |
1.22
±
0.13 c |
0.23
±
0.02 c |
0.25
±
0.02 c |
9.091
± 2.10 a |
|
NS 6030 |
1.35
±
0.18 a |
0.24
±
0.02 ab |
0.25
±
0.01 bc |
8.843
± 2.19 b |
|
ANOVA |
||||
|
Year (A) |
* |
ns |
ns |
** |
|
Treatment (B) |
** |
* |
ns |
** |
|
Hybrid (C) |
** |
ns |
** |
** |
|
A × B |
** |
ns |
ns |
** |
|
A × C |
** |
ns |
** |
ns |
|
B × C |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
|
A × B × C |
ns |
ns |
ns |
* |
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter and
variable, don’t differ significantly at P
≤ 0.05
*
= significant at P < 0.05; ** =
significant at P < 0.01; ns = non-significant;
ANOVA = analysis of variance
Table 4:
Influence of fertilizer application on 1000-grain weight and protein contents
in different maize hybrids
|
Years (A) |
1000-grain weight (g) |
Protein content (%) |
|
2011 |
369.0
± 24.3 a |
7.7 ± 0.8 b |
|
2012 |
358.5
± 23.8 b |
8.5 ± 1.1 a |
|
Treatment (B) |
||
|
P60K60 |
325.8
± 12.3 d |
6.9 ± 0.5 d |
|
P60K60 + Nmin spring |
364.3
± 16.3 b |
7.9 ± 0.5 b |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + Nmin spring |
370.2
± 20.8 b |
8.9 ± 0.8 a |
|
P60K60 + N60 spring |
348.1
± 14.1 c |
7.2 ± 0.6 cd |
|
P60K60 + N100 spring |
361.4
± 8.0 b |
8.4 ± 0.8 a |
|
P60K60
+ N40 autumn + N60 spring + Zn |
383.7
±
23.1 a |
8.8 ± 0.7 a |
|
P60K60 + N40 autumn + N80 spring + Zn |
386.9
±
19.3 a |
8.9 ± 0.9 a |
|
P60K60 + N160 spring + Zn |
369.7
±
15.9 b |
7.6 ± 1.3 bc |
|
Hybrid
(C) |
||
|
NS 4023 |
349.2
±
21.0 d |
8.1 ± 1.0 b |
|
NS 640 |
359.8
±
22.3 c |
8.2 ± 1.1 ab |
|
NS 6010 |
379.0
±
24.8 a |
7.6 ± 0.8 c |
|
NS 6030 |
367.0
± 21.1 b |
8.4 ± 1.1 a |
|
ANOVA |
||
|
Year (A) |
* |
* |
|
Treatment (B) |
** |
** |
|
Hybrid (C) |
** |
** |
|
A × B |
** |
** |
|
A × C |
* |
** |
|
B × C |
ns |
ns |
|
A × B × C |
ns |
ns |
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter and
variable, don’t differ significantly at P
≤ 0.05
*
= significant at P < 0.05; ** =
significant at P < 0.01; ns =
non-significant; ANOVA = analysis of variance
feertilization in
maize is fundamental to improve the fertilization recommendations of nutrients.
The use of maize
genotypes that are able to utilize nutrients efficiently is an important
strategy in the management of plant nutritional status; it is of particular
importance with regard to nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), due
to their high requirement and influence on plant growth (Đalović et al. 2015). Strategies of split
application and delaying the basal application affected nutrient uptake and
nutrient concentration in maize. Varying N
content was mainly affected by the applied fertilization systems. Crop response
to N fertilization is generally very prompt, depending on the source of N,
plant growing stage, rainfall and temperature (Qiang et al. 2019). The highest mineral contents were found where N was
applied in autumn and in spring. Stay-green
genotypes allow a longer photosynthetic period and also longer nutrient uptake after silking stage (Borrell
et al. 2001). Previously studies have
shown (Li et al. 2014) a positive
correlation with the concentration of N in soil and root development. If N has
favorable distribution over soil profile, then the root grows into the deeper
soil layers, where higher N concentration could be is found. Available N in subsoil could originate from remaining N from preceding
crop or depleted from autumn application. Hence, such root development could be beneficial to
increase plants tolerance to summer drought (Šeremešić et al. 2013; Mi et al. 2019). Rozas et al. (2004) found that maize can
recover 43–53% of total N fertilizer application at planting compared to 62–74%
when applied at the V6 stage. Rasse et al.
(1999) reported similar corn grain yields among N treatments that included a
single pre-plant application of 202 kg N ha–1 and split N applications
of 101 kg N ha–1 in sandy loam soils. In a study by Silva et al. (2005), the authors stated that
the split and the time of application of nitrogenous inputs are alternatives
for increasing productivity. Subedi and Ma (2005) also documented a significant
role and contribution of ear-leaf N to dry matter and grain yield production in
conventional corn hybrids.
Equivalent P doses were applied in our
trial to compensate variation in soils and climate and to highlight the effects
of different maize hybrids and N fertilization treatments (Noureen et al. 2019). In maize, the leaf growth and
senescence are affected by phosphorus as the deficiency of P reduces the leaf
surafce area and slows down the rate of leaf appearance (Colomb et al.
2000). To represent critical nutrient amount, a range of concentartion is
required owing to variation in soil,
other production environment and climate (Yin and Vyn 2004). Conversely, investigated soil is considered
sufficiently supplied with P and K while fertilization was applied to return
nutrients removed by maize grain. The P concentration in whole plant from seedling to 6th
leaf stage and fully expanded leaf prior to tasseling is reported as:
sufficient (0.25–0.50%), low (0.22–0.25%) and critical (0.22%) Marschner (2012). In leaves, the low P and K
concentration could be associated with better distribution of both elements to
the grain or their high NUE by new genotypes. Damon and Rengel (2007) indicate that genetic factors rather than a
potassium dose applied as a fertilizer affect the K content of plants. The
differences in adsorption of K among different plant species are attributed to
variations in the root structure, such as root density, rooting depth and root
hair length (Nieves-Cordones et al. 2014).
The K content in leaves of tested
maize hybrids
are in agreement with Epstein and
Bloom (2005), who reported 3.0–4.0% K as sufficient at seedling stage, 2.0–3.0%
at vegetative stage in uppermost mature leaf and 1.8–3.0% at tasseling stage in
ear leaf. Similarly, the positive effect of N fertilizer application on grain N
concentrations were reported in other studies with varying N applications
(Osborne et al. 2004). In a study, it
was found that application of nitrogen in two split improved the biological
yield, grain N contents and stover maize yield (Singh et al. 1986). Likewise, in Midwestern United States, grain P
concentrations (1.8–4.1 mg P g−1 DM) in maize grain were found
with adequate P and varying level of N application (Osborne et al.
2004). In another study, the grain P (2.1–3.8 mg P g−1 DM)
were reported with varying P application levels and adequate N by Mallarino
(1996).
The analysis of variance
of the maize grain yield achieved during the experiment showed highly
significant differences between the treatments with NPK mineral fertilization.
In each year, a significant increase of yield was observed in all the
treatments when compared to the control. Significant differences were also
observed between the treatments tested, which means that the NPK doses applied
had significant effects on the maize yield quantity. In maize, the grain yield
and grain quality are the results of interaction agronomic, genetic and
environmental factors. However, genotype had large infuence on grain
composition (Cook et al. 2012), the availability of moisture and
temperature during the whole developmental phase, especially during
physiological stage play role. In a study, Đalović et al (2015)
reported that generaly hybrids differ in grain yield due to genetic factors and
physiological performance as long root system with plenty of root hairs to
absorb more nutrients (Qiao et al.
2019) and canopy to intercept more photosynthetic light. In a study, it was
found that application of N at 150 kg ha-1 significantly increased
the ear height (4.13%), leaf length and width (2.36 and 4.30%) respectively,
and grain yield (9.09%) compared to control (no N application) (Bukan et al. 2009). Meira
et al. (2009), with five combinations
of N applied at sowing and at the V8 stage (0 + 120, 30 + 90, 60 + 60, 90 + 30
and 120 + 0 kg ha-1 of N), verified the maximum yield of corn grains
with the combination 30 + 90 kg ha-1 of N. In another study, Silva et al. (2005) stated that the split and
the time of application of nitrogenous inputs are alternatives for increasing
productivity.
Maize growers need balanced crop nutrition to maximize
its yield potential and get the most out of their fertilizer investment. High
fertilizer costs, inaccessibility and/or limited availability and relatively
low cereal grain prices are some of the major impediments to increased
fertilizer use in the region. The economic benefit of fertilizer use is
affected by fertilizer cost, grain prices and ultimately how maize responds to
fertilizer application. It could be observed that different level of fertilizer
has significant effect on the yield or outputs. The various cost of production
of maize under different level varies due to different cost of fertilizer
incurred on each treatment. Variable cost incurred in this experiment varies
from one treatment to another. The results of this
research can be used to make tentative recommendations, which can be refined
through multi-location testing over a wider area. The use of fertilizers that
contain individual nutrient is recommended in future researches to come up with
the best composition of nutrients specific for maize production in the study
area.
Conclusion
Rate and time of
fertilizer application significantly affected the grain yield and grain mineral
composition of maize and help in exploiting the genetic potential of genotypes.
Timely fertilization can increase crop yield and nutrient use efficiency. This
study highlights the importance of NPK application to improve grain yield and
provides a promising fertilizer recommendation for minimizing fertilizer inputs
and optimizing maize production. Future research is still suggested to evaluate
relationships between ear-leaf nutrient concentrations and grain yield for a
wider range of genotypes, and on different soil types.
Acknowledgements
Financial
support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development
of the Republic of Serbia through project ''Improvement
of Maize and Sorghum Production under Stress Conditions'' (TR 31073) is
highly acknowledged.
References
AOAC
(2017). Official Methods of Analysis,
16th ed, Vol 1. Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Arlington, Texas, USA
Araus JL,
GA Slafer, C Royo, MD Serret (2008). Breeding for yield potential and stress
adaptation in cereals. Crit Rev Plant Sci
27:377‒412
Borrell A, G Hammer,
EV Oosterom (2001). Stay–green: A consequence of the balance between supply and
demand for nitrogen during grain filling. Ann
Appl Biol 138:91‒95
Bukan M, H Sarcevic,
J Gunjaca, S Bolaric, V Kozumplik (2009). Response of S1 maize progeny to
nitrogen deficiency stress in a recurrent selection program. Cereal Res Commun 37:37‒40
Ciampitti IA, ST
Murrell, JJ Camberato, TJ Vyn (2013). Maize nutrient accumulation and
partitioning in response to plant density and nitrogen rate: I. Macronutrients.
Agron J 105:783‒795
Colomb B, JR Kiniry,
P Debacke (2000). Effect of soil phosphorus on leaf development and senescence
dynamics of field grown maize. Agron J
92:428‒435
Cook JP, MD McMullen, JB Holland, F Tian, P Bradbury, J Ross-Ibarra,
ES Buckler, SA Flint-Garcia (2012). Genetic architecture of maize kernel
composition in the nested association mapping and inbred association panels. Plant Physiol 158:824‒834
Damon PM, Z Rengel (2007). Wheat genotypes differ in potassium efficiency
under glasshouse and field conditions. Aust
J Agric Res 58:816‒825
Đalović
I, Đ Jocković, YL Chen, G Bekavac, S Šeremešić, G
Jaćimović, M Brdar–Jokanović (2015). Maize Nutrient Uptake
Affected by Genotype and Fertilization. Genetika
47:941‒950
Epstein E, A Bloom (2005).
Mineral nutrition of plants: Principles
and Perspectives, Vol. 2. Sinauer
Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA
Fowler DB, J Brydon,
BA Darroch, MH Entz, AM Johnston (1990). Environment and genotype influence on
grain protein concentration of wheat and rye. Agron J 82:655‒664
Gallais, A,
M Coque (2005). Genetic variation and selection for nitrogen use efficiency in
maize: a synthesis. Maydica 50:531‒537
Gallais A, M Coque,
P Bertin (2008). Response to selection of a maize population for adaptation to
high or low nitrogen fertilization. Maydica
53:21‒28
Gao W, J Jin, P He,
S Li, J Zhu, M Li (2009). Optimum fertilization effect on maize yield,
nutrient uptake, and utilization in northern China. Better Crops 93:18‒20
Gomez KA,
AA Gomez (Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd edn. Wiley–Interscience, Hoboken, New Jersey,
USA
Hawkesford M, W
Horst, T Kichey, H Lambers, J Schjoerring, M Skrumsager, P White (2012).
Functions of macronutrients. In: Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher
Plants, 3rd edn., pp: 178‒189. Marschner P (ed.). Academic
Press, London, UK
Hochberg Y, AC
Tamhane (2011). Multiple Comparison Procedures, p: 480. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, USA
Huber DM, CY Tsai,
JA Stromberger (1994). Interaction of K with N and their influence on growth
and yield potential of maize. In: Annual
Corn and Sorghum Research Conference, 48th Proceedings, pp: 165–176. American Seed Trade Association,
Chicago, USA
Lee EA, M Tollenaar (2007).
Physiological basis of successful breeding strategies for maize grain yield. Crop Sci 47:202‒215
Li H, Q Ma, H Li, Z
Rengel, J Shen (2014). Root morphological responses to localized nutrient
supply differ among crop species with contrasting root traits. Plant Soil 376:151‒163
Mallarino AP (1996).
Evaluation of optimum and above-optimum phosphorus supplies for corn by
analysis of plant parts. Agron J
88:376‒380
Marschner P (2012). Marschner’s
Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd Ed. Academic Press, London,
UK
Meira
FA, S Buzetti, M Andreotti, O ARF, M Sá, JAC Andrade (2009). Fontes e épocas de
aplicaçăo do nitrogęnio na cultura do milho irrigado. Revista Semina: Cięnc Agrár 30:275‒284
Mi G, F Chen, F
Zhang (2007). Physiological and genetic mechanisms for nitrogen-use efficiency
in maize. Crop Sci 10:57‒67
Mi N, Y Zhang, F
Cai, R Ji, S Zhang, N Chen (2019). Higher yields of rain-fed maize affected by
drought and sowing date in a semi-humid region of north-eastern China. Intl
J Agric Biol 22:83‒90
Nieves-Cordones
M, F. Alemán, V Martínez, F Rubio (2014). K+ uptake in plant roots.
The systems involved, their regulation and parallels in other organisms. J
Plant Physiol 171:688‒695
Noureen S, M Khalid,
ZA Zahir, M Shahid 2019. Phosphorus solubilization through acidified organic
extract improved growth, yield and phosphorus uptake of maize grown in
calcareous soil. Intl J Agric Biol 22:65‒72
Osborne SL, JS
Schepers, MR Schlemmer (2004). Detecting nitrogen and phosphorus stress in corn
using multi-spectral imagery. Commun Soil
Sci Plant Anal 35:505‒516
Qiang L, K Fan-Lei,
Z Jia-Li, W Ya-Wei, C Wei, L Xiao-Lin, Y Ji-Chao (2019). Differential responses of maize hybrids for growth and nitrogen utilization to applied nitrogen. Intl
J Agric Biol 21:1147‒1158
Qiao S, Y Fang, A
Wu, B Xu, S Zhang, I Djalovic, KHM Siddique, YL Chen (2019). Dissecting root
trait variability in maize genotypes using the semi-hydroponic phenotyping
platform. Plant Soil 439:75‒90
Rasse DP, JT
Ritchie, WR Peterson, TL Loudon, EC Martin (1999). Nitrogen management impacts
on yield and nitrate leaching in inbred maize systems. J Environ Qual 28:1365‒1371
Rozas HRS, HE
Echeverria, PA Barbieri (2004). Nitrogen balance as affected by application
time and nitrogen fertilizer rate in irrigated no-tillage maize. Agron J 96:1622‒1631
Šeremešić
S, I Đalović, D. Milošev Đ Jocković, D Milošev, B Pejić (2013).
Maize (Zea mays L.) yield stability
dependence on crop rotation, fertilization and climatic conditions in a
long–term experiment on Haplic Chernozem. Žemdirbystė-Agriculture
100:137–142
Setiyono TD, DT
Walters, KG Cassman, C Witt, A Dobermann (2010). Estimating maize nutrient
uptake requirements. Field Crops Res
118:158‒168
SHS (2013). The Meteorological
Yearbook 1. Climatological data 2012. The State Hydrometerological Service
of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
SHS (2012). The Meteorological
Yearbook 1. Climatological data 2011. The State Hydrometerological Service
of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
Silva
PRF, ML Strieder, RPC Silva, L Rambo, L Sangoi, G Argenta, EL Forsthofer, AA
Silva (2005). Grain yield and kernel crude protein content increases of maize
hybrids with late nitrogen side-dressing. Sci
Agric 62:487‒492
Singh
RA, KPP Nair, PP Singh (1986). Biological yield and nitrogen uptake in maize. Annu Agric Res 7:275–281
Subedi KD, BL Ma (2005).
Ear position, leaf area, and contribution of individual leaves to grain yield
in conventional and leafy maize hybrids. Crop
Sci 45:2246‒2257
Sui B, XM Feng, GL
Tian, XY Hu, QR Shen, SW Guo (2013). Optimizing nitrogen supply increases rice
yield and nitrogen use efficiency by regulating yield formation factors. Field
Crops Res 150:99‒107
Wasaya A, M Tahir,
TA Yasir, S Ul-Allah, M Hussain (2018). Impact of tillage systems and temporal
nitrogen application on soil properties, nitrogen uptake and net returns in
maize. Intl J Agric Biol 20:1953‒1960
Wasaya A, M Tahir, H
Ali, M Hussain, TA Yasir, A Sher, M Ijaz, A Sattar (2017). Influence of varying
tillage systems and nitrogen application on crop allometry, chlorophyll
contents, biomass production and net returns of maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Till Res
170:18‒26
Yin X, TJ Vyn (2004).
Critical leaf potassium concentrations for yield and seed quality of
conservation-till soybean. Soil Sci Soc
Amer J 68:1626‒1634
Yue H, Y Li, C Li, J
Bu, J Wei, A Guo, S Chen, H Peng, J Xie, X Jiang (2018). Grain filling
characteristics of maize hybrids with different maturity periods. Intl J
Agric Biol 20:1650‒1656