Corn Book Research Chapter

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/232252185
In: Corn Crop Production Growth, Fertilization and Yield CORN CROP
PRODUCTION: GROWTH, FERTILIZATION AND YIELD
Chapter · January 2011

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3515.9040
CITATIONS READS
9 12,136
2 authors, including:
Kalidas Subedi
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
42 PUBLICATIONS 1,240 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sustainable Livelihood in Nepal View project
Wheat Sterility Problem in Sub-Tropical Asia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kalidas Subedi on 31 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In: Corn Crop Production Growth, Fertilization and Yield ISBN 978-1-60741-955-6
Editor: Arn T. Danforth © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
CORN CROP PRODUCTION: GROWTH,

FERTILIZATION AND YIELD
K. D. Subedi and B. L. Ma1

Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre (ECORC), Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada (AAFC), Central Experimental Farm, 960 Carling Avenue,
Ottawa, ON, K1A, 0C6, Canada
ABSTRACT
Sustainable production of a corn (Zea mays L.) crop as grain corn for feed, food and
biofuels, as sweet corn for fresh market or processing, and as silage of high energy source,
requires scientific management of nutrients along with several other crop management
practices such as proper plant population density (PPD), timely seeding and harvesting,
soil water, weeds and pests management. This chapter reviews the recent advances on corn
nutrients management in relation to crop development, yield formation, economic
consideration and environmental sustainability of corn production. Corn types,
physiological basis of corn yield, nutrients uptake and partitioning by different types of
corn will be briefly reviewed. Critical timing of nutrients requirements by a corn plant,
factors affecting nutrients uptake, removal and utilization efficiencies are discussed under
different crop rotations, cropping systems, and growing environments. Recent approaches
of determining/predicting corn nutrients requirements such as crop-based indicators, site-
specific nutrients management and variable rates application for the sustainable nutrients
management are discussed along with the conventional soil test and plant tissue test
approaches. Impacts of manures and fertilizers and methods, timing, and rates of their
applications on the crop yield and environment such as nitrate (NO3--N) leaching,
ammonia (NH3) volatilization and greenhouse gas emissions such as nitrous oxide (N2O)
from corn fields are also outlined. The concept, importance and practical approaches of
integrated plant nutrients management (IPNM) for corn production are also discussed.
Finally, the importance of corn residue for biofuel (ethanol) production is discussed in
relation to its impact on soil fertility.
1
Baoluo.Ma@agr.gc.ca or mab@agr.gc.ca. AAFC-ECORC Contribution No. 08-953.
2 K. D. Subedi and B. L. Ma
ABBREVIATIONS
BMP best management practice;
CHU Crop Heat Unit;
DM dry matter;
GDD growing degree days
HI harvest index;
IPNM integrated plant nutrient management;
LAI leaf area index;
LRS leafy reduced-stature;
NDVI normalized difference vegetation index;
NLRS non-leafy reduced stature;
NUE nitrogen use efficiency;
OM organic matter;
PAR photosynthetically active radiation;
PPD plant population density;
PM physiological maturity;
PPNT pre-plant nitrate test
PSNT pre-sidedress nitrate test;
SOC soil organic matter;
SSNP site specific nutrients management;
VRA variable rate application.
1. INTRODUCTION
Corn or maize (Zea mays L.), a crop originated in Mexico from where, it spreads to all
over the world as a major food crop. In the late 15th and the early 16th centuries when the
Europeans came to North and South America, they brought corn back home and spread it
throughout the world during the rest of their conquer (www.Maize.net). Corn is now one of the
most widely grown crops, and it is cultivated from the equator to the approximately 50 ° north
and south, and altitude from sea level to 3000 m above sea level (Morris, 2002). Although corn
is cosmopolitan in nature, it is the major staple food of several countries of Latin America,
Eastern Africa, Central America and South-east Asia including China. In the North America,
corn is grown as a food, feed and industrial crop. In the USA, corn production uses over 25%
of the nations’ cropland and more than 40% of the commercial fertilizer applied (Christensen,
2002). Unlike the other major cereal crops, corn is a C4 grass, efficient in utilizing water,
nutrients and CO2 to produce carbohydrates which are stored in the leaves and stalks and
harvested as grain starch. It is one of the most efficient field crops in producing superior
amount of dry matter (DM) per unit area (Oktem, 2005). Consequently, corn becomes the
major item in the diet of many tropical people, the main grain used for animal feed in
temperate region, as well as new stocks for many other purposes including recently used as
feedstock for biofuels. Rapid expansion of grain based ethanol production in North America
has already caused concern about future food and feed supplies. Crop improvement strategies
Corn Crop Production: Growth, Fertilization and Yield 3
for increased biomass and yield and site-specific nutrient best management practices (BMPs)
should be developed to adapt to the changes and meet the new demands.
Nutrients management is a vast topic which involves cropping systems management, corn
types, BMPs suitable for improved nutrients use efficiency, maintain soil fertility levels for
sustainable production while protecting the environment. Maintenance of soil fertility to a
desired level is the most important production challenge for corn worldwide. Continuous corn
cultivation and declining soil organic matter (SOM) levels are the limiting factors for corn
production, especially in the smallholders in the tropical and subtropical corn production areas.
Efforts have been made to collect information on best management technologies of soil,
manure and fertilizers management on corn crops. In this chapter, acquisition and roles of
essential nutrients on corn development, nutrients requirements, and yield are discussed. Major
corn-based cropping systems, essential nutrients and their deficiencies, diagnostic tools for
nutrients deficiencies, integrated nutrients management approaches, and environmental
impacts of corn nutrients management are discussed.
Since corn is cultivated in a vast area, diverse cropping systems and agro-ecologies from
tropics to cool temperate environments, and from small-holding subsistence farmings to highly
mechanized and precision farmings such as of North America and Europe, it is not possible to
give detailed accounts of specific system in a single chapter. Therefore, attempts have been
made to provide a general overview of nutrients management for sustainable corn production.
This chapter describes the current understanding and advances on nutrients management for
corn production. Corn production practices in relation to its nutrients management are
discussed based on the peer-reviewed journal publications and non-reviewed sources globally.
Efforts have been made to give a global perspective of corn nutrients management, whereas
majority of the published literature are available from the North America. Although, this
chapter deals mainly on the nutrients management aspects of corn production, some of the
terminology and background information such as corn types, growth stages, corn-production
systems, are also briefly discussed.
2. CORN: TYPES, USAGES AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Botanically, corn is a monoceious species, with a male flower (tassel) located at the top of
the stem and female inflorescence (ear) located in the middle of the stem nodes of the same
plant. The spatial arrangement of the flowers facilitates both selfing and crossing (Morris,
2002). At flowering (anthesis), numerous pollens shed from the tassels, which are then trapped
by the receptive stigmas (i.e. the silks). The male inflorescence (tassel) of corn can produce
considerably more pollen grains than are required for pollination of a single plant (Schoper et
al., 1987). Goss (1968) estimated that as many as 2 to 5 million pollen grains are produced by
a typical corn plant. Pollen shed can begin before tassels have completely emerged from the
whorl and can continue over a week or longer (Ritchie et al., 1993).
There are many forms or types of corn, and they are classified based on botanical
description, utilization, growing environments, maturity types and so on. Some of the common
classifications of corn are briefly described below:
2.1. Classification Based on Plant Taxonomy
• Flour corn — Zea mays var. amylacea

• Popcorn — Zea mays var. everta
• Dent corn — Zea mays var. indentata
• Flint corn — Zea mays var. indurata
• Sweet corn — Zea mays var. saccharata and Zea mays var. rugosa
• Waxy corn — Zea mays var. ceratina
2.2. Classification Based on Growing Environments or Adaptation
Although no universally accepted system exists for classifying corn production

environments, the International Maize and Wheat Research Center (CIMMYT), recognizes the
following four Mega Environments for corn production:
• Low land tropical

• Sub-tropical and mid-altitude transition
• Tropical highlands, and
• Temperate
Tropical and sub-tropical corn varieties are adapted to the more tropical environments.
They are characterized by tall plants, large tassels and have substantial capacity to store
photosynthates as simple sugars in the stem at crop maturity (Hay and Gilbert, 2001).
Tropical highlands and temperate varieties are developed such that they have reduced
tassel size with shorter plant height and retain less sugar in the stem at crop maturity.
Temperate varieties are the ones that are adapted to cooler, temperate regions of the world
such as North America and Europe.
2.3. Classification Based on Plant Stature or Leaf Types
Leafy corn: The Leafy corns are those with extra number of leaves above the ear node
(Shaver, 1983). For most temperate corn hybrids (varieties), the mature plant has about 5
leaves above the primary ear node. The gene Lfy causes the plant to have extra number of
leaves above the ear (> 6 and up to 11) compared to normal hybrids of the same maturity.
Leafy hybrids have recently gained popularity as silage corn (Roth, 2003), probably due to
potential longer window for silage harvest and greater silage dry matter (Ma et al., 2006b).
These hybrids have greater total number of leaves and leaf area than their conventional
counterparts (Shaver, 1983; Subedi and Ma, 2005a, 2005b). Because of the heavy foliage and
higher biomass (Andrews et al., 2000; Subedi and Ma, 2004), N nutrition requirement of Leafy
hybrids may be greater than the conventional hybrids.
Erect-leaf corn: Certain phenotypes of corn are developed with more erect leaf orientation
than the conventional corn types. Erect types are believed to be more efficient in canopy light
interception.
Brown mid-rib (BMR) corn: Brown midrib (bmr) plants are characterized by a brown or
reddish-brown pigmentation in the leaf midrib, rind and pith. Such corn contains a gene (bm3)
that results in lower lignin content being produced during the plant development. As a
consequence, BMR silage corn contains fibre that is more digestible than conventional silage
corn (Gehman et al., 2008).
Stay-green (SG) corn: Expression of the stay green (SG) trait has been reported in corn
(Tollenaar and Daynard, 1978; Ma and Dwyer, 1998; Rajcan and Tollenaar, 1999a, 199b).
Such phenotypes exhibit delayed senescence and have higher water and chlorophyll content in
the leaves at maturity than the conventional corn phenotypes. There is a limited understanding
of the physiological processes underlying this trait. Rajcan and Tollenaar (1999b) proposed
that leaf senescence in a recent corn hybrid was delayed because of an improvement in the
ratio of assimilate supply (i.e. source) to assimilate demand (i.e. sink) during kernel filling
period. They also found that total N uptake in aboveground portions were 10 and 18% greater
in the SG hybrid than an older hybrid under low and high soil N conditions, respectively.
Reduced stature (rht) corn: Reduced stature (Rht) corns are genetically modified for
reduced plant height. The total stalk height substantially reduced through reduced internode’s
length. These types may be with leafy or normal leaf numbers.
2.4. Classification Based on Uses
Grain corn: grain corns refer to flour, dent and flint corns that are mainly used for human
consumption, animal feed and industrial uses such as corn flour, starch, ethanol and others.
Pop corn: pop corns have ears with small kernells that pop while roasting. Pop corns are
used as one of the most common snacks.
Sweet corn: sweet corns are planted for fresh market or processing (e.g., canning) uses.
Sweet corn grains contain higher concentration of sugars than other corns. Some varieties of
sweet corn are more sugary which are also called se (sugary enhanced) and supersweet types
depending on the types of genes on them. Sweet corn consumption has increased considerably
worldwide. Fresh consumption of sweet corn is more beneficial compared to other derivatives
of corn due to its soft kernels, thin shells, high concentration of sugar and tastefulness. Dough
made from dry kernels of sweet corn is used for baby food, chips, dough products, pasta and
cakes. Sweet corn can be an excellent source of some minerals.
Baby corn: cobs harvested early, while the ears are very small and immature from the
specialized corn plants. Baby corn ears are usually processed and preserved prior to the
market.
Silage corn: corns that are harvested for fodder or silage before the plant reaches
physiological maturity. Corn silage production is an integral component of many dairy and
beef operations. In Canada, silage hybrids make up approximately 20% of corn acreage with
concentrated production in Ontario and Quebec, supporting the dairy industry (Dwyer et al.,
1998). Principally, any types of corn can be used as silage corn, but certain varieties have more
desirable qualities than others such as Leafy and the brown-midrib (BRM) types are more
silage specific hybrids. Traditionally, grain corn hybrids have been used dual-purposely for
silage production. However, selection criteria such as hard, high density kernels, strong stalks
and rapid kernel dry-down, which favour grain production, may be undesirable for silage
harvest, fermentation and digestibility (Ma et al., 2006b). Silage varieties should have the
characteristics of slow maturing, softer starch kernels, and slow dry-down of stalks and lower
neutral detergent fibre (NDF) with high NDF digestibility (Dwyer et al., 1998).
2.5. Classification Based on Growing Duration (Maturity Classes)
• Early maturing varieties (<110 d)

• Intermediate (medium) duration varieties (110-120 d)
• Late maturing varieties (>120 d).
The rate of development of corn from planting to maturity is dependent mainly on

temperature (accumulated heat), although other factors such as photoperiod (day length),
altitude, and agronomic management practices such as water and nutrition management also
influence maturity to some extent. Therefore, air temperature is used to quantify response to
corn growth. The more realistic estimation of crop maturity would be based on the amount of
heat accumulated by a variety or hybrid. Rating of hybrid corn maturity and zonation of
production areas in North America employ several systems, including Growing Degree Days
(GDD; Wang, 1960), Crop Heat Unit (CHU; Brown and Bootsma, 1993), and Minnesota
Relative Maturity Rating (MRMR; Peterson and Hicks, 1973). The accumulated heat is
calculated according to the following formulae:
(i) Growing Degree Days (GDD; Wang, 1960; Dwyer et al., 1999a):
GDD = ∑ (TA – TB)∆t (1)
where TA is the average of daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) air temperatures, TB is a
base temperature below which development is assumed to cease and is usually set at 10 oC for
corn, and ∆t is a time step in days (Dwyer et al., 1999a). In addition, temperatures below 10 oC
and above 30 oC are assumed to be ineffective for development and Tmax values > 30 oC are set
to 30 oC and Tmin values < 10 oC are set to 10 oC.
(ii) Minnesota Relative Maturity Rating (MRMR) provides the relative ranking of the
number of days corn hybrid requires to reach maturity in relation to the time require
by previously ranked hybrid (Peterson and Hicks, 1979).
(iii) Crop Heat Unit (CHU; Brown and Bootsma, 1993) is similar to GDD, but it considers
that response of development to temperature differs between the day and the night,
therefore, is more commonly used in northern states of USA and Canada. The
maximum or daytime relationship uses 10°C (50°F) as the base temperature and 30°C
(86°F) as the optimum because warm-season crops do not develop at all when daytime
temperatures fall below 10°C, and develop fastest at about 30°C. The minimum or
night time relationship uses 4.4°C (40°F). The CHU is calculated according to eq. [2].
CHU = (Ymin + Ymax)/2 (2)
where,
Ymin = 9/5 (Tmin - 4.4) (3)
and Ymax = 3.33 (Tmax - 10.0) - 0.084(Tmax - 10.0)² (4)
Recently, another index, named General Thermal Index (GTI) was developed (Dwyer et
al., 1999). This system takes into consideration of the temperature functions separately for
vegetative and reproductive phases of corn (Stewart et al., 1998) as
FT(veg) = 0.0432 TA² - 0.000894TA3 (5)
FT(fill) = 5.358 + 0.01128TA² (6)
and GTI is expressed as
(7)
where, FT is the Temperature Response Function fitted to the vegetative (veg; before silking)
or grain filling period (fill; after silking) phase, n is the number of days in a period and ∆t is
time step in days.
3. CORN-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS

Cropping system refers the sequence of crops in a piece of land or farm unit, grown in a
fixed period of time. There are diverse corn-based cropping systems in practice throughout the
world. Describing all systems is beyond the scope of this chapter. Only brief account of the
key corn-based cropping systems are discussed.
3.1. Monoculture
Monoculture refers growing a single crop over growing seasons in the same field. In the
temperate corn production systems such as Northern Corn-Belts of USA and Canada, and
some European Union countries, historically growing sole corn crop is a common practice.
However, corn and soybean (Glycine max L.) in biannual rotation is gaining more popularity.
3.2. Intercropping
In the more tropical or sub-tropical environments, corn is grown in a subsistence label by

the small holders, and mostly under non-irrigated (rainfed) conditions. Corn-based mixed
cropping, such as in the subsistence farming of the Latin America, Asia and Africa where
usually legumes are intercropped (mixed, row or relay intercropping) with corn. Legumes such
as soybean, cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.), field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), mungbean (V.
radiate L.), groundnut (Arachis hypogeae), velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens L.) and others are
intercropped. There are also some cropping systems where corn is intercropped with cereal
crops such as finger millet (Elecusine corocana L.) (Subedi, 2002) or upland rice (Oryza
sativa L.) (Subedi et. al., 1993) or cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.).
3.3. Corn Based Crop-Rotations
Different crop species can be rotated in the same piece of land one after another in the
same year or in different years. The common corn-based rotations in different parts of the
world are as follows:
• Corn followed by a legume crop (e.g. corn-soybean, corn-alfalfa (Mdicago sativa L.).
This is the dominant corn-based cropping rotation in US Corn Belt and Canada.
Christensen (2002) estimated that corn-legume rotation was used on almost 60% of
US corn acreage in 1996.
• Corn-small grain cereal-legume (e.g. corn-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-soybean,
corn-oat (Avena stiva L.)-soybean, corn-rice-lentils (Lens culinaris), etc.
• Corn- small grain cereal- small grain cereal or corn- small grain cereal (annual
system): In the tropical and sub-tropical regions such as parts of India and China,
Nepal and other countries, corn is rotated with other cereals such as wheat and rice in
a rice-wheat-corn or rice-fallow-corn cropping system.
3.4. Based on Water Availability
• Unirrigated or rainfed (most of tropical and sub-tropical) corn production: Where crop
production is totally dependent on the seasonal precipitation.
• Irrigated corn: Where corn production is supplemented with irrigation water. This
system is dominant in the plains states of USA, most of Australia, and in certain areas
of tropical and sub-tropical Asia such as India, China and Thailand.
3.5. Based on Tillage Practices
Tillage systems have a profound effect on soil fertility and nutrients management in corn.
Therefore, a brief account of various tillage systems in corn cultivation is introduced here.
Nutrients management in relation to tillage systems is discussed in the respective sections.
3.5.1. Conventional Tillage

In a conventional tillage system, corn is planted with mouldboard plough or any
conventional land preparation practices including ploughing, harrowing, planking, etc. This
practice was historically dominated in the US Corn Belt, and continues to follow in the
majority of small-holders, subsistence farmers of the tropics and sub-tropics. This system is
labour and/or machinery intensive and prone to extensive soil loss due to erosion. Almost all
of the crop residues are removed from the soil. Even in the highly mechanized crop production
system of USA, still about 30% of the corn acreage is under this system (Christensen, 2002).
3.5.2. Reduced-Tillage
This is a system in which soil disturbance is minimal and leaves at least 15-30% of the soil
surface covered by crop residue at planting. This system excludes the use of mouldboard
plough, and the intensity of tillage is reduced. Weed control is accomplished with herbicides
and/or cultivation. The reduced tillage practices were used on about 30% of corn cultivation in
1996 in USA (Christensen, 2002).
3.5.3. Conservation Tillage

Conservation tillage (CT) refers to any system that uses some tillage, but less than the
conventional techniques of seedbed preparation. Any tillage system that maintains at least 30%
of the soil surface covered by crop residue after planting is considered as conservation tillage.
Conservation cultivation is considered as one of the most successful agricultural inventions in
terms of soil management. In the USA, conservation tillage practices were estimated to be in
32% of the land in corn production in 1996, and there is a higher percentage of no-till/ridge-
till conservation tillage with the irrigated corn production system (Christensen, 2002).
Generally, the advantages of CT system are to conserve soil and moisture, reduce the costs
of fuel, machinery, and labour (Halvorson et al., 2006). No-till seedbed conditions pose
challenges for nutrient retention, fertilizer amendments, application methods and timing of
operations. There are also some disadvantages of NT system. In some situations, mulches
(crop residues) under the conservation tillage system acts as an insulating layer over the soil
surface, which can contribute to lower soil temperatures in the upper soil profile (Wolfe and
Eckert, 1999; Niehues et al., 2004) and shelter for insects. The decreased soil temperature
thereby lowers early season soil NO3--N released from organic matter mineralization (Andraski
and Bundy, 2008), may lead to the increased N-immobilization and denitrification (Fox and
Bandel, 1986). Reduced plant population densities, slow early growth and delayed tasselling
(Halvorson et al., 2006), and reduced grain yield (Dwyer et al., 1995b) has also been reported
as a result of cooler spring soil temperatures in the NT systems. The following two CT are
more common in practice:
No-till (NT) is defined as planting crops in unprepared soil with at least 30% mulch cover
(Triplett and Dick, 2008). In most no-till systems, no land preparation or cultivation is done
during production. The soil is left undisturbed so as to minimize the disturbance and to
maximize retention of crop residue on the surface. Seeds are planted in narrow seedbeds by
coulters or disk opener or row chisels. Normally, fertilizer or granular soil insecticides are
applied at the time of planting. Knockdown herbicides are generally applied before planting.
With better planters, herbicides and accumulated experiences, NT has gradually become a
more adopted practice in USA, Canada, and Australia since 1980. Basic idea of no-till planting
is that the crop residue will provide benefits, including (1) conserving moisture; (2) reducing
runoff and erosion; (3) increased sequestration of soil organic carbon (SOC), and (4) reducing
weeds pressure through shading out. Higher level of SOC and soil organic N can be attained
by increasing cropping intensity under no-till management (Ortega et al., 2002).
Ridge-tillage is where soil is undisturbed from harvest to planting except for nutrients and
seeds injection. Seeds are planted on seedbeds prepared on ridges with sweeps, disc openers or
row cleaners.
Tillage systems have a significant effect on SOM. For example, after 8 years of no-till,
chisel plough and mouldboard plough, the chisel plough and mouldboard ploughs had less
total organic C than no-till plots in the 0-5 cm depth (Hussain et al., 1999). In the fine-textured
clay soils, no-till system often resulted in 15% or more reduction in dry matter and grain yields
of corn than the conventional mouldboard plough system in the cool and humid northeastern
Canada (Dwyer et al., 1995b).
4. CORN GROWTH AND PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF YIELD

4.1. Growth Stages of Corn
Corn plant undergoes different distinct developmental stages to complete its life cycle.
Although various scales of growth measurement are used, the most practical and commonly
used scale is the one developed by Ritchie et al. (1993). It describes corn growth in two
distinct growth phases, i.e. “Vegetative” and “Reproductive”. Within each phase, different
growth stages are designated with different scales (Table 1).
Table 1. Vegetative and reproductive stages of a corn plant (Ritchie et al., 1993)
Growth stage Morphological characterization

Vegetative Stages
VE Seedling emergence
V1 First leaf unfolded and fully expanded
V2 Second leaf unfolded and fully expanded
V3 Third leaf eaf unfolded and fully expanded
V(n) nth leaf eaf unfolded and fully expanded
VT Tasseling
Reproductive Stages
R1 Silking
R2 Blister
R3 Milk
R4 Dough
R5 Dent
R6 Physiological maturity
4.2. Yield Components and Yield Determinants
Yield of any crop refers to the total amount of the part of a crop harvested on a given area
of land for economic uses. In corn, yield may refer to grain yield (grain corn), fodder yield
(forage or silage crop), marketable cob yield (sweet corn) and cobs weight (baby corn) and so
on. Yield components are the portions, each of which affects the yield as a whole. Yield
components in corn can be as follows:
a) Grain corn:
Grain yield (Mg ha-1) = Plants or ears ha-1 x grains ear-1 x mean grain weight (8)
Grain yield is usually expressed on a 155 g kg-1 water basis.
b) Silage corn:
Silage yield (Mg dry matter ha-1) = Plants ha-1 x weight of individual plant (9)
Silage corn is usually harvested when the whole plant moisture is within the range of 62 to
70%. Silage yield is often reported on a 650 g kg-1 water basis.
c) Sweet corn yield is usually reported as the number or weight of marketable ears per
ha, which is the product of number of plants per unit area by the number of marketable
ears per plant. Marketable ears refer to those ears with over 80% filled kernels and a
minimum length of 12 cm (Ma et al., 2007).
Clearly, plant population density (PPD; the number of plants per unit area) is the key
determinant of yield for all types of corn. Plant population density ultimately affects yield
through altering all the yield components. At high PPD, ear and kernel abortion occur because
of interplant competition for assimilates during the flowering period (Tollenaar, 1977), which
reduces the size of ear and ultimately the number of grains per ear and the size of individual
kernels. Andrade et al. (1999) suggested that PPD has also an important effect on partitioning
of dry matter (DM) between vegetative and reproductive sinks, and kernel set responded to the
amounts of resources available for each individual plant. Grain yield per unit area increases
with PPD until the increase in yield attributable to plants is not greater than the decline in
mean yield per plant (Tollenaar and Wu, 1999). At supra-optimal PPD, the number of grains
per ear, mean grain weight and cob-length were reduced (Bavec and Bavec, 2002). High PPD
coupled with low N supply often leads to high rates of kernel abortions and results in more
barren plants (Subedi et al., 2006). On the other hand, lower than optimum PPD delays the
time of canopy closure and thus reduces the interception of seasonal incident solar radiation
(Westgate et al., 1997), leading to larger number of grains per plant, but lower grain yield per
unit area (Andrade et al., 1999; Subedi and Ma, 2009). The PPD affects the post-flowering
source-sink ratio through its effects on plant leaf area, the amount of light intercepted per plant
and kernel number per plant (Borrás et al., 2003). Generally, higher PPD would enable the
crop to capture more PAR initially, but crowding increases after canopy closure.
The number of grains (or often refer to kernels) per ear is another important component for
grain corn. In corn, grain yield is correlated with kernel number, but uncertainty exists about
the extension of the critical period of kernel set (Otegui and Bonhommer, 1998). Kernel
number is closely related to intercept photosynthetically active radiation (IPAR) during the
critical period. Pre-silking environment appears to define the potential number of kernels that
will be set as well as sub apical fertility, but the effectively fixed kernel number is dependent
upon post-silking conditions and hybrid characteristics. Pearson and Jacob (1987) observed no
evidence that shoot size per se controlled grain number or rate of grain growth; rather fertilizer
management during spikelet differentiation had most effect on yield. Number of kernels per
unit area is the most critical determinant of corn grain yield (Ritchie et al., 1988). Stresses that
enlarge anthesis-silking-interval beyond 5 d reduced grain yield per ear drastically (Ellings et
al., 1998). Monneveux et al. (2005) also observed that in tropical corn, grain yield was
negatively correlated with kernel abortion rate under low N stress.
Plant nutrition has also a significant effect on yield components. Grain yield was affected
by both N supplied before and after anthesis. For example, soil and foliar applied N around
silking can increase grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency by up to 15% (Ma et al., 2004).
The concentration of grain N remained declined rapidly during the first 20 d of grain filling
and remained constant thereafter (Ma et al., 2001). Subedi et al. (2006) observed that under
high PPD (90, 000 plants ha-1), as high as 15% of the plants were barren (plants without fully
developed ears), especially when the supply of N was limited. The effect of N stress on kernel
number occurs through its indirect effect on photosynthesis, silking dates and anthesis-silking-
interval (Singh and Wilkens, 2002).
4.3. Dry Matter Production and Partitioning
Corn is a C4 grass, which means, during the process of CO2 assimilation, the first stable
product of carbon reduction is a 4-C molecule. On a leaf surface and per unit time basis, C4
plants are more efficient in utilizing water, nutrients and CO2 to produce photoassimilates than
C3 plants such as wheat, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.). Unlike the
most small grain cereals, in which grain yield improvement during the past 60 years was
associated with the better partitioning of photoassimilates into the grains, resulting in the
significant improvement in harvest index (HI), corn yield improvement is attributable to its
general improvement in tolerance to abiotic (crowding, lodging, extreme temperatures, water,
nutrients, etc.) and biotic (insects, diseases, weeds) stresses (Tollenaar and Wu, 1999).
Partitioning of total biomass to the harvestable grains in tropical (Hay and Gilbert, 2001) and
temperate (Tollenaar and Wu, 1999) corn hybrids (varieties) has largely unchanged.
Harvest index refers to the proportion a crop that is of economic use. The HI in grain corn
is calculated as:
Grain yield
HI = x 100 (10)
Total biomass ( grain + stover )
Harvest Index is used as an indicator of the efficacy with which assimilates are partitioned
into the economically useful component of the crop. Generally, HI for corn without severe
stress ranges from 0.48 to 0.52, i.e. at maturity, around 50% of plant dry matter is partitioned
into kernels.
5. CORN NUTRITION
5.1. Essential Plant Nutrients
Higher plants require at least 17 nutrient elements for their growth and completion of life
cycle. These elements are also called essential nutrients. Arnon and Stout (1939) first proposed
the term. For an element to be considered as an essential, it must meet the following three
criteria:
(i) The plant cannot complete its life cycle in the absence of this element,
(ii) The function of an essential element cannot be replaced or compensated by another
element, and
(iii) The element is directly involved in the plants’ growth and reproduction.
5.2. Classification of Essential Plant Nutrients
The essential nutrients of higher plants, their sources and typical concentrations in plant
tissues are summarized in Table 2. Carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) are considered
as non-mineral elements and are derived from air and water (Jones and Jacobson, 2005a). The
remaining 13 nutrients are classified either as macronutrients and micronutrients based on
their relative amounts of requirements by the plants. Within the macronutrients, nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are considered as “Primary Nutrients” while calcium (Ca),
magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S) are called as “Secondary Nutrients”. The micronutrients
include boron (B), chlorine (Cl), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (MO),
and zinc (Zn). Nickel (Ni) is recently included among the micronutrients.
Table 2. Essential plant nutrients, their source, roles in the plant,

and typical concentrations in plant tissues
Element Origin Ionic forms absorbed by Role in plant Typical concentration

plants on dry tissue
Backbone of all organic matter;
Carbon (C) Air
necessary for photosynthesis
Important for osmotic balance,
Hydrogen (H) Water biochemical reactions and
constituent of carbohydrate
Constitution of carbohydrate,
Oxygen (O) Air/ Water
necessary for respiration
NO3- Constituent of proteins, chlorophyll 1.0-5.0%
Nitrogen (N) Air /soil
NH4+ and nucleic acids
Constituent of coenzymes, nucleic 0.1-0.5%
acids (DNA) and metabolic
substrates; storage of energy (ATP)
H2PO4-
Phosphorus (P) Soil and important in energy transfer;
HPO4-2
transportation of nutrients across
the cell wall and synthesis of
nucleic acid and proteins
Table 2. (Continued)
Element Origin Ionic forms absorbed by Role in plant Typical concentration

plants on dry tissue
Involved with photosynthesis, 0.5-0.8%
+ carbohydrate translocation, protein
Potassium (K) Soil K
synthesis, disease resistance and
drought tolerance
A component of cell walls; plays a 0.2-1.0%
Calcium (Ca) Soil Ca+2 role in the structure and
permeability of membranes
Component of chlorophyll 0.1-0.4%
Magnesium +2 molecule, acts as an enzyme
Soil Mg
(Mg) activator, involves in carbohydrate
metabolism
Important component of plant 0.1-0.4%
Sulphur (S) Soil SO4-2 proteins (amino acid synthesis) and
chlorophyll
Important in sugar translocation, 6-60 mg kg-1
H3BO3
Boron (B) Soil carbohydrate metabolism, N and P
H2BO3-
metabolism, pollination
Cl- Involves with oxygen production in 0.1-1.0%
Chlorine (Cl) Soil photosynthesis, water use, disease
control
A catalyst for respiration; a 2-20 mg kg-1
component of various enzymes,
Copper (Cu) Soil Cu+2
protein synthesis and chlorophyll
formation, N metabolism
Involves with chlorophyll synthesis 50-250 mg kg-1
+2 +3
Iron (Fe) Soil Fe , Fe and in enzymes for electron
transfer
Controls several oxidation- 20-200 mg kg-1
+2 reduction systems, essential for
Manganese (Mn) Soil Mn
chlorophyll manufacturing and thus
photosynthesis
Molybdenum MoO4-2 Involves with N fixation, protein 0.05-0.2 mg kg-1
Soil
(Mo) synthesis, N metabolism
Involves with enzyme systems that 25-150 mg kg-1
regulate various metabolic
Zinc (Zn) Soil Zn+2
activities, including protein
synthesis and root development
Adapted from Dr. C.E. Swift (1993). Colorado State University, Extension, Tri River Area Agent
(Horticulture); W.F. Bennett (editor). Nutrient Deficiencies and Toxicities in Crop Plants, APS
Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.
All essential nutrients move from roots to the other parts of the plant, but they differ in
their pattern such that some nutrients move or are translocated from the older leaves to the
newer leaves when the supply of these nutrients to the growth point is limited. This
phenomenon is also referred as “mobility” of nutrients. Based on the mobility of nutrient
elements within the plant, plant nutrients are classified as mobile and immobile as presented in
Table 3.
Table 3. Mobility of essential plant nutrients within the plant
Mobile Nutrients Immobile Nutrients

Nitrogen Boron
Phosphorus Calcium
Potassium Copper
Magnesium Iron
Molybdenum Sulphur
Chlorine Zinc
Manganese
Within the mobile category, nutrients also vary greatly. For example, nitrate (NO3-) is
more mobile than phosphate (HPO4). The general rule is that deficiency symptoms are first
shown in the lower (older) leaves for the mobile nutrients whereas shortage of immobile
nutrients shows first symptom in the new leaves or terminal growth. In the soil system,
nutrients are also mobile such as NO3- is highly mobile while NH4+ is less mobile. Mobile
nutrient forms in the soil are easier to be taken up by the plant than non-mobile forms.
5.3. Deficiency Symptoms of the Essential Plant Nutrients
All essential nutrients have their specific and unique roles in plant growth. Although the
deficiency symptoms of some of the nutrients are identical in certain ways, they can be
distinguished each other. The typical deficiency symptoms on plant and soil-water system that
favors the deficiency are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Typical deficiency symptoms of various plant nutrients and favourable

conditions that enhance deficiency of different plant nutrients in corn
Nutrient Deficiency symptoms Favourable conditions

V-shaped yellow coloration from the margins in Low supply of N fertilizers
new leaves. Yellowing progresses from the Low mineralization in soil
Nitrogen (N) lower to the upper leaves and plants appear pale Water logging
green to yellow. Leaching of NO3--N and
N loss in gaseous forms (NH3 or N2O)
Purple margins or entire leaves especially Low test-P containing soils

during the seedling stage. Low fertilizer-P applied
Cooler and wetter weather during planting which
Phosphorus (P)
reduces the mobility of P and its uptake by the
plant
Low soil pH
Yellowing to brown (necrosis) of the outer leaf Low test- K containing soils
margins. These symptoms begin at the leaf tip Under applied fertilizer K
and progress down the margin toward the leaf Cooler and wetter environments may induce K-
Potassium (K)
base. Plants become weak and may lodge. deficiency
Soil compaction
Excess N supply can also lower K availability
Failure of the leaf tips to separate from the Low Ca-containing soils
Calcium (Ca) whorl. This is often called "laddering". Calcium is often limited in acidic soils that
receive abundant rainfall to leach Ca
Table 4. (Continued)
Nutrient Deficiency symptoms Favourable conditions

Leaves have light green to yellow strips that run More common in acidic and sandy soils that are
Magnesium parallel with the blade. Chlorotic leaves prone to leaching
(Mg) generally turn reddish and develop spotted Mock or organic soils
necrotic areas. Cool, wet soils
Yellowing of the younger leaves of the corn Sulphur is a mobile nutrient and is water soluble,
plant. Sulphur deficiency symptoms show up as high rainfall during corn planting can cause more
interveinal chlorosis of the leaves emerging S leaching.
Sulphur (S) from the whorl. As the plant ages and the Poor root development of corn
deficiency become more pronounced, the entire Low soil OM or reduced mineralization of
leaf turns yellow with slightly greener veins. organic-S in the no-till systems.
Generally S-deficient plants are stunted.
Severe B deficiency results in small, misshapen Sandy soil, leached soils and calcareous soils are
cobs or do not produce ears or ears with deficient in B
Boron (B) missing kernels (barren cobs). Under extreme B Soils low in OM are deficient in B
deficiency, the leaves also may have small
white dead spots and be curled and brittle.
Wilting and restricted, highly branched root Chlorine deficiencies can occur on sandy soils in
Chlorine (Cl) systems are the main chloride-deficiency high rainfall areas or those derived from low-
symptoms. chloride parent materials.
Yellowing of leaves, stunted growth and pale Copper deficiencies are mainly reported on peat
green leaves that wither easily. (muck) soils, sandy soils which are low in OM.
Copper (Cu) Copper uptake decreases as soil pH increases.
Increased P and Fe availability in soils decreases
copper uptake by plants.
Leaf yellowing first appears on the younger Iron deficiencies are found mainly on high pH
upper leaves in interveinal tissues due to low soils, sandy soils low in OM.
levels of chlorophyll. Severe Fe deficiencies Cool, wet weather enhances iron deficiencies,
cause leaves to turn completely yellow or especially on soils with marginal levels of
Iron (Fe) almost white interveinal chlorosis and then available Fe.
brown as leaves die. Poorly aerated or compacted soils also reduce iron
uptake by plants.
Uptake of Fe is also adversely affected by high
levels of available P, Mn and Zn in soils.
Inter-veinal chlorosis with white/grey spots of Manganese deficiencies mainly occur on organic
the upper, new leaves of corn, resulting in soils, high-pH soils, sandy soils low in OM, and
Manganese
premature leaf drop. Delayed maturity is on over-limed soils. Soil Mn may be less available
(Mn)
another deficiency symptom and is also a sign in dry, well-aerated soils.
of manganese deficiency.
Pale - green to yellow leaves and marginal Mo deficiency occurs under acidic conditions,
Molybdenum
chlorosis along side and tip of blade and thick sandy soils and soils low in OM.
(Mo)
cupped leaves.
Zinc deficiency is the most widely occurring Soils deficient in Zn
among the micronutrients. Zinc deficiency Calcareous soils with pH >7.5
symptoms begin at the leaf base of the upper
leaves and expand toward the leaf tip as
Zinc (Zn)
interveinal chlorosis or a band of chlorotic
tissue between the leaf edge and the midrib.
Zinc deficient plants also exhibit delayed
maturity.
Sources: Jones and Jacobson (2005a)
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2000/6-26-2000/kdef.html
Http://plantsci.sdstate.edu/woodardha/soilfert/Nutrient_Deficiency_Pages/CornD.html
http://agri.atu.edu/people/Hodgson/FieldCrops/Mirror/Nutrient%20Def.htm
http://www.ecochem.com/t_micronutrients.html
5.4. Nutrients Composition in Corn Plants
Generally, typical values of nutrient composition are given based on repeated observations
and from unstressed plants. The typical nutrient concentrations in different parts of a matured
corn plant are presented in Table 5. Composition of essential nutrients in any plant depends on
growing conditions such as amount of nutrients supplied in the growing medium/soil, growing
environments (unstressed crop), crop type, variety, growth stage and several other factors.
Therefore, typical concentration is a vague definition and cautions should always be taken to
interpret such data. For example, chemical constituent of corn plant was dependent on amount
of nutrients supplied and frequency of irrigation (Ibrahim and Kandil, 2007).
Table 5. Dry matter and nutrient composition by corn plant part at maturity
(after Hanway, 1962)
Component Dry Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

% of total %N % P2O5 % K2O
Grain 48 1.44 0.69 0.50
Stalks 22 0.43 0.14 0.90
Leaves 10.6 1.80 0.69 2.05
Sheaths 5.3 0.64 0.37 1.74
Husks 4.3 0.36 0.21 1.32
Shanks 1.5 0.50 0.18 1.68
Cobs 7.5 0.33 0.11 0.62
Tassels 0.5 0.97 0.50 1.70
Lower ears 0.5 2.04 0.87 3.00
Silks 0.2 3.50 0.87 2.57
Total 100 - - -
The concentrations reported above are not universal. The tissue nutrients composition
varies with the supply of nutrients (soil plus applied nutrients), genotypic ability to take up and
partition nutrients to different components, growing environment of the crop (water supply,
stress-free growing period, etc.) and stage of the crop at harvest. For example, tropical corn
varieties are reported to contain 1.46% N, 0.33% P, and 0.39% K in the grain (Feil et al.,
2005).
5.5. Sources of Essential Plant Nutrients
Plant nutrients that are to be supplemented for plant growth (i.e. in addition to from soil
and water systems) are available in many forms and through different sources. Broadly, the
nutrients for corn are supplied through two major sources:
(i) Organic form: Organic sources are those originated from living organisms after their
decomposition. These include crop residues, green manures, biologically fixed N,
farm yard manures (FYM), liquid or solid compost or uncomposted animal manures,
processing waste, municipal waste, etc.
(ii) Inorganic form: Plant nutrients (macro and micro) and soil amendments (e.g. dolomite
lime) are supplied in artificially manufactured chemical medium called fertilizers and
supplements.
The typical nutrient concentrations in various organic sources are presented in Tables 6, 7
and 8, and macronutrient fertilizers and micronutrient supplements are summarized in Tables 9
and 10.
Table 6. Nutrient content of organic materials
Percentage by Weight
Organic Material
N P2O5 K2O Ca Mg S Cl
Blood (dried) 12 to 15 3.0 — 0.3 — — 0.6
Bone meal (raw) 3.5 22.0 — 22.0 0.6 0.2 0.2
Bone meal (steamed) 2.0 28.0 0.2 23.0 0.3 0.1 —
Cotton waste from factory 1.3 0.4 0.4 — — — —
Cottonseed meal 6 to 7 2.5 1.5 0.4 0.9 0.2 —
Cowpea forage (green manure) 0.4 0.1 0.4
Hay
Legume 3.0 1.0 2.4 1.2 0.2 0.3 —
Grass 1.5 0.5 1.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 —
Peanut hull meal 1.2 0.5 0.8 — — — —
Peanut meal 7.2 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1
Peat/muck 2.7 — — 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.1
Pine needles 0.5 0.1 — — — — —
Poultry processing: DAF sludge 8.0 1.8 0.3 — — — —
Sawdust 0.2 — 0.2 — — — —
Seaweed (dried) 0.7 0.8 5.0 — — — —
Sewage sludge (municipal) 2.6 3.7 0.2 1.3 0.2 — —
Soybean meal 7.0 1.2 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 —
Adapted from Zublena et al. (1991).
Table 7 Average nutrient contents of livestock manures. Data from manure samples collected between 1992 and 2004
and analyzed by different Ontario Labs
Manure Type Dry Total N NH4+-N P K (%) Ca Mg Zn (mg kg-1) Cu (mg kg-1) Mn (mg kg-1)
(number of samples) Matter (%) (mg kg-1) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
Dairy liquid (860) 8.5 0.36 1,527 0.09 0.24 0.49 0.14 48 17 40
solid (150) 24.2 0.61 1,278 0.17 0.50 1.54 0.36 95 29 107
Swine liquid (924) 3.8 0.40 2,648 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.06 85 30 22
solid (54) 29.8 0.90 2,582 0.47 0.56 -- --- 172 103 --
Poultry liquid (137) 10.6 0.83 5,581 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.08 70 11 64
solid (623) 52.6 2.37 5,495 1.11 1.17 4.6 0.28 238 33 204
Beef liquid (81) 7.95 0.52 1,794 0.13 0.43 0.7 0.3 57 14 61
solid (176) 28.6 0.73 1,011 0.23 0.57 1.5 0.41 129 36 112
Sheep solid (54) 31.3 0.76 1,862 0.27 0.70 1.5 0.38 170 20 140
Horse solid (32) 33.41 0.42 684 0.13 0.36 1.7 0.56 73 23 113
Source (Brown, 2005).
These concentrations are typical nutrient ranges found in the highly nutritive animal
feeding systems. The nutrient concentration depends on protein content in the feed stuff, types
of animal, age of animal, manure management system (liquid versus stock piled, open versus
shaded piles and liquid versus solid and so on). This table gives a general guideline, but more
accurate data are required from determinations by chemical analysis locally and frequently.
The actual concentrations of nutrients in the small-scale subsistence farming vary greatly. For
example, Lupwayi et al. (2000) reported in highland Ethiopia, that manure samples taken from
experimental stations contain more N, P, K, Mg, Cu and Zn than those from smallholder
farms, probably due to differences in feed availability and quality. Stored manures usually
contain slightly higher N concentration than the same of fresh manures, probably because of
loss of some carbon.
Table 8. Nutrients concentration (g kg-1 dry weight basis) of cattle manure collected
from small-scale farms and experimental stations in Ethiopian highlands
Nutrient Range Mean± SD

Nitrogen (N) 11.7-27.4 18.3±4.6
Phosphorus (P) 2.2-7.0 4.5±1.5
Potassium (K) 10.6-54.4 21.3±11.2
Calcium (Ca) 10.1-24.6 16.4±3.9
Magnesium (Mg) 3.2-12.4 5.6±2.3
Iron (Fe) 3.7-22.4 10.8±0.5
Manganese (Mn) 0.27-1.90 0.78±0.39
Copper (Cu) 0.008-0.086 0.024±0.015
Zinc (Zn) 0.049-0.0217 0.092±0.036
Adapted from Lupwayi et al. (2000).
Table 9. Common chemical fertilizers and their nutrients composition
Nutrients concentration (% by weight)

Material Chemical formula
N P2 0 5 K20 Ca Mg S
Ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 30-33 0 0 0 0 0

Ammonium nitrate sulphate NH4NO3+(NH4)2SO4 26 0 0 0 0 15
(NH4)2SO4
Ammonium sulphate 21 0 0 0.3 0 24
Ammonium thiosulfate (NH4)2S2O3 12 0 0 0 0 26
NH3
Anhydrous ammonia 82 0 0 0 0 0
Aqua ammonia NH4OH 16 -25 0 0 0 0 0
.
Ca(NO3)2 4H2O
Calcium nitrate 15 0 0 19 1.5 —
Calcium nitrate/urea Ca(NO3)2+4CO(NH2)2

34 0 0 10 0 0
Potassium nitrate KNO3

13 0 44 0.6 0.4 0.2
Urea CO(NH2)2
46 0 0 0 0 0
Nutrients concentration (% by weight)

Material Chemical formula
N P2 0 5 K20 Ca Mg S
Urea (sulphur coated) CO(NH2)2+S
36 -38 0 0 0 0 13-16
Urea sulphate CO(NH2)2.H2SO4 17 — — — — 20
(NH4)2HPO4
Diammonium phosphate (DAP) 18 46 0 0 0 0
Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) NH4H2PO4

11 48 0.2 1 0.3 2.2
.
Ammonium phosphate nitrate NH4H2PO4 NH4NO3
27 15 0 0 0 0
Ammonium phosphate sulphate 4NH4H2PO4+(NH4)2SO4

13-16 20-39 0.2 0.3 0.1 15
Ammonium polyphosphate (APP) (NH4)3HP2O7

10 34 0 0 0 0
. .
Basic slag 5CaO P2O5 SiO2 0 2-17 0 3 -3 3 —
.
Concentrated superphosphate Ca(H2PO4)2 H2O
0 42-50 0.4 14 0.3 1.4
Ordinary superphosphate Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O+CaSO4 0 18-20 0.2 20 0.2 12
Nitric phosphate
14-22 10-22 0 8-10 0.1 0.3
Phosphate rock 0 2-35 0 — — 0
Urea ammonium phosphate (UAP) CO(NH2)2.NH4H2PO4

25 35 0 0 0 0
Potassium chloride KCI
(Muriate of potash) 0 0 60-62 0.1 0.1 0
Potassium nitrate KNO3

13 0 44 0.6 0.4 0.2
Potassium sulphate K2SO4

0 0 50 0.7 1 18
Calcium chloride CaCl2

0 0 0 36 0 0
Calcitic limestone CaCO3

0 0 0.3 32 3 0.1
Dolomitic limeston CaCO3+MgCO3

0 0 0 21-30 6-12 0.3
.
Gypsum CaSO4 2H2O
0 0 0.5 22 0.4 17
Hydrated lime (Slaked lime) Ca(OH)2

0 0 0 50 0 0
Magnesium oxide (Magnesia) MgO

0 0 0 0 45 0
.
Magnesium sulfate MgSO4 7H2O
0 0 0 2 10 14
Ammonium sulphate (NH4)2SO4

21 0 0 0.3 0 24
Elemental sulphur/ Wettable S S

0 0 0 0 0 90-100
Elemental sulphur (S): Flowable S S

0 0 0 0 0 52-70
Compiled from Zublena et al. (1991).
Table 10 . Types and the approximate nutrient concentrations of different micronutrients
Nutrient Material Chemical Formula Concentration (%)
Boron (B) Borax (sodium tetraborate 11

decahydrate) Na2B4O7.10H2O
Boric acid 17
H3BO3
Clorine (Cl) Ammonium chloride 66
NH4Cl
Calcium chloride 74
CaCl2
Magnesium chloride 65
MgCl2
Potassium chloride 47
KCl
Sodium chloride 60
NaCl
Copper (Cu) Copper chelates 13
(Cu EDTA)
Copper sulfate CuSO4.H2O 35
Cupric ammonium phosphate Cu(NH4)PO4.H2O 32
Iron (Fe) Ferric sulphate 20

Fe2(SO4)3.9H2O
Ferrous ammonium phosphate 29

Fe(NH4)PO4.H2O
Ferrous ammonium sulphate 14

(NH4)2SO4.FeSO4.6H2O
Ferrous oxalate 30
FeC2O4.2H2O
Ferrous sulphate 20
FeSO4.7H2O
Iron chelates (Fe EDTA) 9 to 12
Manganese Manganese ammonium phosphate 28
Mn(NH4)PO4.6H2O
(Mn)
Manganese chelate 12
Mn EDTA
Manganese sulphate 24
MnSO4.3H2O
Manganous oxide 41 to 68
MnO
Molybdenum Sodium molybdate 38 to 46
Na2MoO4.2H2O
(Mo)
Ammonium molybdat (NH4)6Mo7O24.4H2O up to 54
Zinc (Zn) Zinc chelate Na2Zn EDTA 9 to 14
Zinc oxide 78 to 80
ZnO
Zinc sulphate ZnSO4.H2O 22 to 36

Compiled from Zublena et al. (1991).
5.6. NUTRIENTS UPTAKE AND PARTITIONING BY CORN PLANT

Nutrient uptake by a crop refers to the total amount of the nutrient as a fraction of the plant
DM at harvest. The amount of nutrients removed by a corn plant at harvest depends on the
availability of the nutrients in the soil, soil moisture, corn hybrids, and growing conditions that
determine the crop growth rate. Table 11 shows the typical nutrient concentrations found in a
corn crop producing 18.7 Mg ha-1 DM. These values give a general idea but the actual
concentrations vary considerably with different growing conditions, varieties and nutrients
supplying capacity of the soils.
Table 11. Typical concentrations of 13 essential plant nutrients in a corn crop yielding
18.7 Mg ha-1 dry matter yield
Primary Nutrients Content Micro-nutrient Content

kg ha-1 kg ha-1
Nitrogen (N) 240 Chlorine (Cl) 110
Phosphorus (P) 44 Iron (Fe) 3
Potassium (K) 200 Manganese (Mn) 0.6
Secondary Nutrients Zinc (Zn) 0.6
Sulphur (S) 34 Copper (Cu) 0.2
Calcium (Ca) 45 Boron (B) 0.1
Magnesium (Mg) 56 Molybdenum (Mo) >0.1
Adapted from Johnston and Dowbenko (2004).
One should not be confused with the “nutrients uptake” with “nutrients removal”. The
nutrient removal is the amount of nutrients that are removed in the harvested portions of the
crop such as grain, silage or forage (Ma et al., 2006a). In the case of corn, generally grain
(about 50% DM and 60 to 70% N) is harvested while 50% DM and about 30% N in the residue
DM (leaves, stalk, cobs etc.) are left on the same field if only grains are harvested. Therefore,
at least 1/3 of the total N and other nutrients in much higher proportions are remained and
recycled in the same field. In the small holder subsistence farming systems, corn residues are
often considered value for livestock feed, or as materials for heating, fencing and staking etc.,
corn stovers are partially or entirely removed from the corn-fields, leading to the land
vulnerable to erosion and much less nutrients available for the following crops. In such
systems, replenishment of plant nutrients is difficult to achieve and there is always a negative
balance of SOM and nutrients unless large amounts of manure and fertilizers are added each
year.
To determine if a nutrient element is critical for plant development and yield formation,
the concept of critical nutrient concentration is often referred. For example, the concept of
critical N concentration (Ncrit) assumes at any time a minimum shoot N concentration
necessary for maximum biomass production (Herrmann and Taube, 2005). A quadratic-plateau
model is used to derive Ncrit values. The relationship of Ncrit (g N kg-1 DM) and biomass
production is described by a mononomial function: W (Mg DM ha-1): Ncrit=34.12 x W-0.391.
Uptake rates of N, P and K nutrients can often be expressed as a linear relationship between
nutrients uptake rate and transpiration rate of corn canopy (Novak and Vidovic, 2003).
6. DETERMINATION OF NUTRIENTS REQUIREMENT BY CORN

Nutrients required by a corn crop can be determined in a variety of ways. Some of the
methods are quantitative while others give subjective judgement of whether the crop is
deficient in particular nutrient(s). The common methods in practice to determine or assess the
nutrients requirement of corn crops are as follows:
6.1. Visual Observation
Corn plants deficient on a particular nutrient can be detected visually based on the
symptom they develop (See Table 2). This is a simple and inexpensive method but needs skills
of detection and knowledge of crop growth environment. Sometimes symptoms of more than
one nutrient can be confusion. For example, the deficiency symptoms of N and Mg are similar
unless they are carefully diagnosed. Colour pictures of deficiency symptoms are helpful for
such detections. The disadvantage of this approach is that (i) normally it will be already too
late to follow corrective actions, and (ii) this approach does not quantify how much nutrients
are to be added if application is needed for correction.
6.2. Soil –Based Indicators
Soil analysis to determine the nutrient availability in the soil is one of the most common
methods for determining nutrients requirement in any crop. This is a traditional method;
although newer methods and approaches are being developed for the determination of nutrient
status and for recommendations of the optimum fertilizer rates. Soil tests both pre-season and
pre-sidedress can help farmers to predict optimum fertilizer rates (Binford and Peterson, 1998;
Ma and Wu, 2008). Soil test methods require considerable time, efforts and cost for sampling,
processing and analysis (Bausch and Duke, 1996).
6.2.1. Pre-Plant Soil Test (PPNT)

This test quantifies the amount of soil residual NO3-- and NH4+-N concentrations (PPNT
soil test) and other nutrients such as P and K present in the crop rooting zone so that farmers
can adjust their fertilizer rates accordingly. Soil samples are collected before planting in
spring, generally from a soil depth of up to 60 cm and concentrations of available N (NO3--
and NH4+-N), P, K and any other nutrients of interest are determined in a chemical laboratory.
Fertilizers are recommended based on the concentrations of soil available nutrients. In the
humid environments, such as northeastern USA and Canada, response of corn grain yields to N
amendments is often poorly correlated with soil mineral N at pre-plant or pre-sidedress,
because they do not address the spatial and temporal variability of soil N (Ma and Dwyer,
1999). Similarly, Stevens et al. (2005) concluded that the PPNT performed less than
satisfactorily in many cases when compared with actual N responses from 75 site-year data.
Khan et al. (2001) proposed an approach of predicting soil organic N contributions to the
plant-available N supply through the analysis of NH4+ and hydrolysable amino sugar. This test
is known as Illinois Soil Nitrogen Test (ISNT). Osterhaus et al. (2008) evaluated this test and
concluded that ISNT and the soil organic fractions studied are not reliable predictions of corn
N response. The limitation with the PPNT is that soil samples are taken before corn planting
which does not account for growing season mineralization and denitrification, which
determine the amount of NO3--N available for corn.
6.2.2. Pre-Sidedress Nitrate Test (PSNT)

Magdoff et al. (1984) proposed the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT), in which
recommendations of N fertilizer sidedress rates are based on the soil test prior to the time of
application, usually in late June or early July, during the crop growing season. This is also
called as late-spring soil nitrate test. This approach involves (i) time (when corn is 20-30 cm
tall) and (ii) soil depth (top 30 cm) of sampling. This test quantifies the amount of soil NO3--N
present in the crop rooting zone so that farmers can adjust the fertilizer rates accordingly (Ma
and Wu, 2008). A critical value of PSNT was defined to be 20 to 30 µg NO3--N g-1 soils
(Magdoff et al., 1984).
Unlike PPNT, PSNT is partially accountable for soil mineralization and preplant
application of N fertilizers and manures. Recommendations based on PSNT can trim down the
extra amount of fertilizer N used by farmers to guard against N-deficient corn (Magdoff, 1991;
Heckman et al., 1995). This approach has the greatest potential for soils with high
mineralization potentials (e.g. soils with high OM, or with manure history). Therefore, the
PSNT has shown promise as a means of quantifying and improving N management for corn
production (Magdoff et al., 1984; Binford et al., 1992). Andraski and Bundy (2002) concluded
that adjusting N application rates for corn using PSNT is more profitable than not making such
adjustment. Andraski and Bundy (2002) also reported that the accuracy of PSNT was highest
for sites with above-average May-June air temperatures and high yield potentials. Use of
PSNT has also been successfully extended to sweet corn and other vegetables (Heckman et al.,
2002). In Ontario, working with sweet corn, Ma et al. (2007) observed that the PSNT NO3--N
increased linearly with the fertilizer N rates, and there were significant positive correlations
between PSNT at V4 to V6 growth stages and the number of marketable ears. The drawback of
this test is that (i) it can be costly as it involves several samples per ha to be taken and
analysed, (ii) laboratory analysis of soil samples requires more time before critical stage of
corn N requirement elapses, and (iii) PSNT may not precisely address the spatial variability of
soil N.
6.2.3. Post-Harvest Nitrate Test (PHNT)

The post harvest nitrate test (PHNT) is an approach in which soil samples are collected
after the corn is harvested and analyzed for the residual soil NO3--N and other nutrients of
interest such as P and K. This test is not as common as PSNT or PPNT. However, PHNT
appears to be valuable to identify N sufficient and deficient sites (Schröder et al., 2000), and
justify environment assessment (Ma et al., 2006a). This test also indicates the potential for
ground water pollution since it measures the NO3--N not used by the crop (Sullivan and
Cogger, 2004). Elevated post-harvest soil NO3--N is an indicator of excess amount of N
fertilizer application in the previous crop (Gehl et al., 2006). Slight differences in site
characteristics (e.g. textural boundaries), can greatly influence conclusions derived post-
harvest soil sampling regarding the risk of NO3--N leaching (Gehl et al., 2006). The weather
patterns such as precipitation and temperatures affect the interpretation as they influence
mineralization of SOM and also leaching. This approach can help to decide on the preplant
fertilizer recommendations where PPNT is not possible. However, this is not a tool for in-
season N corrections.
6.3. Plant Tissue Analysis (Destructive Method)
Destructive plant sampling is one of the commonly used indicators to assess crop N status
during the crop growing season. Plant analysis has proven useful in confirming nutrient
deficiencies, toxicities or imbalances, identifying “hidden hunger”, evaluating fertilizer
programs, determining the availability of elements not tested for by other methods, and
studying interactions among nutrients (Schulte and Kelling, 1999). Therefore, plant analysis is
considered as a tool for troubleshooting crop problems.
There are some disadvantages of tissue analysis other than labour and cost, such as (i)
contamination of plant samples with soil particles or pesticides residue can lead to erroneously
high results for iron, Al, Mn or Cu, (ii) decomposition of plant samples before it reaches to the
laboratory can result in a loss of carbon through respiration thereby increases the concentration
of other nutrients, (iii) measurement of N uptake by plants does not necessarily indicate the N
requirement of the plant as several studies have indicated that N concentration in shoot can be
greater than the minimum plant requirements for maximum growth (Dharmakeerthi et al.,
2006), (iv) As N supply decreases, N uptake, translocation and remobilization are also
affected. Therefore, it might not give a true picture of the N status.
Nevertheless, tissue tests give an overall picture of the nutrient level within the plant at the
time of sample taken. Generally, good relationships can be developed between soil nutrient
supplies, nutrient levels in the plant, and crop yield for a given location in a year. However,
differences in locations, variety, time and management often cause variations in these
relationships and make them difficult to interpret (Schulte and Kelling, 1999). For most
diagnostic purpose, plant analysis is interpreted on the basis of “critical levels” for each
nutrient. The critical level has been defined as the concentration that below which yields
decrease or deficiency symptoms appear (Schulte and Kelling, 1999). The nutrient
concentration of the crop changes as the plant matures and with the portion of plant sampled;
therefore, the critical levels are defined for a specific plant part at a specific stage of growth.
Tissue test can be whole plant analysis or a particular plant part such as individual leaf, plant
sap content or shoots. The commonly used tissue tests that are used in corn are as follows:
6.3.1. Whole Plant Tissue Test

Generally, corn seedlings (V6-V8 stage) are sampled and analysed for the nutrients
concentration, especially for total or NO3--N. This test is employed to diagnose the nutrients
status at specific stage and make recommendation for corrections. Iversen et al. (1985) found
that stalk N concentration at approximately 30 d after emergence appeared to be correlated
with relative grain yield and N uptake. Binford et al. (1992), however, suggested that tissue
test based on the concentrations of N in young plants would not be reliable indicators of N
availability in corn fields. Although, the relationships between plant N concentration and grain
yield were established, results varied with season, soil types and stages of measurement.
Similarly, Schröder et al. (2000) concluded that tissue tests are less value for the support of
decisions on N supplementation than indicators that are directly related to the soil or to the
measurement of leaf and canopy greenness. Tissue tests are unable to quantify excessive
availability of N at early crop stages as opposed to soil related indicators. Driskell and Richer
(1952) observed a strong correlation between tissue N concentration and visual deficiency
symptoms, however, no correlation was found between tissue test and potential nitrification.
Strong correlation was observed between tissue tests of P and K with deficiency symptoms.
In general, the greatest risk of high nitrate levels has been in drought-stunted fields that
have received excessive manure or N fertilizer. The risk of high nitrate levels is highest
immediately following a drought-ending rain. Nitrates accumulate in the lower portion of the
plant, so harvesting higher position of the plant under these conditions can help avoid high
nitrate concentrations. Plant analysis requires considerable efforts for sample collection and
processing. Repeated sampling throughout the growing season can be very laborious, time
consuming and costly.
6.3.2. Leaf Tissue Test

Concentration of earleaf at silking (R1) has been used as a tool for evaluating the N status
of crop by comparing the observed concentration of earleaf N with published critical values.
For corn, the earleaf from tasselling to silking is commonly used for analysis (Schulte and
Kelling, 1999). The typical concentration of nutrients in corn earleaf at silking stage is
presented in Table 12. Cerrato and Blackmer (1991) assessed the reliability of leaf N
concentration as an indicator of the N status of corn. They found that leaf N concentration
tended to increase with increase in rates of N application and with increase in grain yields.
Critical N concentration in the earleaf between tasselling and silking ranged from 2.6 to 3.6%
on DM basis (Roberts and Rhee, 1993). Cerrato and Blackmer (1991) concluded that for grain
yield, the critical N concentration in the leaf opposite or below the ear is not a sensitive
indicator of N status. More importantly, in most cases, this is too late to correct the deficiency
through in-season nutrients application.
Table 12. Typical Composition of Plant Nutrients in the Corn Leaf (Mid-Third of the
Earleaf Opposite The Ear) At Silking Stage
Nutrient Units Critical concentration1 Maximum normal concentration2

Nitrogen % 2.50 3.50
Phosphorus % 0.28 0.50
Potassium % 1.20 2.50
Calcium % 1.50
Magnesium % 0.10
Sulphur % 0.14 0.60
Boron ppm 2.0 25.0
Copper ppm 2.0 20.0
Manganese ppm 15.0 150.0
Zinc ppm 20.0 70.0
1 Maximum yield loss due to nutrients deficiency is expected with nutrient concentrations at or below
the "critical" concentration.
2 Maximum normal concentrations are more than adequate but do not necessarily cause toxicities.
Adapted from OMAFRA (2002).
6.3.3. Post-Harvest (End-of–Season) Stalk Nitrate Test

The end-of-season NO3--N test or post-harvest stalk nitrate test was proposed by Binford
et al. (1990), as a post-mortem to determine if excessive or insufficient N was available to the
corn crop during the later part of the development. This indicator gives valuable hints on N
fertilizer requirements for the subsequent corn crops. The 20 cm portion of corn stalk, 15-35
cm above the ground are analysed for NO3- concentration immediately after grain harvest. A
concentration of between 700 to 2000 mg NO3- kg-1 indicates adequate N supplied and over
2000 mg kg-1 indicates that excess N was supplied or present in the soil during the growing
season (Binford et al., 1992). This test helps in N management in the coming season but not
for in-season correction for N - deficiency. Wilhelm et al. (2004) observed that NO3-
concentration of the individual sample varied greatly from <100 to >8000 mg NO3--N kg-1
DM, and increased downwards the stalk from ear level to the aboveground level. Moreover,
the range of NO3--N concentration for grain corn will not be applicable for sweet corn or silage
corn because these crops are harvested earlier than the grain crop. Therefore, stalk N
concentration will be higher prior to maturity. Similarly, N-dynamics in the soil such as
mineralization, denitrification and leaching are not taken into account. Thus stalk NO3--N
concentrations are also soil and climate dependent.
6.4. Crop-Based Indicators (Non-Destructive Methods)
Because soil and plant analysis require considerable efforts, time and cost to collect and
analyse samples, alternative technologies that reflect plant nutrients status can be useful. In the
recent past, many types of instantaneous diagnostic techniques have been developed to monitor
the crop nutrients status. These are called remote sensing or crop sensing devices.
Chlorophylls, xanthophylls and carotenes absorb solar radiation in the visible part of the
spectrum and thus reflect a small portion in these ranges. Reflectance in the visible range (λ =
550-675 nm) has been used to estimate leaf chlorophyll (Benedict and Swilder, 1961; Slafer
and Andrade, 1991), and carotenoid (Filella et al., 1995; Thomas and Gausman, 1977) levels,
and by extension the photosynthetic capacity of the crop (Ma et al., 1995). In the near infrared
(NIR) range, green vegetation strongly reflects incident radiation. The magnitude of the NIR
reflectance is governed by the scattering of light by plant tissues at different levels in the
canopy (Knipling, 1970) and is proportional to the vegetation biomass (Gutierrez-Rodriguez et
al., 2004). This distinct contrast in spectral behaviour between visible absorbance and NIR
reflectance formed the background and principle of terrestrial remote sensing for the past three
decades (Gitelson, 2004). Many remote sensing devices operate in the green, red and NIR
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, which discriminate radiation absorption and
reflection from the surface of green vegetation. Such devices are used not only to detect crop
nutrient deficiencies but also crop stresses induced moisture deficiency (drought), disease, and
pests. The stresses are indicated generally by decrease in NIR reflectance.
6.4.1. Leaf Chlorophyll Meter (SPAD)

The leaf chlorophyll meter, which is commonly known as SPAD (Soil Plant Analysis
Development; SPAD–502 Minolta Camera Co. Ltd. Japan), is an easy to use device which
measures the intensity of light transmitted through the leaf at the 650 and 940 nm wavelengths.
The obtained SPAD values are linearly correlated with leaf chlorophyll content determined
with destructive measurements (e.g. Marquard and Tipton, 1987; Schaper and Chacko, 1991).
Wood et al. (1992) evaluated its field performance and found to be good predictor of grain
yield. Blackmer and Schepers (1995), Bausch and Duke (1996), and Waskom et al. (1996) also
found that chlorophyll meter is a useful method for rapid monitoring of in-season crop N status
and grain yield potential. The ability of the SPAD to accurately identify N deficiencies is
improved when normalizing the chlorophyll meter reading to an adequate or non-N limiting
reference plot within the same field (Schepers et al., 1992; Bausch and Duke, 1996; Ruiz Diaz
et al., 2008).
It is well established that chlorophyll meter readings are highly correlated with N
concentration in corn leaf tissue (Schepers et al., 1992; Wood et al., 1992). However, at the V6
stage, there is a narrow range of leaf chlorophyll, which made difficult to separate N-deficient
from N-sufficient field (Dwyer et al., 1991) and a large number of observations are required
(Costa et al., 2001). Although Schröder et al. (2000) concluded that leaf greenness and tissue
tests both are unable to quantify excessive availability of N at early stages as opposed to soil
related indicators, Ruiz Diaz et al. (2008) stated that sensing of crop to determine in-season N
addition seems to be a cost effective strategy with the reduced sidedress N rate.
The chlorophyll meter is a quick, easy to use, and results are instantaneous for in-season N
application decisions. However, there are some drawbacks of the SPAD system such that (i) N
sufficiency is not represented by a unique value as the SPAD value of sufficient N increases
with crop age (Blackmer and Schepers, 1995), (ii) corn hybrids differ substantially in
chlorophyll meter readings within a given N rates (Subedi and Ma, 2005a; Subedi et al., 2006),
(iii) position of leaf, and the readings taken at the early stage (before V6 growth stage) are less
effective, and the later season diagnosis of N deficiency (i.e. after V8 growth stage) is
generally too late to correct the deficiency, and (iv) the initial investment is high for small
scale farmers.
6.4.2. Canopy Reflectance Measurements

The use of remote sensing techniques such as canopy light reflectance could help
eliminate the need for extensive field samplings (Gilabert et al., 1996; Ma et al., 1996).
Canopy reflectance is defined as the ratio of the amount of radiation reflected by an individual
leaf or canopy to the amount of incident radiation (Schröder et al., 2000). Leaves absorb
mainly blue (450 nm) and red (660 nm) wavelengths and reflect mainly green (550 nm)
wavelengths. Reflectance measurements at these wavelengths therefore, give a good indication
of leaf greenness (Schröder et al., 2000). Several researchers have used the multi-spectral
canopy reflectance to indicate plant N status and predict yield potential in many crops,
including corn (Ma et al., 1996, 2005; Bausch and Duke, 1996; Osborne et al., 2002b), rice
(Casanova et. al., 1998), soybean (Ma et al., 2001), cotton (Gossypium hersutum L.) (Bronson
et al., 2003) and wheat (Aparicio et al., 2000; Flowers et al., 2003). Similarly, Osborne et al.
(2002a) used the spectral radiance to detect the P-deficiency in corn. On-the-go sensing
devices based on canopy reflectance have now been developed and tested for variable rate
application of N fertilizer according to site-specific field conditions (Raun et al., 2002).
A hand-held multi-spectral radiometer (Crop Scan, CropScan Inc., Rochester, MN), which
records percent light reflectance in 11 wavelength bands (460, 507, 559, 613, 661, 706, 850,
900 and 950 nm), approximately at 50 nm intervals is used for measuring nutrient status, weed
infestation and foliar disease intensity in corn. The data are processed through a minicomputer
connected to the sensor. The sensor readings are used to derive different vegetation indices.
The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) is one of the common indices (Ma et al.,
2005), and is derived as follows:
( R813 − R613)
NDVI= (13)
( R813 + R613)
Ma et al. (2005 and 2007) evaluated NDVI data in comparison with soil tests (PSNT),
tissue test and chlorophyll meter readings all taken simultaneously at the V6 to V8 growth
stages of corn. They observed that PSNT, tissue N concentration at V6, SPAD and NDVI all
differentiated corn N response similarly (Figure 1), and these measurements were highly
correlated with one another. However, they concluded that none of the indicators tested at the
V6 to V8 growth stage was able to predict corn yield at harvest sufficiently, indicating that
environmental factors after N sidedress may have played dominant roles in their studies.
Recently, another ground-based commercial canopy device, GreenSeeker (NTech
Industries Inc., Ukiah, CA) optical sensor, is developed to measure canopy reflectance using
an active light source. The unit emits red (656 nm) and NIR (774 nm) light and measures how
much is reflected back to the sensor from the canopy. An NDVI is calculated with the same
assumptions as the Crop Scan. This technology has been extensively tested in recent years on
corn as a tool for variable rate application of N fertilizers. Teal et al. (2006) reported a poor
exponential relationship between NDVI of early season measurement (V6-V7) and grain yield.
But, they found a strong relationship (R² = 0.77) by V8 growth stage. In their study, the sensor
failed to distinguish variations in green biomass among fertilizer levels at the later stages (V8-
V9), likely due to canopy closure. They concluded that yield potentials in corn could be
accurately predicted in season with NDVI measured with GreenSeeker.
Such crop-based indicators are quicker (on-the-go) and require less labour, and can be
used as alternatives in predicting N requirement for corn production. For the N reflectance
index to be a practical, usable technique, it must represent plant N status as early as the V6
growth stage (Busch and Duke, 1996). It appears that, however, the N-stress sensing is more
accurate and successful later in the growing season (Ma et al., 2005, 2007; Ruiz Doaz et al.,
2008). Another drawback of canopy reflectance sensors is that soil background interferes with
the NDVI data before the corn canopy closure. The general consensus is that crop sensors are
useful tools in determining the N status of corn plants, it is important to take measurements at
the appropriate stage because NDVI values change with growth stages, the relationship
between chlorophyll concentration and soil N status is not linear – there is a maximum
concentration of chlorophyll that a plant can pack into a leaf, and results in the NDVI
saturation, the technology is not yet plug-and-play, and more work is needed to improve the
algorithms used for on-the-go application to adjust fertilizer rates based on NDVI in corn.
However, variable-rate fertilizer application based on crop sensors “seeing” and responding to
plants requirements will become reality in the near future.
7. NUTRIENTS MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE CORN PRODUCTION

Sustainable nutrients management refers to the use of various available sources of plant
nutrients and agronomic management practices that optimizes the crop yield while maintaining
soil health and environment in a longer run. Although sustainable agriculture is an often
discussed subject, the application of its principles in practices is insufficient. In this section,
best management practices (BMP) in nutrients management for sustainable corn production are
discussed.
Figure 1. Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD), canopy reflectance (NDVI), plant N uptake (kg ha-1) and soil
NO3- - N as affected by preplant N application. All measurements were taken at the V6 stage of grain
corn. The bars followed by different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). Derived from Ma
et al. (2005).
7.1. Nitrogen
Nitrogen is one of the most important plant nutrients as it is required for the production of
proteins and chlorophyll, maintenance of photosynthetic efficiency, leaf area development, and
ultimately DM production (Muchow, 1998). It is also the most important yield limiting
nutrients all over the world. Limitation of N is more severe in tropical and sub-tropical farming
systems where cropping systems are intensive and degradation of soil fertility is alarming. In
Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, low soil fertility especially low N is among the major abiotic
stress limiting corn yield (Worku et al., 2007).
The component of soil N include SOM, residual organic and inorganic N from previous N
application, atmospheric N fixed by legumes and free-living bacteria and atmospheric
deposition (Legg and Meisinger, 1982). The availability of soil mineral N (SMN; i.e. NH4+ and
NO3-) affects the rate of leaf initiation and expansion, final leaf size and foliar senescence rate
(Schröder et al., 2000). In agricultural soils, SMN usually accounts for < 2% of the total N
(Keeney and Nelson, 1982). The SMN concentration does not necessarily reflect the crop’s N
status but a positive relationship can be found between SMN and the NO3- concentration in
plants (Schröder et al., 2000).
Nitrogen management is one of the most extensively researched topics in agriculture
(Subedi et al., 2006). The use of N fertilizer has been identified as the most energy-consuming
component of corn production (Ma and Dwyer, 1998; Ruiz Diaz et al., 2008). Nitrogen use is
an issue of great concern in corn production because higher N rates are used by corn growers
as “insurance” which may have an adverse effect on the environment (Schröder et al., 2000).
Efficient use of N fertilization is becoming increasingly important in modern corn production
due to raising cost of N fertilizer and growing concerns about NO3- contamination in ground
and surface waters (Stevens et al., 2005), and gaseous N emissions to the atmosphere as a
major source of GHGs and air pollutions. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning, critical timing of N
requirement by corn plant, genotypic differences in N requirement, NUE and considerations
for N fertilizer recommendation will be discussed in this section.
7.1.1. Nitrogen Uptake and Partitioning in Corn

Soon after corn seedling emergence, the roots start to take up N from the soil solution. As
plant growth progresses, the rate of N uptake increases linearly (Ma and Dwyer, 1998). How
long a corn plant keeps on taking N from the soil is not very clear. In general, the rate of N
uptake by corn is relatively slow before entering the period of rapid growth at about the V6
growth stage, and great N accumulation occurs during the mid to late vegetative growth stages
(Ritchie et al., 1993). By silking, up to 70% or more (depending on hybrids, yield potentials
and weather conditions after silking) of the total plant N has been taken. After silking, rate of
N uptake becomes slow and eventually ceases prior to physiological maturity. Ziadi et al.
(2008) defined the minimum N concentration required to achieve the maximum growth as the
critical N concentration (NCrit). During the first three to six weeks after emergence, corn plants
take up soil mineral N at a rate of < 0.5 kg ha-1 d-1; during which period, soil net mineralization
rate can vary from 0.25 to 1.5 kg N ha-1 d-1 (Ziadi et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2008). Subedi and Ma
(2005a) observed that restriction of N supply until V8, and from V8 to physiological maturity
caused irreversible effects on grain yield and N-uptake in three contrasting corn hybrids. They
concluded that the timing of N application and level of N-deficiency in plant significantly
influenced N uptake, remobilization and N-dynamics in corn.
Partitioning of total N taken up by a corn plant at maturity may be dependent on the
hybrids, growing duration, level of stresses suffered by the crop and adequacy of soil N supply
during the growing season. Subedi and Ma (2005b) observed that the more severe the plants
were deficient in N, the greater was the recovery of applied 15N fertilizer. Under an adequate N
supplied situation, according to Subedi and Ma (2007), about 47% of the applied 15N was
recovered at harvest, of which 74% was partitioned in the kernels, followed by 14% in the
leaves, 10% in the stalk and only 3% in the roots (Figure 2). During grain filling period, there
are two sources of N for kernel development: (i) absorbed N from the soil, and (ii) re-
mobilized N from vegetative tissues (Ta and Weiland, 1992). With later application, 15N-
labeled N fertilizer was predominately partitioned to the ear, and stalk played an important role
in providing N to the grain during grain filling period. Subedi and Ma (2005b) observed that
the demand for N by grains from leaves and stalk was small when plants received adequate N
supply from current uptake. If the absorbed N from the soil is not adequate, great proportions
of N stored in the leaves and stalks are remobilized for kernel development. On the contrary,
when there is adequate N supply, corn plants continue to take up N from the soil until later
grain filling period. For example, Subedi and Ma (2005a) reported that corn plant continued to
take up N beyond 3 wk after silking, and the later N was applied, the higher proportion of it
was partitioned to the grain.
The sources of N for uptake are (i) residual soil mineral N, (ii) current-season mineralized
N, and (iii) N applied through fertilizers. Fertilizer N accounted for an increasing proportion of
crop N uptake as the N rate was increased, but N uptake from the soil source was always more
extensive, accounting for 54-83% of total plant N uptake (Ma et al., 1999a; Stevensen et al.,
2005).
Figure 2. Distribution (%) of dry matter, N content, 15N content, and N use efficiency (NUE) among
roots, stalks, leaves and kernels of a corn plant labelled with 5%15N2-NH4NO3, averaged over two
growing seasons. Adapted from Subedi and Ma (2007).
7.1.2. Critical Timing of Nitrogen Requirement by Corn

The critical time here refers to the stage of corn plant at which lack of N supply can cause
adverse effect on its growth and yield. As a general rule, any stage of corn development should
not experience an N-stress, although the demand of N varies considerably over the growing
period. The generalized trend of N uptake and response of crop yield to N supply is presented
in Figure 3 derived from Brown (1970). This figure shows that at very low soil N levels, there
is a clear evidence of N deficiency, and grain yield of corn increases rapidly with N fertilizer.
At very high soil N levels, grain yield declines, while plant N concentration continues to
increase. There is a window when plant tissue N concentration is low, and the crop suffers
from “hidden hunger”. It is important to know when N nutrition increases to a certain level,
although plant tissue N concentration continues to increase, grain yield does not respond to
increased soil N supply or yield stags. Further increases of soil N supply, grain yield may
suffer due to imbalanced source-sink ratios (Rajcan and Tollenaar, 1999a, 1999b).
Nitrogen supplied before anthesis has two main effects on yield as (i) plant size, and (ii)
grain number. High N from the onset of floral initiation directly increased the number of grains
per plant or per unit area, presumably by increasing the rate of differentiation of spikelets
(Pearson and Jacob, 1987). Knowledge of both soil factors and crop N requirement is a pre-
requisite to the development of management strategies to maximize the yield response to
fertiliser N (Muchow, 1998). The critical timing of N requirement is important to know
because N amendment decisions can be made so that irreversible yield loss can be avoided.
There are, however, inconsistent reports about the critical timing of N requirement and N
uptake by a corn plant. In the US Corn Belt, it was observed (Scharf et al., 2002) that there was
no significant yield loss when N application was delayed until V11 to V16 growth stages;
although full yield was not achieved when N applications were postponed until silking, corn
was still responsive to N supply at the silking stage. In a controlled greenhouse study, Subedi
and Ma (2005a) reported that withholding N supply fromV8 to maturity reduced kernel yield
by 22% and N uptake by 53%. In the same experiment, when N supply was restricted until V8
stage, there was an irreversible effect on the size of ear and kernel number although overall
size of the plant (leaf number and shoot DM) was unaffected. They concluded that N supply
was more critical prior to silking than after silking as limiting N supply reduced ear size,
kernel yield and N uptake. Rendig and Crawford Jr. (1985) reported that post-anthesis N
nutrition affected the composition of the vegetative growth, but had no effect on yields or N
accumulation in the grain. Under low N conditions, however, Worku et al. (2007) observed
that post flowering N-uptake and utilization contributed to the improved performance in a set
of tropical corn varieties whereas N uptake before anthesis was of little relevance.
Figure 3. Relationship between nutrient supply, corn yield and nutrient concentrations in earleaf tissue.
Adapted from Brown (1970).
The uptake of N can be described by a linear relationship between the specific ion uptake
velocity from the soil and the rate of respiration (Novak and Vidovic, 2003). Therefore, for an
efficient uptake of N, the transpiration rate should be unaffected. For this, water supply plays
an important role. Maho et al. (2007) suggested that the amount of retained soil NO3- - N was
positively correlated with transpiration by corn (r = 0.943, P < 0.01, n = 12). Therefore, NO3-
leaching from a granitic regosol during the rainy season could be reduced by the increasing of
planting density due to the increase of N uptake by the plants and the increase of retained N in
soil derived from the increasing of plant transpiration.
7.1.3. Genotypic Differences in Nitrogen Uptake and Requirements

Nutrient requirements, uptake and utilization by different corn types (e.g. grain corn,
silage corn, sweet corn, leafy corn, conventional, and transgenic corn) may vary considerably.
Genotypic variation on N uptake and partitioning has been widely reported in conventional
corn hybrids (Beauchamp et al., 1976; Chevalier and Scharder, 1977; Moll et al., 1982;
Weiland and Ta, 1992; McCullough et al., 1994; Ma and Dwyer, 1998; Bertin and Gallais,
2000). For example, previous field studies show that the SG types taken up greater amounts of
N than the conventional hybrids (Ma and Dwyer, 1998; Rajcan and Tollenaar, 1999b; Borrell
et al., 2001). Costa et al. (2002) found no difference in different types of leafy, non-leafy,
reduced or not reduced stature corn hybrids. Similarly, Subedi and Ma (2005a, 2005b), in
greenhouse studies, reported there was no difference in total N acquisition, partitioning of 15N
and NUE among three contrasting (i.e. Leafy, stay-green and conventional) corn hybrids
(Table 13; adapted from Subedi and Ma, 2005a). Although Bruns and Abel (2003) reported an
increased N concentration and σ-endotoxin with increased supply of N in the whole plant of a
Bt corn hybrid at the V5 growth stage, Subedi and Ma (2007) found no such difference in Bt
and non-Bt conventional hybrids when compared the N uptake and partitioning patterns until
crop maturity.
Table 13. Total dry matter (DM, g plant-1), N concentration (NC, %) and N content (g
plant-1) in different plant parts or in the whole plant of conventional (Pioneer 3905), stay
green (Pioneer 39F06 Bt) and Leafy (Maizex LF 850 RR) corn hybrids, averaged over
five N treatments
Plant Parts Parameters Hybrid

Pioneer 3905 Pioneer 39F06 Bt Maizex LF850 RR
Root DM (g) 33.5b† 37.9b 54.3a
NC % 0.68ab 0.71a 0.59b
N content (g) 0.23b 0.25ab 0.29a
Stalk DM (g) 55.7b 60.0b 70.3a

NC (%) 0.47a 0.51a 0.44a
N content (g) 0.26a 0.30a 0.30a
Leaves DM (g) 35.3b 36.0b 45.9a

NC (%) 1.10a 0.98ab 0.85b
N content (g) 0.39a 0.35a 0.39a
Kernel DM (g) 100.4a 101.9a 102.9a

NC (%) 1.76a 1.59b 1.74ab
N content (g) 1.76a 1.61a 1.79a
Entire Plant DM (g) 224.9b 235.9b 273.2a

NC (%) 1.17a 1.06a 1.01a
N content (g) 2.64a 2.51a 2.77a
† Values followed by the same letter within each row are not statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.
(After Subedi and Ma, 2005a).
Subedi et al. (2006) observed that the Leafy corn was more sensitive to high PPD, especially
under low N supply conditions than a conventional corn hybrid, although the hybrids did not
differ in N acquisition and partitioning. In silage corn, Sheaffer et al. (2006) reported that
brown midrib and Leafy hybrids did not differ in N response.
7.1.4. Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) in Corn Production

There are several definitations of NUE in the scientific literature. In general, soil scientists
and agronomists define NUE as the N uptake by a crop expressed as a fraction (or percent) of
total N fertilizer applied. Crop physiologists refer NUE as the dry matter produced per unit of
N taken up (i.e. g DM g-1 N) or the ratio of net photosynthetic rate to leaf N content. In order
to evaluate hybrid differences in plant N uptake and N utilization efficiencies, crop
physiologists also use the following formulae to calculate NUE and its components, N uptake
efficiency (NUptE) and N utilization efficiency (NUtiE) according to Moll et al. (1982) on a
kg ha-1 basis (Ma et al., 2003).
NUE = GDM / SN (14)
NuptE = PTN / SN (15)
UtiE = GDM / PTN (16)
where GDM refers to total grain dry matter (kg ha-1), PTN is plant total N at final harvest (kg ha-
1
) excluding roots, and SN is soil available N at planting (kg ha-1).
In this review, we use the terminology accepted by both soil and crop scientists: the plant
total N uptake as a percentage of applied N fertilizer. Using this method, the worldwide
estimated NUE of cereals including corn is approximately 33% (Raun and Johnson, 1999).
Clearly, improving NUE for cereal crops including corn production becomes more and more
important, both for economic benefit to producers and environment to the general public. The
use of best agronomic practices that help ensure the development of vigorous healthy crop will
increase the efficiency of applied N fertilizers. Of course, there are hybrids and varieties that
are more efficient in N utilization than others. Nitrogen use efficiency is measured using
various methods including the difference method and 15N-labeling techniques. The following
equation (Liang and Mackenzie, 1994) is commonly used to calculate NUE:
∑ [W × N (
i =1
i i
15
)]
N i1 −15 N i 0 × 100
NUE (%) = (17)
f ( a − b)
where Wi and Ni are the ith component of plant dry weight (g plant-1 or kg ha-1) and total N
concentration (fraction), respectively, 15Ni1 and 15Ni0 are the 15N% a.e. in the ith component of
the 15N-labelled and non-labelled plants, f is the total amount of N applied (g pot-1 or kg ha-1)
through the labelled source, and a and b are the 15N% a.e. in the fertilizer and background,
respectively.
The NUE is an important criterion to assess crop management systems. Nitrogen use
efficiency varies from one situation to another due to variability in several factors such as crop
health (plant stress), weather factors influencing soil temperature and moisture availability
(Westerman et al., 1999), PPD (Al-Kaisi and Yin, 2003), soil types (texture and SOM), years
and locations (Lory and Scharf, 2003), application timing, method of application/incorporation
of the fertilizer in the soil, and the nutrient responses of the cultivated variety (Nagy, 1997;
Nielsen, 2006). Improving NUE is therefore, an art of addressing the factors appropriately in
corn production. Similarly, methods of application, crop rotation and tillage practices also
affect NUE.
Selecting appropriate source of fertilizer or method and timing of application certainly
influences NUE. In order to increase fertilizer NUE and reduce N loading to the environment,
reliable methods that quantify crop N requirements must be developed and N fertilizers should
be applied precisely and timely. Matching supply of N from soil with the crop demand for the
nutrients is one of the nutrients management challenges of crop production (Heckman, 2002).
Precision agricultural practices attempt to allow timely and precise application of N fertilizer
to meet plant needs as they vary across the landscape (Raun and Johnson, 1999). For example,
sidedress can reduce NH3 volatilization, denitrification and NO3- leaching losses and increase
the availability of mineral N to the crop. Studies have shown that sidedress N applied during
early growth stages (i.e. close to the time of the crop’s greatest need) are used more efficiently
than preplant application (Magdoff et al., 1984; Magdoff, 1991; Ma et al., 2005). There is less
time for leaching or denitrification losses when N is applied after plant emergence (Vetsch and
Randall, 2004). Sainz Rozas et al. (2004) stated that higher NUE with economically
competitive grain yields can be obtained when N is applied at the V6 stage because gaseous N
losses are low and NO3--N leaching would be reduced. Split application of N fertilizers is
generally found to be beneficial than a single application. Corn plants can be responsive to
applied N until silking stage and later (Subedi and Ma., 2005a). The use of a sidedress
application strategy remains one of the easiest and least expensive ways to maximize NUE.
Other application methods and timings need to be matched wisely with N fertilizer source to
minimize the risk of N loss prior to plant uptake.
Applying N fertilizers without information about N-supplying capacity of the soil can
contribute to NO3- leaching and polluting ground and surface waters or not supplying enough
for economic yield (Heckman et al., 1995). Soil N supply is expected to vary among year and
location. Residual soil nitrogen (RSN) is the amount of inorganic N that remains in the soil at
the end of growing season after crops have been harvested. Adjustment of N rates to the
amounts of RSN present shortly before planting can contribute to efficient N-use (Schroder et
al., 2000). Soil RSN is estimated as the difference between all N-inputs (fertilizer N, manure-
N, biological fixed-N and atmospheric N deposition) and all N-output (N removed in crop
harvest, N losses through NH3 volatilization and denitrification), assuming that mineralization
and immobilization are generally balanced (Durby et al., 2005). A history of excessive N
application may decrease response of subsequent crops to fertilizer N due to greater release
from non-available N forms, most likely as a result of increased mineralization of crop
residues and recently formed SOM (Stevens et al., 2005).
Cropping systems, tillage practices and water availability all affect the timing and amount
of N fertilization for greater NUE. In the irrigated corn production systems, for example,
irrigation inputs needs to be optimized to prevent nutrients leaching from root zone, especially
on sandy soils (Raun and Johnson, 1999). Similarly, N application timing and rates should be
different for no-till or conservation tillage system than for conventional tillage system.
Sources of N also affect NUE. For example, NH4+-containing fertilizers are less subject to
leaching or denitrification loss than fertilizers containing NO3--N. Ma et al. (1999a) observed a
greater NUE when manure was applied at the lower rate presumably because the slow release
of N from manure and increased uptake of N during exponential phase of plant growth. There
was a difference in timing of availability of manure N from fertilizer and manure treatment.
Mechanisms, such as leaching, volatilization, and denitrification significantly affect N
losses (Webster et al., 1992). Therefore, heavy N fertilization should be avoided and the most
effective N-fertilizer recommendation should be determined. Placing N where it can easily be
absorbed by the plant and using site-specific or variable rate of application techniques
improves NUE. Similarly, selecting an appropriate N fertilizer source is important for corn.
Selection of fertilizer depends on availability in the market, relative cost, soil pH, and
application equipments, etc. For example, Bacon and Thompson (1984) reported that urea was
superior to aqua ammonia because it minimized mineral N retention near the soil surface and it
was not susceptible to volatilization losses. Techniques that provide rapid assessment of soil
and plant N status on a frequent basis will be useful for the in-season N amendment (Bausch
and Duke, 1996).
Appropriate fertilizer N rate for corn crops is important in order to meet the crop critical N
demands during the rapid growing period, to minimize the wasteful application and to increase
NUE and economic benefit to the producers. Recommendation of N fertilization should
primarily focus on application (i) rates, (ii) timing, (iii) method, and (iv) choice of manure and
fertilizers. The economically optimum N rate (EONR) required for corn may vary spatially due
to variations in soil characteristics and temporally due to the interactions of environmental
factors (Schmitt and Randall, 1994; Miao et al., 2006; Mamo et al., 2003; Katsvario et al.,
2003; Scharf et al., 2005). Generally, the total amount of N utilized by a corn crop will
increase with yield level. However, recommendations of fertilizer rates based on yield goals
are often poorly correlated with actual EONR (Doerge, 2002). The variation in corn N
response has been attributed to differences in soil N supply, corn N needs for a given yield
level, and hybrid’s NUE potential. For example, EORN should be reduced in soils containing
high organic N concentration at the start of growing season. Therefore, corn N
recommendation typically includes a system of N credits from conditions that increase the
quantity of soil N available to the crop (Lory and Scharf, 2003). As a general rule, synchrony
of nutrients supply with crop demand is essential in order to ensure optimum crop yield, high
NUE, while reducing negative environmental effects (Ma et al., 2005).
7.2. Phosphorus
Although P is not present as large quantities as N in the plant tissues, it is involved in

many crucial metabolic functions that occur in plant cell (Johnston and Dowbenko, 2004). Soil
P is generally less mobile and is often not in shortage or excess for crop growth in most soils
of fine texture or with manure history. From production point of view, management of P is,
therefore, not as urgent and critical as N. However, there is a growing response of grain yield
of corn to P fertilizer, especially at high yield potentials. On the other hand, P leaching to the
water bodies has become one of the serious environmental problems.
Phosphorus deficiency usually appears when corn plants are young, when solution P
concentrations are either inadequate to meet the high P requirement of the faster growing
shoots, or the juvenile corn plants have difficulty absorbing sufficient amount of P, especially
in the cold spring conditions (Johnston and Dowbenko, 2004; Bittman et al., 2004).
Soil test P level is an important factor for understanding corn grain yield responses to
various P placements and tillage practices (Randall et al., 2001). Soil test before planting is the
best way to detect P requirement for corn, based on which recommendation of fertilizer P can
be made. The total soil P is usually much higher than the available P index because it includes
both the mineral and organic P pools. Soil P availability is usually evaluated with soil test
Bray-P concentrations, the amount of P that is likely available for uptake by the plant.
Phosphorus fixes easily with many compounds in the soil, and in a fixed form, it is less easily
available for the plants. When soil has a low pH, free Fe and Al ions bind with P, thereby
making P less available for plant roots. In the calcarious soils (high pH), P availability also
reduces as it binds with Ca to form an insoluble compound. Available soil P was correlated
positively with grain P content, and there was a considerable variability in grain P content for
any given soil test level (Lithourgidis et al., 2007).
The sources of P fertilizer can be organic (manures and supplements) and inorganic such
as rock phosphate and P containing chemical fertilizers. The inorganic sources of P fertilizer
are applied either broadcast before seeding or as a starter banded with corn planting. The use
of a starter fertilizer at planting is certainly one option for conditions where available P is low
in the soil or temperature is low during the early growth stage of corn. There is a growing
interest of "pop-up" fertilization (placement of small amounts of fertilizer in direct contact
with corn seed) in recent years. There are certain advantages of each of broadcast and banding
application, and suitability of each method varies with soil type, climate, crop rotation, tillage
systems and equipment availability and so on. The banded P can be placed either directly
below the seed or to the side of and below the seed. The most common method of supplying P
fertilizer is to apply a band about 5 cm depth to the side of the seed furrow (Bittman et al.,
2004). Banded application has been found to be more effective in the ridge-till and no-till
systems. The negative effect of fertilizer placed too close to the seed on germination is a
concern. However, the early research of Garg and Welch (1967) showed that percent seed
emergence did not differ among the placement methods. Yields of forage, percent P, and yield
of P were greater when P was placed in contact with seeds than when it was either mixed or
banded. Sanchez et al. (1991) compared the broadcast P as surface applied and disked into the
soil before planting with banded P as applied about 3 cm below the corn seeds. Band
placement reduced the amount of P required for specified sweet corn yield and also appeared
to result in higher total yield. The relative efficacy of banded to broadcast P depended on soil
test P level. They concluded that banded P was a reliable strategy of P used for sweet corn
production in Histosols. Placement is less of a consideration when soil tests are high. However,
when soil tests are low, substantial yield increases may be seen when P is applied either
broadcast or banded (Randall et al., 2001).
The relative efficacy of broadcast P was dependent on soil test-P. Yost et al. (1979) found
that broadcast treatments gave greater yields than banded treatments at the same rates for the
first crop, at the end of four crops. However, total yields of P uptake were very similar for
broadcast and banded treatment in which the same total amount of P had been applied. Borges
and Mallarino (2001) reported that there was a similar response of corn yield to P application
as broadcast or deep band (15-20 cm). Heckman et al. (2006) conducted a study in 12 northern
States of USA at 51 experimental sites, of which 17-47% of the sites testing below the critical
level of soil P exhibited a yield increase to broadcast P. Marked residual effects were observed
with the higher rates of broadcast P.
In conservation tillage systems, surface application of P fertilizers and annual return of
corn residue to the soil surface can result in the P and K stratification (Mackay et al., 1987).
Phosphorus stratification occurs under long-term no-till conditions. This means that a build-up
of P occurs on or near the soil surface over time when the soil is managed in a no-till system.
This stratification is caused by normal crop demands on the nutrients deeper in the soil profile,
and the absence of incorporation of the surface applied P. However, unless an excessive
amount of P is applied, the build-up of P is always low. Vertical stratification due to deep-band
fertilization of P was evident for all treatments, but was more with band application, and
especially so on no-till cultivation (Mallarino and Borges, 2006).
7.3. Potassium
Potassium is required for photosynthesis, carbohydrate translocation, protein synthesis,

and for disease resistance and drought tolerance in plants. Optimum K fertilization is also
believed to increase N concentration in the grain as well as enhanced N-use by the crop. Not
all of the measured K is available to plants because the positive (+ve) cations are attracted by
the negatively charged ions in the soil humus and clay particles; also known as the cation
exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil. Only a small fraction of total K (<2%) is available in soil
solution as “soluble K”, which is the form available for plant uptake. Exchangeable soil K is
highly correlated with tissue test and deficiency symptoms (Driskell and Richer, 1952). In a
region or a corn field, the amount of K needed is site-specific and its application is therefore
dependent on three principal factors (i) soil test K, (ii) yield goal, and (iii) soil CEC. Potassium
uptake by plants can be affected by high salinity and N concentrations in the soil solution.
Heckman et al. (2003) reported that concentrations of K in the grains of corn were
positively associated with yield levels. Although K-deficiency is not always visually evident
and can be masked by other crop stress symptoms (Johnston and Dowbenko, 2004), K must be
available to corn plant from early growth stage for optimum corn development since over 70%
of the total K requirement is taken up by silking (Johnston and Dowbenko, 2004). Application
of K fertilizer is based on soil test recommendations. When soil test indicated shortage of
available K, up to 13% reduction in corn yield occurred in a humid temperate environment of
Canada (Subedi and Ma, 2009).
Tissue test and soil test (exchangeable K) are used to determine the requirement of K by a
corn crop. In northern climates, due to cold soils and slow plant growth rates early in the
growing season, responses of plant vigor and grain yield to starter fertilizers are often
anticipated. Heckman and Kamprath (1992) reported that corn yield increased linearly with
application of K up to 112 kg K ha-1. Similarly, Bundy and Andraski (1999) reported that it is
more likely for a positive response of corn yield to starter fertilizers on soils with soil test K
levels below 140 mg kg-1. Starter K fertilizer appears to be particularly important in reduced
tillage, since responses to applied K can occur even at high soil test levels.
Unlike N fertilizer, many farmers in the US Corn Belt apply a single dose of broadcast K
fertilizer before corn planting. In practice, responses of corn yields to preplant K fertilizer vary
considerably over locations, cropping systems and growing seasons. In conventional tillage
systems, the preferred method of K application is through land preparation and K is
broadcasted and incorporated into the soil. While in no-till systems, K fertilizers can be either
broadcasted on the surface or preferably banded. Bardoli and Mallarino (1998) observed that
no-till corn responded to deep banded K at some sites with high soil K levels. Vyn and
Janocicek (2001) showed that corn yield responses to starter K were larger with no-till than
tillage. Maximized corn yields are often obtained in the no-till system with high rate of starter
K, when no K fertilizer was applied in the previous fall. In furrow cultivation, starter K
fertilization for corn is, however, not an effective practice. Borges and Mallarino (2001)
observed a deep placement (15-20 cm) of K fertilizer superior to broadcast application. They
also observed that broadcast K fertilization leads to stratification of K in the ridge-till system,
which may reduce fertilizer use efficiency. To overcome K stratification, it is suggested that at
least some of the K fertilizer should be applied in a band with or near the seed row.
7.4. Calcium
Although considerable amount of Ca is required in plants as an integral part of plant

structure (i.e. cell wall), deficiency in Ca is not that common in agricultural soils. While most
neutral and alkaline soils contain adequate Ca, deficiency in Ca is sometime observed in acidic
soils. Correction for low soil pH with lime usually brings the soil Ca to the adequate levels for
corn crops. Similarly, maintenance of proper SOM through application of farm manures and
crop residues to the soil helps maintain Ca and other nutrient levels.
7.5. Magnesium
Magnesium is the constituent of chlorophyll molecule, it acts as an enzyme activator and

involves in carbohydrate metabolism. Deficiency in Mg is generally greater than Ca, but Mg is
often not a major yield limiting nutrient in most soils. Driskell and Richer (1952) reported
significant correlations between exchangeable soil Mg and visual deficiency symptoms of Mg
or tissue test in corn. Dolomite limestone contains large amount of Mg. Soils originated from
parent materials containing dolomitic limestone will not require Mg fertilization. Similarly, if
soil amendment is made with dolomitic limestone, there will be no additional requirement of
Mg fertilizers. If Mg deficiency is detected by visual symptoms or tissue or soil test, corrective
measures can be taken by soil or foliar application of Mg containing fertilizers such as
Chelated Mg or Magnesium oxide.
7.6. Sulphur
Sulphur is a secondary element, whose role on plant is vital as it is the component of plant
amino acids (precursor of proteins) and involved in chlorophyll formation. Sulphur plays the
key role in balanced nutrient application for top yields and superior quality produce. Both
organic and inorganic forms of S exist, with organic S as the predominant form in most soils
(Kowalenko, 2004). Organic S is unavailable to plants unless it is mineralized to inorganic
oxidized sulphate (SO4-). Rainfall and animal manure amendment supply soils with significant
amounts of S. Sulphur is attaining importance in all regions of the world because of frequent
S-deficiencies in time and space (Khan et al., 2006). However, excess soluble S in the soil will
enhance the uptake of toxic Cd element and harm the normal growth of corn (Cui and Wang,
2006).
Several factors contribute to S deficiencies, including the increased use of S-free high
analysis fertilizers, intensive cropping, removal of crop residues and soil erosion. S-deficiency
symptoms are more often observed in crops at early growth stages since S can be easily
leached by precipitation and often accumulate in subsoil layers (Hitsuda et al., 2005). Critical
shoot S concentration of corn at early stages is reported at 0.8 g kg-1 (Hitsuda et al., 2005).
Reports of significant yield improvement with S fertilization are available, although responses
varied considerably over locations. Application of S up to 30 kg ha-1 enhanced average grain
yield of corn by 22% over unapplied control treatments (Dwivedi et al., 2002). Niehues et al.
(2004) showed enhanced early season DM production, and increased grain yield and nutrient
uptake when 11 kg S ha-1 was applied as a subsurface starter fertilizer. Khan et al. (2006)
reported that application of 60 kg S ha-1 significantly increased corn yield components and
grain yield, tissue S concentration as well as residual S in the soil after crop harvest in
Pakistan.
7.7. Micronutrients
Deficiencies in micronutrients have been frequently observed due to intensive cropping

practices and adoption of high yielding cultivars. Micronutrient deficiencies are particularly
problematic on sandy coastal plain soils due to low CEC, and organic soils due to low mineral
contents. Deficiencies of micronutrients are also widespread in many Asian countries due to
calcareous nature of soils, high soil pH, low SOM, soil salinity, continuous drought, high
bicarbonate content in irrigation water, and imbalanced application of fertilizers (Malakouti,
2008). Micronutrients are also often deficient in volcanic soils (Lisuma et al., 2006).
The availability of most micronutrients is influenced by soil pH. In general, the higher the
soil pH, the worst the problem becomes for many of the micronutrients. For example, alkaline
soils depress the availability of soil Fe, Mn, Zn, and increased the ratios of Na/Zn and P/Zn in
plant tissues (Mehrotra et al., 1986). Excessive application of N and P fertilizers can induce
Cu-deficiency.
Among the micronutrients, Zn followed by B is the element, which occurs most often in
deficiencies for corn production worldwide. Zinc deficiency is a very important nutrient
problem in the world’s soil as available Zn in most soils is in deficient level (Adiloglu and
Adiloglu, 2006). It was observed reduction in corn DM yield with B application, and B
accumulation and toxicity in plant roots especially in Zn-deficient soils (Adiloglu and
Adiloglu, 2006). Zinc deficiency is greatly correlated with band or broadcast application of Zn.
Application of small amount of Zn with seed could be used as a procedure for correcting Zn-
deficient corn. Pumbhrey et al. (1963) reported that ZnSO4 broadcast application followed by
incorporation before planting increased early growth and grain yield of corn. Higher
application rate increased Zn concentration in young and nearly mature corn plants. They also
showed that small amount of N banded with ZnSO4 enhanced the effectiveness of Zn fertilizer.
Dwivedi et al. (2002) reported that application of Zn up to 5 kg ha-1 increased corn yield by
19% over the control. The optimum dose of Zn was estimated to be 7.1 kg ha-1. Tariq et al.
(2002) in Pakistan reported that grain yield, yield components and uptake of Zn by corn
responded to Zn application up to 20 kg Zn ha-1. Hosseini et al. (2007) reported a significant B

× Zn interaction on plant growth and tissue nutrient concentration which were rate dependent.
In general, the effect of B × Zn interaction was antagonistic on nutrient concentration and
synergistic on growth. It is recommended that adequate Zn should be supplied when corn is
grown in high B soils, especially when availability of Zn is low. Serchan et al. (2004) in an
acid soil in Nepal found that corn yield decreased in the absence of B while Zn in the corn leaf
was deficient. Hensler et al. (1970) found that concentrations of Ca, Mg, P, S, Fe and Mo in
the plant tissue were usually higher from the limed soils than not limed soils but reverse was
true with Zn and Mn.
Boron deficiencies are mainly found in sandy soils, calcarious soils, soils with low SOM,
and in the regions with high rainfall or under irrigation, since borate ions are mobile in soils
and leach out quickly. Responses of crop yields to micronutrients have been evident in small
farms of developing countries. Kayode and Agboola (1983) reported a significant yield
increase of corn when N, P, and K fertilizers were applied in combination with Fe, Cu and Zn.
In tropical corn, application of N fertilizer reduced the concentration of Zn and Ca and
increased the concentration of Mn in grains (Feil et al., 2005). Lamond and Leikam (2002)
reported a positive response of applied Cl in corn, and application based on soil tests and plant
analyses has proven useful in identifying potential deficiencies of chloride.
8. INTEGRATED NUTRIENTS MANAGEMENT

FOR CORN PRODUCTION
8.1. The Concept of Integrated Plant Nutrients Management
Nutrients depletion through harvested crop components and residue removal or by

leaching, surface runoff and soil erosion accentuates the often very low inherent fertility of
many soils in the tropics (Syers, 1997). Sustainability of cropping systems requires that
nutrients removed from the soil be balanced by nutrients replacement so that soil fertilities are
maintained or improved (Ma et al., 2006a). Chemical fertilizer alone cannot sustain long-term
productivity on many soils and organic materials inputs are required to restore SOM levels and
crop productivity (Syers, 1997). Enhancing sustainable food production will therefore require
integrated strategies for the use of various sources of plant nutrients in conjunction with
improved soil, water and crop management practices (Keerthisinghe et al., 2003). For corn
production, farmers’ nutrient management decisions influence the amount and form of
nutrients used, the timing and method of fertilizer application, which in turn influences on how
much of a nutrient is used by the corn crop, how much is stored as a residual in the soil, and
how much becomes available as a potential water and air pollutant (Christensen, 2002).
Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) refers to the approach of integrating
available sources of plant nutrients to meet the crop’s nutrients requirement to achieve an
optimum yield while maintaining desired soil fertility (FAO, 1998). The IPNM attempts to
integrate all available means of soil and crop management so as to achieve locally optimum
land productivity under sustainable soil and fertility management (Subedi and Sapkota, 2002).
All sources of plant nutrients should be considered to optimize crop yield and quality, while
minimizing the impact of these nutrient sources on environment. Therefore, the main aim of
IPNM is to increase and sustain soil fertility to provide a sound basis for flexible food
production systems that within the constraints of soil and climate can grow a wide range of
crops to meet changing needs (FAO, 1998). The role of IPNM seems to be very important in
the subsistence farming systems because there is always a limited nutrients supply, and soil
degradation is a major production and environmental threat. The following key steps are to be
considered while designing and implementing location-specific nutrient management for a
given domain or cropping system:
(i) Assessment of soil status: Information on soil parameters such as SOM, pH, nutrients
availability, texture, extent of nutrient leaching and erosion are to be gathered through
site visit and laboratory analysis.
(ii) Setting of yield target: based on the availability of farm resources, expected yield
levels for the crop under a particular production system are set.
(iii) Calculation of nutrient balance: based on the two estimates above, a nutrient balance
(i.e. input-output) can be calculated which indicates how much and which nutrients
are to be added. Emphasis is to be given for the balance of SOM.
(iv) Listing available nutrient sources: all available internal (farm level) and external
(purchased) nutrients sources are to be considered.
(v) Integrating all possible nutrient sources, and
(vi) Determine the amount, timing and methods of manure and fertilizers application for a
given crop, cropping system and land type.
(vii) Follow-up and monitoring: once manure and fertilizers are applied based on the
above assessments, periodic monitoring of corn fields is important in order to address
the in-season deficiencies if any induced by climatic variability such as excess rainfall
or drought and trouble shooting for such deficiencies.
In the IPNM system, soil, crop and nutrients are judiciously managed based on the
existing decision environments such as cropping systems, soil properties, labour availability,
market forces and social equity (Subedi and Sapkota, 2002). Several factors influence crop
yield and nutrients requirement by a corn crop. Therefore, soil properties (e.g. texture, SOM,
residual nutrients), climatic factors (e.g. precipitation, temperatures), cropping systems (e.g.
previous crops, tillage systems), crop variety grown (yield potential), and economic and
market considerations (e.g. prices of grain and fertilizers) should be taken into account when
making recommendations for manure and fertilizer application.
While deciding the amounts of chemical fertilizers, organic, inorganic and other sources of
plant nutrients are integrated along with soil and crop management options. It is a strategy that
incorporates both organic and inorganic plant nutrients to attain higher crop productivity,
prevent soil degradation, and thereby help meet future food supply needs. Therefore, IPNM
relies on a number of factors, including appropriate nutrient application and conservation and
the transfer of knowledge (Gruhn et al., 2000). This approach emphasizes applying nutrients as
and when needed. Similar to any other crop or cropping system, the key components of IPNM
for corn production are as follows:
8.2. Legumes in Rotations
Integration of various food, forage or vegetable legumes either in the crop rotations or as
intercropping with corn crop is a common practice everywhere, although the frequency of
rotations varies across locations and cropping systems. The advantages of legume
incorporation in a cropping system is well understood even in the subsistence farming systems
in terms of improved soil fertility (biologically fixed N), diversity in food values, nutrition and
farm income. Most of the legume species have a symbiotic relationship with certain bacteria
and fix N from the atmosphere. Corn crop can also benefit from the residual N from legumes
as well as the in-season N fixed by the companion legumes when grown in the intercropping
system. Numerous rotation studies have shown the benefit of extended rotations with legumes,
including interrupted insect populations (Cook, 1988), improved soil physical properties
(Raimbault and Vyn, 1991), a better balance of plant nutritional factors, increased root activity
(Copeland et al., 1993), a shift in soil mycorrhizal populations (Johnson et al., 1992; Jawson et
al., 1993), reduced disease severity (Reid et al., 2001), and enhanced seasonal N mineralization
(Vanotti and Bundy, 1995; Ding et al., 1998), reduced N inputs and increased corn yield (Ma
et al., 2003b). For example, corn in annual rotation with legume crops could increase corn
yields by as much as 20% and reduce the amount of chemical fertilizer N by as much as 180
kg N ha-1 (Ma et al., 2003b). The average increase of corn yield following soybean ranges
from 10 to 15% in the Midwestern USA (Griffith et al., 1988). Wolfe and Eckert (1999)
observed that in a no-till system, corn following soybean produced greater yield than corn
following corn system, indicating greater contribution of previous legume crop in the rotation
than the amount of crop residue on soil. Lawrence et al. (2008) found that following legume
forage turn over, only a small quantity of starter N was sufficient for optimum of silage corn
yield. In the subsistence farming systems, inclusion of legumes will play an important role in
diversifying crops and ensuring improved household food security.
8.3. Green Manures and Cover Crops
Green manures are the plants grown for the purpose of incorporation into the soil while
they are green. Green manuring involves the soil incorporation of any field or forage crop
while green or soon after flowering, for the purpose of soil improvement (Sullivan, 2003).
Literarily any plant species can be used as a green manure crop, however; species vary
considerably in their adaptation, green manure values and nutrients composition. Generally
leguminous species, plants with succulent tissues, fast growing and plant parts not suitable for
other uses (e.g. forage) are the desirable traits for green manure crops. Green manure crops can
be used as in-situ green manure (i.e. grown in the same field and incorporated in-situ) or green
leaf manure (i.e. lopping from plants or trees from the same field or from outside and then
incorporating them into the soil). Several species of plants, preferably legumes such as
Sesbania, sunhemp (Crotalaria juncea), Pillipesara sp., rice bean (Vigna umbellate L.), velvet
bean (Mucana deeringina), jackbean (Canavalia ensiformis), lablab bean (Dolichos lablab),
red clover (Trifolium pratense), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and other leguminous species are
considered good for green manuring, although certain non-legume species as Adhatoda vasica,
Artemisia vulgaris have also superior green manuring properties (Subedi, 1997). All green
manures have a positive effect on soil biological properties, plant nutrition and crop yield
parameters (Tejada et al., 2008). In addition, the other benefits of green manures are reported
to be weed suppression, moisture conservation, and protection of soil from erosion (Fischler
and Wortmann, 1999). It is estimated that the portion of the N available to a following crop is
usually about 40 to 60% the total amount contained in the legume (Sullivan, 2003).
Cherr et al. (2006) used sun hemp green manures as supplement N sources for sweet corn
in a reduced tillage system. Sun hemp residue and living winter legumes together contained
120 to 125 kg N ha-1. Shehu et al. (1997) reported that a corn crop grown with the green
manure of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) produced yield equivalent to application of chemical
fertilizers at 120 kg N ha-1, 30 kg P ha-1 and 30 kg K ha-1. Similarly, Fischler and Wortmann
(1999) observed that grain yield of corn following a one-season fallow with velvet bean and
lablab bean that were 60 and 50% higher, respectively than corn following corn. These studies
demonstrated that green manures have the potential of substituting most of the N requirements
of succeeding corn crop.
Cover crops refer the growing of any plant species for the purpose of covering soil surface
to protect the soil from erosion and to trap nutrients losses without affecting the main crop.
Similar to green manures, cover crops can be annual, biennial, or perennial herbaceous plants
grown in a pure or mixed stand during all or part of the year (Sullivan, 2003). Cover crop can
be grown during the off-season (i.e. when there is no crop in the field) or underneath the crop.
When cover crops are planted to reduce nutrient leaching following a main crop, they are often
termed as "catch crops" (Sullivan, 2003). Cover crops can be legumes such as hairy vetch
(Vicia villosa Roth.), alfalfa, crimson clover (Trifolium incaratum L.); peas (Pisum sativum L.)
and others, and non-legume plant species such as wheat, oat, rye (Secale cereale) and barley.
Cover crops are incorporated into the soil as green or killed with herbicides.
The key benefits of cover crops are (i) soil conservation by reduced runoff, (ii) trapping of
soil NO3--N that is prone to leaching, (iii) weeds suppression, (iv) soil moisture conservation,
(v) contribution to nutrients pool thereby reduces the amount of fertilizer N requirement, and
(vi) addition of valuable SOM (Decker et al., 1994; Vaughan and Evanylo, 1998; Griffin et al.,
2000; Kuo and Jellum, 2002; Bittman et al., 2004; Snapp et al., 2005; Andraski and Bundy,
2005). For example, cover crop amendments increased soil aggregate stability and the
percentage of water stable 2-6 mm aggregates (Liu et al., 2005). Oyer and Touchton (1990)
reported that reseeding of crimson clover in combination with soybean-corn rotation,
constantly produced the highest yields of the system studied and provided an equivalent of 68
to 159 kg N ha-1 to corn. Griffin et al. (2000) reported that legume cover crops of alfalfa and
hairy vetch were able to replace all or nearly all of the N fertilizer required by a subsequent
sweet corn crop with a fertilizer replacement value of 58 to 156 kg N ha-1. Nevertheless, a
cover crop of cereal rye recovered more fertilizer N (48 kg ha-1) applied in the preceding corn
crop than by legume crops such as vetch and crimson clover (8 kg ha-1). Roy and Ball-Coelho
(2004) also reported that in southern Ontario, winter cereal such as rye appeared to be the best
cover crop for capturing residual N after corn harvest. Rye establishes and grows vigorously in
the fall taking up significant amounts of soil N. Relay crop of cover crops (i.e. planting or
establishing cover crops before corn harvest) can also be practised so as to capture maximum
amount of residual soil N and provide ground cover against erosion and runoff (Bittman et al.,
2004). Relay planting of different crops such as soybean, cowpeas, velvet beans and finger
millet (Eleusine coracana) under corn crop are traditional practices in the subsistence farmings
of tropical and sub-tropical regions, which also help conserve soil and trap N loss.
8.4. Organic Manures
Organic manures are the natural renewable sources of soil organic matter, containing all
the essential plant nutrient elements. Literarily, when any living things die and decay, the
resultant product is organic manure. Until the artificially synthesized chemical fertilizers were
developed, manures and organic supplements were the major sources of plant nutrients and
SOM. There are different types of organic manures. Farm yard manure (FYM), both solid and
liquid, represents the major source of organic manure, although poultry manure, hog manure
and other animal faeces, compost prepared from crop residues and other farm wastes,
vermicompost, oil cakes, and biological wastes such as - animal bones, slaughter house refuse,
etc. all represent organic manure. Most farmers in the developing countries with low input for
corn production are dependent upon organic sources of plant nutrients. Even in the developed
countries, organic manures constitute significant sources of nutrients for corn crop. For
example, in the poultry and dairy production states of USA, almost 40% of the acreage use
manures as nutrient sources for corn production (Christensen, 2002).
Decomposition and mineralization are the means by which plant nutriments held in SOM
are released into the soil as inorganic forms (Jarvis et al., 1996). Mineralization is the process
of transformation of OM into NH4+ - and NO3- - forms of inorganic N and several other
elements by soil microorganisms. Manure from livestock is an important source of N for crop
production in many areas, but efficient management of manure is critical to improve the
economics of manure use and to minimize the impact on water quality (Jokela, 2004). Most of
the readily available N in solid manure from pigs and cattle is in NH3 form while that in
poultry manure is in uric acid form (Misselbrook, 2004). The proportions of readily available
N as NH3 after applications on the soil are typically greater for solid manure than for slurries.
For solid manures, the only practical measure to reduce the ammonia losses after spreading is
to incorporate the manure into the soil (Misselbrook, 2004; Jokela, 2004). The amount of N
that will be available to a crop after manuring depends on the time and method of application.
For the fall (autumn) applications, the majority of available N will be lost through NH3
volatilization soon after application and by NO3- leaching over the winter and spring
(Misselbrook, 2004). It is important to apply manure as later as possible in the fall to minimize
mineralization before soil frozen (Ma et al., 1999b).
Compost is the organic material derived from aerobic decomposition of recycled plant
waste, manures, crop residues, biosolids, and animal shed waste such as left-over fodder.
Nutrients in the compost must be released by soil microorganisms through a decomposition
process called mineralization. This biological process is affected by variations in moisture,
temperature, and the microbial species and populations present in the soil. Composting manure
is a useful method of producing stabilized product that can be stored or spread with little odour
or fly-breeding potential (Fronning et al., 2008).
Organic manures have several advantages such as (i) they serve as the carrier of plant
nutrient and provide several of the essential nutrients, (ii) increase soil OM, (iii) enable soil to
hold more water and also help improve the drainage in clay soils, (iv) they provide organic
acids that help dissolve soil nutrients and make them available for the plants, (v) nutrients from
the organic manures release slowly in soil and supply nutrients over seasons, and (vi) they
enhance the physical, chemical and biological properties of soils.
Nutrients concentrations in the organic manure vary greatly depending on animal species,
the size and age of the animal, type of ration fed to the animals, bedding materials, storage,
processing, and the season of the year. For example, manures from dairy cattle contain higher
N than from beef cattle, broiler chicken litter contain higher N than layer hens and so on.
Rieck-Hinz et al. (1996) reported that nutrient values of dairy feedlot manure were higher in
summer and fall than in spring and winter. The approximate nutrient composition of various
solid manures, including some composted manures, is presented previously (Tables 6 and 7).
While these tables provide a general guide of manure or compost’s nutrient concentrations, it
is strongly recommended that routine sampling and analysis needs to be carried out for the
determination of more precise application rates because as stated earlier, nutrients
concentrations vary greatly over time, location and sources.
There have been some systematic studies on the advantages of FYM and composted
manure applications on soil properties, environment and crop nutrient values. In eastern
Ontario, Ma et al. (1999a) reported greater increase in corn yield by the application of either
uncomposted or partially composted manure, in comparison with inorganic fertilizer N.
Manure application also enhanced soil N release from seasonal mineralization (Ma et al.,
1999b). Eghball and Power (1999a) found there was no effect of tillage practice, and manure
and compost applied plots resulted in similar corn grain yields. They noted that the first year N
availability was approximately 8% for manure and 20% for compost in both no-till and tillage
systems. Apparent NUE was 17% for manure and 12% for compost as compared to 45% in the
chemical fertilizer. In another study (Eghball and Power, 1999b), P-based manure and compost
application resulted in similar grain yield to those N-based treatments, but had significantly
less soil available P level after 4-yr of application. There was no yield difference between the
biannual and annual manure and compost application. They concluded that when application
rate is based on correct N or P availability, manure and compost can produce corn grain yields
that are equal to or greater than that for fertilizer application. Annual P-based manure or
compost application is the most effective method of using these resources when soil P build-up
is a concern. Similarly, when studied N-mineralization from beef-cattle feedlot manure and
compost, Eghball (2000) reported about 11% of the composted manure and 21% of the non-
composted manure released through mineralization during the succeeding growing season.
Eghball et al. (2004) also observed that residual effects of manure and compost applications on
corn grain yield and N uptake lasted for at least over growing seasons while effects on soil
properties lasted longer. Eghball et al. (2005) recommended that in P-deficient soils, a P
availability of 70% should be used. There is a serious lacking of studies on the residual effects
of manure and compost on soil and environment in the developing countries.
The rate of manure or compost applied to fields depends on the crop being grown, soil test
levels and nutrient composition of the manure or compost. There are some studies that
evaluated the efficacy of manure and composts on corn yield in comparison with chemical
fertilizers. Xie and MacKenzie (1986) reported that hog manure resulted in more NO3--N
compared with fresh and composted cow manures. Annual P-based manure or compost
application is the most effective method using these resources when soil P buildup is a concern
(Eghball et al., 2005). One to 5 kg manure-N was found to be equivalent to 1 kg of urea-N in
terms of increasing soil NO3--N levels at the end of growing season. Laboski and Lamb (2003)
reported that P from liquid swine manure was more available than fertilizer P. It is postulated
that decomposition of manure resulted in concentrations of organic acids that effectively
reduced P sorption to the soil and increased P availability.
In a corn-soybean-corn rotation study conducted in Michigan, USA, Fronning et al. (2008)

found that total SOM increased in the 2 to 25 cm soil profile by 41 and 25% for the compost
and manure treatments, respectively and decreased by 3% in the untreated control plots.
Nitrogen uptake increased with increases in N application rates and was higher with hog
manure than with cow manures.
With an expected yield of 9.4 Mg ha-1, Dormaar and Chang (1995) reported that corn
yields of annual or biennial beef cattle manure or compost application based on N or P
requirements of the crop were similar to those for fertilizer application. Ginting et al. (2003)
reported that effects of compost and manure resulted in 20 to 40% higher soil microbial
biomass C, 42 to 74% higher potentially mineralizable N, and 0.5 unit higher pH, as compared
with the fertilizer treatment. For silage corn production, Butler et al. (2008) reported that three
years after compost application, soil P and K concentrations were greater in plots receiving 70
and 150 Mg DM ha-1 manure. Soil OM increased in all treatments receiving >35 Mg DM ha-1
after first season application.
In the smallholder farmers in the tropics and sub-tropical regions, organic manures are the
main sources of plant nutrients for corn. Both quality and quantity of the manures are the
concerns and the environmental effects of manures are less perceived. For example, in a
subsistence farming system of Kenya, Jama et al. (1997) reported that application of 10 kg P
ha-1 as organic, inorganc and organic + inorganic sources significantly increased corn yield.
Sensitivity ananlysis suggested that organic materials was most suitable for use as P source
and low in cost of production. In a similar study conducted in Zimbabwe, supplement manure
with varying levels of mineral fertilizers resulted in corn yields that were still below the
potentials due to inadequate amounts, poor quality of organic materials and inefficient
combinations (Murwira and Palm, 1998).
Nutrients losses from the barn, storage and field are a big concern over manure
management. Burger and Venterea (2008) reported that estimates of first-season available N
from manure would be improved by measuring manure NH4+. In contrast, in soil amended with
solid manure, which had the lowest initial NH4+ content, 22% of organic N was mineralized.
Gaseous N losses were <1% of the added N in all treatments. Oenema et al. (2007) studied the
magnitude of nutrient losses in manure management systems in 27 European Union member
states, and found about 65% of the N excreted in barns was collected in barn and stored for
some time prior to application to agricultural land. Almost 30% of the N excreted in barns was
lost during storage; approximately 19% via NH3 volatilization, 7% via emission of NO, N2O
and N2, and 4% via leaching and run-off. Low-protein animal feeding is an effective measure
to reduce gaseous emissions of NH3, NO and N2, and NO3-- leaching from animal manure. Al-
Kaisi and Kwaw-Mensah (2008) reported that tillage and N rates beyond 85 kg ha-1 had no
effect on corn yield regardless of whether supplied from fertilizer or manure source. Tillage
and N rate had a significant effect on plant N and P uptake. Recovery of percentage of applied
N across all tillage systems and N rates was 40% and 27% from manure and fertilizer sources,
respectively at V12 of corn.
The challenges with use of organic manures are (i) large volume of materials which needs
more application cost, (ii) conservation of nutrients from organic manure, (iii) environmental
issues such as ground and surface water contaminations (Eghball and Power, 1999b), (iv)
odours, and (iv) buildup of P with continuous application and others. If organic materials are
over applied, it may lead to contamination of surface and/or groundwater by excess nutrients
such as NO3--N. Manure application in excess of crop needs can cause a significant buildup of
soil P, N and other ions and salts (Dormaar and Chang, 1995; Eghball and Power, 1999b). The
environmental concerns of manure and compost application are discussed in detail in Section
9.
8.5. Mulching
Mulching is a practice of covering soil surface with some organic (e.g. organic reasidues
or live mulch) or inorganic materials. Living mulches grow for a long time with the main crops
and legumes used as mulches also provide N fixation thereby reducing the need for fertilizer.
This is a traditional practice in the subsistence farming systems of tropical and sub-tropical
regions and it has also gained popularity recently in the conservation agriculture. The key
benefits of using mulch are to (i) conserve soil moisture, (ii) prevent weeds growth, (iii)
protect soil from erosion, (iv) lower soil temperature, and (iv) add OM and nutrients into the
soil.
The value of mulching is very important in sloppy lands and with conventional tillage
practices where soil erosion is a major challenge. Atreya et al. (2008) in the mountains of
Nepal, estimated that up to 60 to 90% of annual nutrients losses occurred during the pre-
monsoon period (May). They reported that mulching reduced annual SOM loss by 52%,
annual total N loss by 46%, annual available P2O5 by 32%, and annual exchangeable K2O by
53% in a corn – mustard (Brassica campestris L.) cropping system. Similarly, intercropping
corn with soybean reduced the annual loss of these nutrients by 58, 49, 26 and 60%,
respectively.
8.6. Hedge Rows
Hedge row intercropping is a system of growing mainly leguminous hedges between the
crop rows and incorporation of pruned biomass on the soil. This system has gained some
attention in subsistence farming systems of tropics, e.g. Africa and Latin America, especially
in the sloppy lands. The benefits of hedge-row system are to (i) conserve soil from runoff, (ii)
add SOM and plant nutrients, and (iii) lift nutrients from deep soil to the surface. Swınkels and
Franzel (1997) evaluated the hedge row intercropping in western Kenya. Although about half
the farmers claimed that hedges improved crop yields, after three years of experimentation
only about one-fifth planted additional hedges and only 14% did so to improve soil fertility.
Agus et al. (1998) reported that Gliricidia in a contour hedgerow increases food crop yield on
strongly acid Oxisols by recycling nutrients and partially supplementing the N demand by the
food crops. It appeared that the potential for its adoption as a soil fertility practice is low,
mainly because of high labour requirements.
8.7. Chemical Fertilizers
Chemical fertilizers are the artificially manufactured sources of plant nutrients. The role of
chemical fertilizers in the modern day’s agriculture are paramount. The agricultural production
in the absence of fertilizers would not have met the growing food demand by the alarmingly
increasing population. Since the 1960s, additional nutrients applied through fertilizers have
been responsible for 55% of the yield increase in developing countries (FAO, 1998). There
should not be an argument whether fertilizers are needed, and corn production in the absence
of chemical fertilizer would not be possible only with rest of other sources. Therefore fertilizer
is one of the key components of IPNM. In an ideal situation, in addition to the nutrients
supplied by the components discussed above, remaining nutrients should be complemented
with chemical fertilizers. Consequently, a judicious use of chemical fertilizer to complement
the nutrients supplied through various other sources is a component of IPNM. The concept of
IPNM therefore, emphasizes the balanced amount of fertilizers to complement the nutrients
insufficient from other sources. However, excessive and unwarranted use of chemical
fertilizers has huge negative impacts on production efficiency, producers’ net returns, regional
and global environment, human health, and cost of production.
Changing practices from conventional to conservation tillage makes chemical fertilizer
management more crucial importance and challenge. Adequate fertility must be maintained
when producers switched to no-till corn production. It is because, for the no-till system, proper
fertilization is imperative to optimize production and maintain SOM (Campbell et al., 1998).
Fertilizer N addition, legume incorporation and tillage systems had significant positive effects
on N-uptake (Dharmakreethi and Beauchamp, 2006). Total N required for producing 1 Mg
grain yield of corn was slightly greater (20 kg Mg-1 grain) in the NT than conventional tillage
(19 kg Mg-1 grain). Thus, Halvorson et al. (2006) stated that current N fertilization
recommendations for conventional tillage corn may need to be modified for NT to account for
the lower yield potential and slightly higher N requirements.
Use of fertilizers is limited in the subsistence farmings of the developing countries because
of (i) unavailability in required time, (ii) lack of money to purchase by the resource poor
farmers, and (iii) lack of technical know-how of the judicious use of fertilizers.
8.7.1. Basis of Fertilizers Recommendation

As stated earlier in the concept of IPNM, the amount of chemical fertilizers required for a
corn crop depends on several factors such as target yield, available nutrients in soil,
mineralization potential of SOM, and nutrients supply from other sources such as FYM or
compost, green manures and others, tillage practices (e.g. no-till or conventional tillage), and
soil water availability (irrigated or non-irrigated). This is a decision making process and needs
some sort of exercise of nutrients budgeting. Current N management practices based on yield
goals have been found to be poorly correlated with optimum N rates (Vonotti and Bundy,
1994). Proper crediting of N from animal manures, legumes in rotation and SOM
mineralization has to be made although it is difficult to estimate the exact value of inputs from
these sources. The nutrients from chemical fertilizers can be supplied through one or more than
one fertilizers (e.g. N, P, K, and micronutrients sources). A decision of which fertilizers to be
applied depends on (i) availability of fertilizers, (ii) relative cost of fertilizers, (iii) soil texture,
(iv) soil pH, and (iv) type and availability of equipments, etc.
Management of N is one of the most important aspects of IPNM. The rate of fertilizer N to
corn depends on several crop management aspects such as hybrid/variety types, purpose of
crop production (grain or silage or sweet corn), yield goal, residual SMN, soil texture, SOM
content, manure history, preceding crops (e.g. legumes or cereals), PPD, and economic
considerations (costs of fertilizer, fuel and produce, etc.), and amount of other sources for N
such as organic manure available. Therefore, determination of a precise N fertilizer rate has
been a complicated topic. It is because the best rate of N for corn crops varies greatly by
complex interactions of soil, climatic, biological, management practices and location
(Blackmer et.al., 1997; Winhold and Halvorson, 1999; Doerge, 2002). Even if SMN is known,
in the humid environments such as eastern Canada, corn yield response to N amendments was
poorly correlated with soil mineral N content prior to planting because of greater spatial and
temporal variability (Ma and Dwyer, 1999). The cumulative effects of past N management
practices, crops in rotations, tillage systems, and excessive use of manure and chemical
fertilizers makes the recommendation further complicated. Therefore, no single rate or a
blanket recommendation is desirable for diverse production systems. Any recommendation
should take into consideration of these variabilities. Recommendation of other nutrients such
as P, K, S and micronutrients should be based on the soil tests, and consideration should be
made for the P and K buildup in soil and micronutrients toxicities due to over-application or
improper application practices.
8.7.2. Timing of Fertilizer Application in Corn

Once the amount of nutrient element required is calculated and the type of fertilizer is
decided, next step is to determine the timing of fertilizer application. Fertilizers can be applied
as (i) before corn planting (preplant), (ii) at planting (starter), or (iii) after seedling emergence
(sidedress or topdress) depending on various circumstances. The key factors that determine the
apropriate timing of fertilizer application to corn could be (i) soil residual nutrients, (ii)
previous crop in the rotation, (iii) amount of manure and fertilizers applied on the previous
crops, (iv) soil texture and (v) other factors such as availability of fertilizer, labour, credit, etc.
For example, if the soil contains adequate P and K, it would unlikely need to add these
nutrients. On the other hand, if the soil test shows lack of these nutrients and other sources are
inadequate, these nutrients should be supplied based on the soil-test recommendations during
land preparation.
Timing of N fertilizer application is critical, especially for corn production. Nitrogenous
fertilisers are generally applied to corn as preplant, starter (at planting), and as sidedress at the
V6 to V8 growth stage (in-season). One approach to better matching N application with crop
need is a split application, focussing the split component at mid-to-late vegetative stages (Ruiz
Diaz et al., 2008). The goal is to make sure the crop not experience any shortage of N during
the critical periods of requirement. If organic manure such as FMY is to be applied, they
should be incorporated well before corn planting.
The rate of N uptake by corn is relatively slow before entering the period of rapid growth
at about the V6 growth stage. The highest rate of N mineralization tends to occur before the
highest rates of N uptake by corn (Wu et al., 2008) at which, soil NO3--N that accumulates
during the early part of the growing season, usually still presents in the root zone during the
peak demand period (Magdoff, 1991). Tillage system has a role on the timing of N
requirement. Schepers et al. (1995) reported that 50 to 80% of the N fertilizer use in corn is
applied prior to planting; however this varies with location. Less than 20% of the total N
uptake by corn occurs prior to sidedress (Schepers et al., 1995). Soil temperature rather than N
immobilization by residue and/or N supplied from residue, were primary factors affecting net
N mineralization in high surface residue corn systems (Andraski and Bundy, 2008).
Starter fertilizer is an efficient way of stimulating early growth and improving yield of
corn (Niehues et al., 2004). Starter fertilizers, regardless of placement, often increased early
season dry matter (DM) production and significantly increase grain yields (Vetsch and
Randall, 2002; Niehues et al., 2004). Restriction of starter N supply until V8 stage (Ritchie et
al., 1993) caused an irreversible effect on grain yield of corn even though adequate N was
supplied thereafter (Subedi and Ma, 2005a). Plant competition between the vegetative stage
and anthesis had a large effect on grain yield reduction, which ranged from 8 to 21% (Hashemi
et al., 2005). Subedi and Ma (2009) reported that while lack of preplant N application (100 kg
ha-1) reduced yield by up to 10 to 22%, there was no yield increment due to additional
sidedress of 50 kg N ha-1 in a medium textured loamy soil. The disadvantage of a single
preplant application is that excess N applied early can be lost on coarse-textured sandy soils or
with irrigated corn due to leaching, and on fine-textured soils due to runoff. While starter
fertilizers accelerate early plant growth under these conditions, yield increases do not always
occur. Bullock et al. (1993) reported that starter fertilizers on soils of high testing mineral N
increased plant growth and development rates, but the increase in early growth often did not
result in a yield increase. In general, use of starter fertilizers for corn may be more important in
no-till or reduced tillage systems than in conventional tillage because it may help overcome the
effects of slow early growth and soil compaction. In Wisconsin, a comparison of starter
fertilizer in no-till and conventional tillage showed that planting date had a major influence on
the role of starter fertilizer with the largest yield response in the no-till system when corn was
planted late (Bundy and Widen, 1991). No-till soils are often cooler and less aerated than tilled
soils. These conditions decrease N mineralization so that less N is available to the crop early in
the season. Failing to apply sufficient N fertilizer at planting time when the remainder of N
fertilizer is to be sidedress may limit yield of no-till corn. In the no-till or mulch covered fields,
incorporating or knifing-in the UAN improves efficiency slightly over dribble applications.
Delaying of some or all N fertilizer until after seedling emergence may allow for precise
diagnosis of N needs by either in-season soil testing, tissue tests, sensing crop colour or
estimating weather effect on soil N availability (Magdoff et al., 1984; Blackmer et al., 1989;
Scharf et al., 2002). Post-emergence applications are practised so as to avoid frequent wet
seasons and to minimise the in-season N loss in wet years (Scharf et al., 2002). However,
delaying N application may lead to irreversible yield loss (Subedi and Ma, 2005a). Binder et
al. (2000) reported a nearly 12% reduction in maximum grain yield when delaying in N
application until V6 growth stage. Scharf et al. (2002) found that yield was still responsive to
N application until silking, but full yield was not achieved when applications were delayed till
then. Corn responded more to sidedress N for total N uptake than for preplant application, and
it is very likely that grain yield is affected to a larger extent by the conditions after sidedress
(Ma et al., 2005). Split application of N can help reduce the N loss and also meet the high
demand of corn during its peak uptake stage. Split-application also provides farmers with the
opportunity for fine-tuning of N application. Russell et al. (1998) indicated that N recovery by
corn may be greater when part of the N is applied as a delayed split rather than a single
application at planting.
Studies have shown that N applied as sidedress during the early growth stage (i.e. close to
the time of rapid uptake of N by the crop) has been used more efficiently (Magdoff et al.,
1984; Magdoff, 1991; Ma et al., 2005). There is less time for leaching or denitrification loss
when N is applied after plant emergence (Vetch and Randall, 2004). This is especially critical
on soils with a high potential for leaching or denitrification. Although corn plants can be
responsive to applied N until later stages and it is easy to detect N-deficiency at the later
stages, application after V8 growth stages has a practical problem of the crop being damaged.
Broadcasting fertilizers such as urea on corn plants can cause leaf injury; therefore this is not a
feasible practice for corn.
In the humid temperate regions of USA and Canada, where there is usually a single crop in
a year, fertilizer N can also be applied either during the fall (after crop harvest) or during the
spring (prior to corn planting). Smicklas and Moore (2008) compared fall and spring
applications in terms of grain yield of corn and NO3--N recovered in the drainage water.
Application of full dose of anhydrous ammonia in the spring produced equivalent yields to that
of fall-applied N treatments and it decreased NO3--N release into the drainage water.
8.7.3. Methods of Fertilizer Application

Chemical fertilizers can be applied to corn as surface broadcast or banded with planting or
injected in furrows at sidedress. Appropriate application method also depends on fertilizer
type, tillage system or land preparation, and stage of crop at the time of fertilizer application.
For instance, N fertilizer is often applied in no-till systems using surface broadcast of granular
urea or N solutions containing urea (UAN). If it is anhydrous ammonia, it has to be soil
incorporated (knifed) to 15 to 20 cm deep. Fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate, ammonium
sulfate, and the ammoniated phosphates are less prone to volatilization losses, therefore can be
surface-applied to soils with neutral or low pH, while application of urea as surface broadcast
would lead to significant losses.
8.7.3.1. Surface Broadcast Application

Generally, fertilizers and manures are applied as broadcast on the soil surface mainly in
the non-mechanized farmings. Even in the mechanized farming, fertilizer or manure is spread
over the soil surface such as solid manure or preplant application of fertilizer. There are some
possible adverse effects of the surface applied manure or fertilizers on soil and environment
such as surface-applied fertilizers and manures are prone to runoff and, surface-applied or
shallow banding of P and K could lead to stratification of these nutrients. Incorporation of
surface applied manure or fertilizer into the soil immediately after application is the
recommended best nutrient management practice.
8.7.3.2. Banding
Banding of fertilizers along the seed row allows combining the seeder with the fertilizer
distributor in one operation and saves timing and fuel cost in field operation. The consensus to
date is that P and K applications via strip tillage in the fall may be too deep to provide starter
fertilizer benefits to the following corn crop. Fall banding operations need to be particularly
concerned with depth of placement and perhaps with the orientation of previous bands as well.
8.7.3.3. Foliar Application

Foliar application of nutrients to corn has not been very effective although micronutrients
can be foliar-applied. Foliar application can sometimes cause foliar injury (phytotoxicity) of
the crop if proper sprayer calibrations are not carried out or if sprayers are not properly cleaned
after herbicide application. Foliar application is more useful for micronutrients that require
very small concentration. However, for the macronutrients such as N, the amount of total
requirements by high yield crops cannot be applied at once; split applications with foliar
supplement may useful to avoid plant toxicities.
8.7.4. Variable Rate-Application (VRA)/Site-Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM)

Yield variation in a corn field may be caused by many factors, including spatial variability
in landscape position, soil structure and texture, crop production and field operation history,
soil physical and chemical properties and nutrients availability (Wibawa et al., 1993; Penny et
al., 1996). Site-specific nutrients management (SSNM) is a concept developed in Asia for rice
(IRRI, 2007). It emphasizes on ‘feeding’ nutrients as and when the crop needed. The SSNM
strives to enable farmers to dynamically adjust fertilizer use to optimally and timely fill the
deficit between the nutrient needs of a high-yielding crop and the nutrient supply from
naturally occurring indigenous sources such as soil, organic amendments, crop residues,
manures, and irrigation water (IRRI, 2007). Site-specific N management based on an in-season
assessment of crop N status may offer producers with increased grain yield, profitability, and
NUE. To address the spatial variability of nutrients in corn fields, precision agriculture
practices such as SSNM will benefit growers by increasing the efficiency of fertilizers, reduce
the total amount of N application, improving the productivity and thereby reducing
environmental impacts. In Kenya, Tabu et al. (2006) reported that SSNM was found to be
important in the small holder farmer fields. A survey of the fertilizer use, however, shows that
farmers use sub-optimal levels probably because of the poor resources level and non-specific
recommendations that aim at optimizing crop yield but not necessarily NUE.
Variable rate application (VRA) is a similar concept as SSNM but it is based on more
precision agricultural practices than in the SSNM system. The strategies used in the VRA are
assessing site characteristics that affect soil nutrients dynamics. Fertilizer rates, application
timing and methods are determined based on extensive soil tests to determine pre- and post
season NO3--N and other nutrients of interest using intensive grid soil sampling or according to
crop need-based indicators (Ma et al., 2005). Crop-based indicators (e.g. remote sensing,
SPAD), and real-time site specific yield monitors are gaining popularity in recent years.
Variable responses to the amount of N fertiliser application in the same region or field have
been more common than other nutrients in corn (Magdoff et al., 1984; Scharf et al., 2002;
Andraski and Bundy, 2002). The first step in site-specific N management is to examine the
field history, in particular its effect on N mineralization, and to take account of anticipated
effects of texture, drainage and precipitation (Schröder et al., 2000). Site-specific N
management requires indicators of the N status of the soil-crop system. Various indicators
have been developed and evaluated during the last decade (Schröder et al., 2000). An ideal
indicator has a reproducible relationship with the N status of the soil-crop system and must be
able to detect or predict both deficiency and excess of N.
Heiniger (1998) reported that VRA increased yields only in the strips testing low in P and
K, but an increased economic profit of VRA where variability existed in the fields. Ferguson et
al. (2002) realised no significant difference between the uniform application and VRA while
VRA reduced soil residual NO3--N. Schmidt et al. (2002) stated that VRA based only on SOM
are too simplistic to reflect variability in soil N availability within a field. Other workers have
shown the potential of VRA to improve fertilizer use efficiency (Raun et al., 2002), increase
yield (Wang et al., 2003), economic returns (Wang et al, 2003; Yang et al., 2001; Koch et al.,
2004), and reduced environmental impacts (Raun et al., 2002; Roberts et al., 2002). Wittry and
Mallarino (2004) reported that VRA resulted in better P fertilizer management because it
applied 12 to 14% less fertilizer and reduced soil test P variability compared with the
traditional uniform fertilization method. Inman et al. (2005) used site specific management
zones (SSMZ) for N management and such zones were found to be less spatially variable than
the whole field. The SSMZs accurately characterized variability in N uptake as well as grain
yield response to applied N. They concluded that variation in N uptake and grain yield can
potentially be managed using SSMZs. Nevertheless, adoption of this practice by corn
producers in the North America is rather low because of the recommended N fertilizers based
on yield goal are often poorly correlated with actual economically optimum N rates (Doerge,
2002). The challenges are that N response patterns are often field- and season-specific and can
vary within the same fields (Doerge, 2002). The availability of N to crop plant is affected by
complex set of interacting soil, biological, climatic and management factors (Blackmer et al.,
1992; Degree, 2002; Ma and Dwyer, 1999). Economically optimum rate of N (EORN) was
very different between fields and was also highly variable within fields (Scharf et al., 2005).
Scharf et al. (2005) concluded that the average level of within field variability in EORN is high
enough than the potential of VRA to produce economic and environmental benefits. The total
amount of N utilized by corn crop will increase with yield level. However, the predicted,
potential, average or actual yields are poorly correlated with EORN (Blackmer et al., 1992;
Doerge, 2002). As EORN was poorly correlated with grain yield, Lory and Scharf (2003)
suggested that the Delta Yield (i.e. the grain yield at optimum N rate minus grain yield at
control) may be a better predictor of EORN, and farmers should be encouraged to monitor
Delta Yield as a more effective indicator of EORN than the actual yield.
There are no consistent advantages for variable or uniform rate of N applications, whole-
field N rates were similar for both strategies and post-season soil NO3--N levels were not
appreciably reduced when using VRA (Wu and Ma, 2008). Doerge (2002) reviewed the
prospect of VRA and concluded that there is a need for new diagnostic tools that provide a
better prediction of EORN in sub-regions of a field. Adoption of this technology has been
hampered due to the difficulty of classifying fields into management units, the high cost of
sampling soils on a grid basis, and the variability of soil and plant properties in the landscape.
Moreover, intensive grid soil sampling approaches involving analysis of soils is also another
drawback for VRA to be a viable technology. Further research on tools that detect the nutrients
variability will make this technology more economical and practical for adoption by growers.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH CORN

NUTRIENTS MANAGEMENT
Corn production consumes probably the largest amounts of fertilizers worldwide. Even
with the most efficient ways of nutrient management practices, the efficacy of applied
nutrients is always low (< 50%). The low efficiency of applied nutrients especially N leads to
significant economic and environmental consequences. Therefore, excessive and improper
application of manure and fertilizers on corn production has raised public concern about
surface and ground water contamination, and gaseous N emissions to pollute the environment
(Christensen, 2002; Jarvis et al., 1996). While there are various pathways of N loss from corn
fields, the major routes of N losses occur through NH3 volatilization, NO3- leaching, and N2O
emissions (especially due to denitrification). Plant N losses as NH3 could be up to 52 to 73%
of labeled 15N fertilizer in a corn field (Francis et al., 1993). In a tillage study, gaseous N
losses due to denitrification from applied N fertilizer are up to 10% for conventionally-tilled
and 22% for no-till corn (Hilton et al., 1994). The leaching loss of NO3--N is dependent on the
amount of residual NO3- in the soil, applied manures and N fertilizers, rate of SOM
mineralization which is dependent on soil temperatures and seasonal rainfall and/or irrigation
water. Nitrate leaching is the most serious problem on well drained and sandy soils, but it also
can occur on well-drained upland limestone and shale soils. In Ontario, Drury et al. (1996)
estimated that up to 26 kg ha-1 yr-1 of NO3--N is lost through tile drainage. Denitrification is
most serious on soils rated as somewhat poorly drained but it also can occur on any soil that is
saturated with water. In Germany, Herrmann et al. (2005) concluded that forage corn
production is characterised by a significant excess of N supply, and there leaves ample
opportunity for reduction in N use without risk of yield loss. Therefore, manures and fertilizers
must be used judiciously to maximize profits, optimize crop quality, save energy, and protect
the environment (Schröder et al., 2000). In this section, the different ways of nutrients loss
from corn fields are discussed in relation to their impacts on environment.
9.1. Issues with the Use of Manure and Biosolids
Composted or liquid manure from farm animals is one of the major sources of plant
nutrients. Crop production in the small-holder farms is more dependent on manures as a source
of plant nutrients. Odour, runoff and leaching of nutrients such as NO3--N are some of the
important key environmental problems associated with manure and biosolids use in corn field.
Over-application of fertilizer or manure P can negatively impact water quality. Nitrate leaching
occurs most commonly after the corn harvest and in the following spring, and the risk of NO3--
N movement in groundwater is lower in loamy than in sandy soil (Ball-Coehlo and Roy,
2004). There has been substantial research conducted on this topic in Europe and North
America, but there is a lack of information in the developing countries, where manure is the
major source of nutrients for crop production.
In general, animal manure contains more P than needed by the crop when the amount of
manure application is based on its N content. Therefore, continuous manure application to
meet crop N requirements will result in higher soil test P, water soluble P and higher potential
runoff P (Zhang et al., 2007). Proper management of P sources and P transport over the
landscape can reduce negative impacts of P on water quality. Where P buildup in soil is a
concern, Zvomuya et al. (2006) suggest that accurate prediction of P availability and plant P
recovery may help tailor manure and compost applications to plant needs and minimize the
buildup of bioavailable P, which can contribute to eutrophication of sensitive aquatic systems.
Accumulation and redistribution of NO3--N within the soil varies due to management
practices, soil characteristics and growing season precipitation. Hensler et al. (1970) concluded
that for soils near the neutral points, nutrients in the manure, even at the very high rates of
application can be utilized in crop production and soil improvement with relatively little
danger of plant toxicity. Lithuurgidis et al. (2006) reported that concentrations of NO3--N in
the soil profile of manure-plots were higher than control but similar to inorganic fertilizer
treatments. They concluded that soil applied liquid cattle manure at a rate equivalent to the
recommended inorganic fertilization can produce corn yield and maintain soil fertility at
desired level.
When raw or treated liquid swine manure (LSM) was used on corn as sidedress followed
by immediate incorporation, Chantigny et al. (2008) found that the raw and treated LSM have
fertilizer value of N uptake and corn yields similar to fertilizer N; the risk of post-harvest NO3-
accumulation with the raw and treated LSM was similar to mineral fertilizer on the loam soil
and lower on clay soils. Application of organic manures affects the rate of mineralization. Net
mineralization in the historically amended soil was twice that in the historically non-amended
soil, mostly due to difference in soil total N stock (Mallory and Griffin, 2007).
Research has shown that 40% of the total N in beef feedlot manure and 15% in composted
beef feedlot manure is available to the crop plant in the first year it is applied and incorporated
(Eghball et al., 1999a). Apparent NUE was 17% for manure, 12% for compost, and 45% for
the fertilizer treatment across 4 years. When beef feedlot manure is applied and not
incorporated in a no-till system, research has shown first-year availability of 38% of total N for
manure and 20% for compost (Eghball et al., 1999b). In their study, surface application did not
show significant N loss because the N in both manure and compost were in very stable forms.
A significant portion of the N can be lost from manure before it is applied to the land.
Much of this is caused by the gaseous loss of ammonia (NH3). This process occurs in the
feedlot pens and during storage. Ammonia loss will also continue after manure is applied to
crop land. Research has shown that incorporation of manure into the soil within the first 48 h
of application minimizes the gaseous loss of ammonia to about 15%. Delaying incorporation
will cause greater losses. Injection of liquid manure can also greatly reduce gaseous loss and
retain more N for crop use. Equipment should be calibrated based on the application method so
the correct amount is used.
9.2. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emission
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is one of the main greenhouse gases (GHG) generated from
agricultural sources. It has a global warming potential of 298 times greater than that of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and 25 times than that of methane (CH4) over a 100-year time horizon (IPCC,
2007). It accounts for approximately 5% of atmospheric GHG effect globally (Hutchinson et
al., 2007). The dramatic increase of atmospheric N2O is due to the human alterations of the
global N cycle, with 24% of annual emissions produced by agricultural soils and the
application of N fertilizer (Bouwman, 1996; Mosier et al., 1996; Mosier, 2001; Bouwman and
Boumans, 2002; IPCC, 2007). In groundwater under agricultural fields receiving N
applications, or in riparian zones receiving groundwater or runoff water, excessive NO3- may
be transformed to N2O through the process of denitrification (Mosier et al., 1998). Nitrous
oxide emissions account for almost 60% of on-farm GHG emissions in Canada (Desjardins et
al., 2005). Hutchinson et al. (2007) estimated that the direct N2O from manured corn field
ranged from 12.9 to 17.3 Tg with an average of 15.1 Tg equivalents during 1981-2001. The
greatest source of emissions estimated was from N fertilizer followed by crop residue (4.24
Tg). During a corn growing season (mid-May to mid-September), N2O emission from an
irrigated corn field was totaled only 2.5 kg N ha-1and about 30% of the N2O lost from the corn
field was emitted during the 2 wk following fertilization (Mosier and Hutchinson, 1981). The
amount of N2O produced is determined by the rate of nitrification and denitrification in
agricultural systems, and soil moisture plays an important role. The flux of N2O was not
significantly correlated with soil NO3--N concentration but was strongly correlated with soil
water content and N2O concnetration in the soil atmosphere (Mosier and Hutchinson, 1981).
Similarly, Lessard et al. (1996) observed that fluxes of N2O occurred in episodes and the high
fluxes coincided with periods when NO3--N levels and water content were relatively high.
Under a simulated rainfall condition, Whalen (2000) observed pulsed N2O emission from
denitrification of accumulated NO3--N, indicating that further emissions will occur with an
increase in soil moisture. Agricultural activities influence N2O emissions primarily by
changing the magnitude and pattern of N-cycle in the soil-plant system (Hutchinson et al.,
2007). However, Ginting et al. (2003) concluded that residual effects of manure and compost
on CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions were minimal. Kim et al. (2009) also concluded that the flux
of dissolved N2O from the cropped field was negligible in comparison to soil N2O emission in
the crop fields. Fronning et al. (2008) observed that compost and manure amendments resulted
in a net global warming potential (GWP) of equivalent to 1811 and 1160 g CO2 m-2 yr-1,
respectively, compared to 12 g CO2 m-2 yr-1 for unapplied control treatment.
9.3. Nitrate (NO3--N) Leaching and Water Quality
Excessive rates and inappropriate method of application or inefficient use of N fertilizer

may have adverse effects on ground water through leaching of soil NO3--N. High NO3- levels
in ground water can cause adverse health concerns, especially for infants, and it also cause
excess plant and bacterial growth, which upon death and decay can deplete much oxygen in
river and lake water. The primary inorganic N component in the soil profile was NO3--N, and
the zone of maximum accumulation was between 2 and 2.5 m. Excessive levels of NO3--N in
subsurface drainage from row crops, especially corn are well documented (Owens, 2008).
Such accumulation is subjected to loss during winter and spring periods through leaching
and/or denitrification, especially in the humid environments (Drury et al., 2007).
A considerable amount of research has been conducted on NO3--N leaching and
redistribution in soil. Timmons and Dylla (1981) estimated that annual average NO3--N
leaching loss ranged from about 29 (non-fertilized, non-irrigated) to 112 kg ha-1 (high N with
irrigation), the combination of variable rainfall, soil NO3--N content and low soil water holding
capacity cause great variation within and among years. De Jong et al. (2007) estimated that N
loss via leaching and concentration of NO3--N in the leached water in Canada ranged from 5.1
kg N ha-1 in 1991 to 6.4 kg ha-1 in 2001. The actual concentration of NO3--N in the ground
water is affected by the amount of fertilizers applied in the previous crops, soil texture,
seasonal rainfall (percolation), tillage operations, crop rotations and so on. Elevated post-
harvest soil NO3--N usually provides evidence that N was applied in excess for corn uptake
(Ferguson et al., 1991; Andraski et al., 2003). Nitrate remaining in the post-harvest soil profile
representing a potential risk for leaching during the fallow period has been shown to be closely
related to N fertilization rate, seasonal precipitation and soil texture (Gehl et al., 2006). Year-
to-year variations in loads of NO3--N occur as a result of variations in weather and crop yields.
There are different ways which can minimize the NO3- leaching in the ground water. As N
is lost from cropping systems in a number of pathways, a single solution of N management is
unlikely (Binder et al., 2000). Precise matching of application rates with crop needs could
reduce residual soil NO3--N available for leaching (Bausch and Duke, 1996; Vyn et al., 1999;
Andraski and Bundy, 2002). For this, in-season, site-specific or variable-rate N management
based on remote sensing tools may reduce N losses to groundwater while maintaining or
increasing yield and NUE. Similarly, periodic application of liquid N through the irrigation
system may reduce average annual NO3--N leaching by about 12 kg ha-1 at the 5 cm irrigation
level. When N application rate was higher than the optimum, little fertilizer derived N leached
from the profile during the first growing season, but losses did occur during the off-season and
subsequent growing season (Stevens et al., 2005). Yang et al. (2007) found that improved N
fertilization practices reduced residual soil nitrate (RSN) by 13%. In China, Fang et al. (2008)
estimated that there was a potential of saving more than 30% of the current N application rates
per crop from 300 to 200 kg N ha-1, which could reduce about 60% of the N leaching without
compromising yields. Timing of N fertilizer can have a major effect on NO3- leaching.
Smiciklas and Moore (2008) observed that spring applied fertilizer produced equivalent corn
yield with decreased NO3--N in the drainage water, in comparison with that of fall-applied N
treatments. Similarly, maintaining healthy and dense corn plants may help to reduce NO3-
leaching. Herron et al. (1971) proposed that use of a nitrification inhibitor with an NH carrier
can help in preserving mineral N in irrigated fine-textured soils. Maho et al. (2007) suggested
that NO3--N leaching from a granitic regosol during the rainy season could be reduced by the
increasing of planting density of corn due to the increase of N uptake by the plants.
The amount of NO3- leaching also depends on the soil type, water management practice
and cropping system. For example, no-till crop production increases the amount of soil
macropores and allows for greater water infiltration, which could lead to more NO3- leaching
in groundwater (Izaurralde et al., 1995). However, more recent studies (Halvorson, et al.,
2001; Gupta et al., 2004) showed no difference in N leaching between tillage types. Soil type,
rainfall, crop rotation and other external factors will influence the amount and rate of the
macropore flow. Therefore, proper N fertilization management is important to prevent
producers from applying too much crop-usable N and increasing the risk of N leaching in
macropore flow. Weather events can lead to substantial leaching, runoff, or denitrification of
residual N. As a general rule, the lower end of the recommended N rate range is more
appropriate under conditions when residual N is expected. Planting of cover crops and
avoiding of late season sidedress can minimize the post harvest NO3--N concentration in soil,
which is liable for leaching.
9.4. Phosphate in Surface Water
Transport of P from field is influenced by rainfall, soil erosion, surface runoff, and wind
(Lemunyon, 1993). The rate, timing, form, and method of application, along with the site
location on the landscape affect the likelihood of P movement and environmental impact
(Lemunyon, 1993). The transport of manure nutrients off-site in runoff is a major source of
surface water contamination. Phosphorus and N in surface runoff are the major contributors to
the impairment of lakes and ponds through the process of eutrophication. Eutrophication is the
result of excessive bacteria and algae growth in surface waters due to nutrient enrichment,
usually of N and phosphates. Applying poultry manure according to the N needs of corn
typically applies more P than is recommended for two crop-years in a corn-soybean rotation,
which increases the risk for P losses to surface waters (Mallarino et al., 2002; Kaiser et al.,
2009).
Phosphorus from liquid swine manure was more available than fertilizer P. It was
postulated that the decomposition of manure resulted in concentrations of organic acids that
effectively reduced P sorption to the soil and increased P availability. Incorporating swine
manure when the probability of immediate rainfall is high reduces the risk of P loss in surface
runoff; however, this benefit sharply decreases with time (Allen and Mallarino, 2008). Grande
et al. (2005a, 2005b) observed that high residue levels combined with spring-applied manure
led to enrichment in the clay-sized fraction of runoff sediment. After 4-yr of last application of
manure and compost in a corn field, P leaching to a soil depth of 45 to 60 cm was observed
with N-based manure application (Eghball et al., 2004).
Recently applied manure and higher residue levels achieved by high-cutting silage can
substantially lower sediment losses in spring runoff when soil is most susceptible to erosion.
Kleinman et al. (2005) reported that water-extractable P (WEP) ranged widely (0.2 -16.8 g ha-
1
), with swine manure having the highest average concentrations (9.2 g ha-1), followed by
turkey (6.3 g ha-1), layer chickens (4.9 g ha-1), dairy cattle (4.0 g ha-1), broiler chickens (3.2 g
ha-1), and beef cattle manure (2.3 g ha-1). Phosphorus leaching from manure applications on
loamy sand soils does not pose environmental concerns as long as soil P levels remain below
the saturation level (van Es et al., 2004). Phosphorus leaching can be extreme and represents a
great concern in many coarse-textured soils with low P-sorption capacities (Alleoni et al.,
2008). In a simulated rainfall study in Alberta, Canada, runoff of total P, soil test P and
dissolved reactive P concentrations increased with manure rate for both fresh and residual
manure (Volf et al., 2007). Band placement of P fertilizer can be considered an environmental
best management practice because the fertilizer banded below the soil surface is much less
susceptible to loss via surface runoff (Jokela, 2004). Recent manure additions were most
influential in enriching transported sediments with P (Grande et al., 2005b).
There was no relationship between soil test P levels and runoff P concentrations or loads in
no-till systems. Long-term manure P applications in excess of P removal by corn in
conventional tillage systems ultimately increased the potential for greater dissolved and
bioavailable P losses in runoff by increasing soil P levels (Andraski et al., 2003). They suggest
that maintaining high surface residue cover such as those found in long-term NT corn
production systems can mitigate this risk in addition to reducing sediment and particulate P
losses.
10. CORN RESIDUES, BIO-FUEL, AND IMPACTS

ON SOIL FERTILITY
Residues are necessary to protect soil from erosion and to contribute SOM levels. Crop
residues protect the soil from wind and water erosion, provide inputs to form soil organic
matter (a critical component determining soil quality) and play a key role in nutrient cycling
(Johnson et al., 2003). In the developing countries, corn stover is removed mainly for animal
feed, while in the mechanized and developed countries such as in the USA, corn residue
(stover) has been increasingly considered as a source of cellulosic biomass for biofuel
production to supplement fossil fuel. Ethanol derived from corn is considered as a clean source
of energy that is in use to power transportation vehicles. Use of corn residue for production of
biofuel has the advantage of reducing dependence on the imported fossil fuel and developing
renewal energy source (Wilhelm et al., 2004). Because of the growing demand of corn based
ethanol, corn growers in the USA are getting good profits from corn crops. Its use is increasing
and there is a growing demand of biofuel although this technology is generally still in its
infancy. Under conservation tillage systems, the corn residues are left over after the grain
harvest, which can be a major source of nutrients cycling and SOM. Removing corn stover as a
feed stock for biofuel production may decrease the amount of carbon stored in soil, and lead to
an adverse impact on overall soil fertility.
There are no consistent conclusions on the impacts of residue removal on soil
characteristics and crop yield. In a short-term test, stover removal resulted in increased soil
crust strength and reduced soil water content (Blanco-Canquia et al., 2006). Over a three-year
period, where crop residues were completely removed after harvest, yield of corn was reduced
by 22% than where residues were not removed (Dorna et al., 1984). Yield reduction of corn
was primarily from decreased soil water storage and excessive surface soil temperatures where
residue was completely removed. There is a potential of reduction in grain yields as well as
greater potential for nutrients removal (Dorna et al., 1984). Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2008)
reported that removal of stover at rates ≥ 50% reduced sub-critical water repellence by 2 to 10
times in all soils and concluded that stover removal adversely affects both macro- and micro-
scale soil properties. In the contrary, Wilhelm et al. (2004) stated that within limits, corn stover
can be harvested for biofuel production. Johnson et al. (2003) concluded that the range of crop
and soil responses to crop residue removal was attributed to interactions with climate,
management and soil type. Crop residues also impact radiation balance and energy fluxes and
reduce evaporation. The impact of crop residue removal on soil quality and crop productivity
must be assessed before prudent decision and policy can be developed (Wilhelm et al., 2004).
Other potential problems with using corn stover for bio-energy include competition with
livestock feed, competition in land for other food grains production, and more importantly, the
negative impact on soil fertility and quality due to increasing continuous corn monoculture.
The removal of corn stover will significantly reduce the amount of OM returned in the soil,
which in time will reduce the SOM and plant nutrients. Alternative practices such as green
maturing, cover cropping and using animal manures should be practices for the lands where
corn stovers are removed for biofuel production. Similarly, height of cutting of stover will
minimize the total OM removal from the soil. In general, the benefits of using crop residues as
fuel, which removes crop residues from the field, must be balanced against negative
environmental impacts (e.g. soil erosion), maintaining SOM levels, and preserving or
enhancing productivity.
11. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

This chapter covered a wide prospectus of sustainable nutrients management in corn crops.
Corn types, corn-based cropping systems, corn growth stages and maturity group, essential
nutrients and their classification, nutrients-deficiencies and sources of nutrients for corn crops
are the introductory sections. Methods of detecting nutrients requirements, and integrated
management of different sources of nutrients as well as strategies to achieve optimum corn
yield without causing adverse effects on soil health and environment have been the other
aspects of this chapter. Emphasis has been given on the nutrients use efficiencies especially for
N and impacts of different nutrients management practices on environment, such as on soil
NO3--N leaching to ground water, P in surface runoff and gaseous N emissions. The effects of
using organic manures and biosolids on corn fields and removal of corn stover for bioenergy
production are also briefly discussed. The information provided is based on the advances in
contemporary research outcomes suitable to the topic. Although we have tried to provide a
global perspective of the topic, it is obvious that majority of the research works that have been
reviewed are from the North Americas.
Low efficiency of applied manures and fertilizers, especially N fertilizer has been found to
be one of the most important nutrients management challenges in corn production.
Consequently, the impacts of chemical fertilizers and animal manures on soil, water and
eventually on the environment are significant. Tillage practices such as conservation tillage has
positive impacts on nutrients use efficiency, and soil conservation, and environment although
it demands more nutrients initially. Nutrients application timing (such as preplant or
sidedress), rate and methods have also been influenced by the tillage systems. The IPNM,
which is a nutrients management approach of integrating soil, crop and nutrients sources for
sustainable crop production seems to be the key nutrients management approach for all corn
production systems. Components of IPNM have been discussed in relation with the
environmental protection and sustainability of the corn production systems.
Nutrients management on corn is one of the most researched areas, while nutrients losses
from the corn fields are noteworthy. Still there are several areas of research that needed to be
concentrating for the sustainable nutrients management in corn crops in order to maximize the
nutrients use efficiencies while reducing the impacts on environment. Based on the review of
published literatures on this topic, information gaps in corn nutrients management seem to be
in the following key areas:
• There are several researches on an individual component of the overall nutrients

management for corn, such as N, P or micronutrients management. However, research
on a complete package is lacking. For example, integrating soil, crop and nutrients
management on a holistic system basis would provide more useful results on a system
perspective. Therefore, research projects focus on IPNM approach of nutrients
management, i.e. integrating nutrients, soils, crop and environment would be desirable
for the sustainable corn production.
• It has been observed that the use of N fertilizer on corn production is far more than
what is actually required. There is always a lower NUE, usually < 40% and excessive
N are beyond recovery in the soil and water systems. Therefore, efforts towards
reducing the use of unwarranted N fertilizers or manure in corn fields are important.
Large-scale on-farm research and demonstration projects with the participation of corn
producers will be useful and perhaps the best technology transfer avenues to raise
producers awareness and acceptance of any new innovative technologies.
• There is lack of suitable and agronomic and economically feasible controlled-release
fertilizers that would provide the crop with timely nutrient supply while minimizing or
eliminating NO3- and gaseous N emission losses. Integrating experts in the areas of
soil, plant, and engineering, including nanotechnology to develop intelligent smart
fertilizers and matched nutrient management systems will certainly improve the
system efficiency.
• There is a serious lack of research on crop site-specific nutrients management,
especially in the developing countries. Generalizing the research results from
geographically distinct regions is not appropriate. Therefore, more research based on
the local cropping systems, soil and environment should be encouraged. Nutrients
recommendations without complete set of research information can be misleading in
terms of environmental and human health issues while increase the cost of manure or
fertilizers.
• Manures from animals are the natural sources of plant nutrients and undoubtedly they
have several benefits to soil and crops. However, improper storage, application and
uses can have severe impacts on environment and human health. There is limited
research on the use of organic manures, especially in the developed countries, while
research in the developing countries is negligible. This component of plant nutrients
management should be given much attention.
• The conservation tillage system has been proven to be beneficial for soil, water and
nutrients conservation and reducing energy and cost of production. The nutrients
management practices for conservation agriculture systems may be different than the
conventional systems. Therefore, more research on appropriate nutrient management
for the conservation agriculture system will be required for the wide-scale promotion
of this system.
• Cover crops have been shown importance in preserving soil NO3- after corn harvest,
providing nutrients to the following crops and preventing wind and water erosions.
Research on suitable crops and their cultivation and technologies for the
implementation of cover crops are urgently needed.
• Although, site-specific nutrient management is considered to be a potential approach
of reducing nutrients waste thereby protecting environment and providing
economically profitable system, there are limitations on the adaptation of this
approach. There has been considerable interest in the development of crop need-based
indicators using remote sensing technology. Up-to-date research on field level remote
sensing has shown that i) optical sensing at certain wavelength bands or spectral
indices is able to detect crop reaction to biotic (diseases) and abiotic (nutrient, water)
stresses; (ii) at early stages of crop development, measuring leaf chlorophyll or
canopy reflectance can predict biomass and yield potential in certain crops and at
specific growth stages/conditions; (iii) the ability of optical sensing to detect crop
health status varies with environmental and cultural conditions; (iv) under best
scenarios in research plots (shortage of plant available nutrients in the soil, e.g. N,
weed-free, no severe drought after fertilizer sidedress, low N supplying power fields –
sandy loam soil, no manure or legume preceding crop), optical sensor guided N
application can increase yield and NUE; (v) algorithms for converting optical sensor
signals into fertilizer N rates may vary across environments; (vi) optical sensor
readings will be saturated when available N above certain levels and/or crop reaches
advanced stages. Clearly, more focused research on the development of on-the-go
uniform or variable rate application of N to corn is of paramount importance to
improve nutrient and water use efficiencies and reducing N and agrochemical loading
of the environment for efficient food and biomass production.
REFERENCES
Adiloglu, A. and Adiloglu, S. (2006). The effect of boron (B) application on the growth and
nutrient contents of maize in zinc (Zn) deficiency. Research Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Sciences, 2(1), 1-4.
Agus, F.; Garrity, D.P.; Cassel, D.K. and Mercado, A. (1998). Grain crop response to contour
hedgerow systems on sloping Oxisols. Agroforestry Systems, 42, 107-120.
Al-Kaisi, M. and Kwaw-Mensah, D. (2007). Effect of tillage and nitrogen rate on corn yield
and nitrogen and phosphorus uptake in a corn-soybean rotation. Agronomy Journal,
99, 1548-1558.
Al-Kaisi, M.M. and Yin, X. (2003). Effect of nitrogen rate, irrigation rate and plant population
on corn yield and water use efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 95, 1475-1482.
Allen, B.L. and Mallarino, A.P. (2008). Effect of liquid swine manure rate, incorporation, and
timing of rainfall on phosphorus loss with surface runoff. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 37, 125-137.
Alleoni, L.R.F.; Brinton, S.R. and O’Connor, G.A. (2008). Runoff and leachate losses of
phosphorus in a sandy spodosol amended with biosolids. Journal of Environmental
Qualilty, 37, 259-265.
Andrade, F.H.; Vega, C.; Uhart, S.; Cirilo, A.; Cantarero, M. and Valentinuz, O. (1999).
Kernel number determination in maize. Crop Science, 39, 453-459.
Andraski, T.W. and Bundy, L.G. (2002). Using the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test and organic
nitrogen crediting to improve corn nitrogen recommendations. Agronomy Journal, 94,
1411-1418.
Andraski, T.W. and Bundy, L.G. (2005). Cover crop effects on corn yield response to nitrogen
on an irrigated sandy soil. Agronomy Journal, 97, 1239-1244.
Andraski, T.W. and Bundy, L.G. (2008). Corn residue and nitrogen sources effects on nitrogen
availability in no-till corn. Agronomy Journal, 100, 1274-1279.
Andraski, T.W.; Bundy, L.G and Kilian, K.C. (2003). Manure history and long-term tillage
effects on soil properties and phosphorus losses in runoff. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 32, 1782-1789.
Andrews, C. J.; Dwyer, L.M.; Stewart, D.W.; Dugas, J.A. and Bonn, P. (2000). Distribution of
carbohydrate during grain fill in Leafy and normal maize hybrids. Canadian Journal of
Plant Science, 80, 87-95.
Aparicio, N.; Villegas, D.; Casadesus, J.; Araus, J.L. and Royo, C. (2000). Spectral vegetation
indices as non-destructive tools for detecting durum wheat yield. Agronomy Journal, 92,
83-91.
Arnon, D.I. and Stout, P.R. (1939). The essentiality of certain elements in minute quantity for
plants with special reference to copper. Plant Physology, 14, 371-375.
Atreya, K.; Sharma, S.; Bajracharya, R.M. and Rajbhandari, N.P. (2008). Developing a
sustainable agro-system for central Nepal using reduced tillage and straw mulching.
Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 547-555.
Bacon, P.E. and Thompson, J.A. (1984). Effects of method and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on
irrigatated maize growth and nutrient distribution in soil. Austrilian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, 24, 606-611.
Ball-Coelho, B.R. and Roy, R.C. 1999. Enhanced ammonium sources to reduce nitrate
leaching. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 54, 73-80.
Bardoli, J.M. and Mallarino, A.P. (1998). Deep and shallow banding of phosphorus and
potassium as alternatives to broadcast fertilization for no-till corn. Agronomy Journal, 90,
27-33.
Bausch, W.C. and Duke, H.R. (1996). Remote sensing of plant nitrogen status in corn.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 39, 1869-1875.
Bavec, F. and Bavec, M. (2002). Effect of plant population on leaf area index, cob
characteristics and grain yield of early maturing maize cultivar (FAO-100-400). European
Journal of Agronomy, 16, 151-159.
Beauchamp, E.G.; Kannenberg, L.W. and Hunter, R. B. (1976). Nitrogen accumulation and
translocation in maize genotypes following silking. Agronomy Journal, 68, 418-422.
Benedict, H.M. and Swidler, R. (1961). Nondestructive method for estimating chlorophyll
content of leaves. Science, 133, 2015-2016.
Bertin, P. and Gallais, A. (2000). Genetic variation for nitrogen use efficiency in a set of
recombinant maize inbred lines 1. Agrophysiological results. Maydica, 45, 53-66.
Binder, D.L.; Sander, D.H. and Walters, D.T. (2000). Corn response to time of nitrogen
application as affected by level of nitrogen deficiency. Agronomy Journal, 92, 1228-1236.
Binford, G.D.; Blackmer, A.M. and El-Hout, N.M. (1990). Tissue test for excess nitrogen
during corn production: Agronomy Journal, 82, 124-129.
Binford, G.D.; Blackmer, A.M. and Cerrato, M.E. (1992). Nitrogen concentration of young
corn plants as an indicator of nitrogen availability. Agronomy Journal, 84, 219-223.
Bittman, S.; Hunt, D.E. and Kowalenko, C.G. (2004). Cover crops and relay crops. Pp. 89-94.
In: S. Bittman and C.G. Kowalenko (eds.) Advances in Silage Corn Management. Pacific
Field Corn Association, Agassiz, BC, Canada.
Blackmer, T.M. and Schepers, J.S. (1995). Use of a chlorophyll meter to monitor nitrogen
status and schedule of fertigation for corn. Journal of Production Agriculture, 8, 56-60.
Blackmer, T.M.; Pottker, D.; Cerrato, M.E. and Webb, J. (1989). Correlations between soil
nitrate concentrations in late spring and corn yield in Iowa. Journal of Production
Agriculture, 2, 103-109.
Blackmer, A.M.; Voss, R.D. and Mallarino, A.P. (1997). Nitrogen fertilizer recommendations
for corn in Iowa. Publication Pm-1714. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA.
Blanco-Canquia, H. and Lal, R. (2008). Corn stover removal impacts on micro-scale soil
physical properties. Geoderma, 145, 335-346.
Blanco-Canquia, H.; Lala, R.; Postb, W.M.; Izaurraldec R.C. and Owensd, L.B. (2006). Corn
stover impacts on near-surface soil properties of no-till corn in Ohio. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 70, 266-278.
Borges, R. and Mallarino, A.P. (2001). Deep banding phosphorus and potassium fertilizers for
corn managed with ridge tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63, 376-384.
Borŕas, L.; Maddonni, G.A. and Otegui, M.E. (2003). Leaf senescence in maize hybrid: plant
population, row spacing and kernel set effects. Field Crops Research, 82, 13-26.
Borrell, A.K.; Hammer, G.L. and Oosterom, E.V. (2001). Stay-green: a consequence of the
balance between supply and demand for nitrogen during kernel filling. Annals of Applied
Biology, 138, 91-95.
Bouwman, A.F. (1996). Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems, 46, 53-70.
Bouwman, A.F. and Boumans, L.J.M. (2002). Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields:
Summary of available measurement data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16, 1-13.
Bronson, K.F.; Chua, T.T.; Booker, J.D.; Keeling, J.W. and Lascano, R.J. (2003). In-season
nitrogen status sensing in irrigated cotton: II leaf nitrogen and biomass. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 67, 1439-1448.
Brown (1970). Plant Analysis. Missouri Agrcultural Experimental Station Bulletin. SB881.
Brown, C. (2005). Available nutrients from manures from various livestock types. November
2005. Ontario Minisitry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. Available online at
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/field/news/croptalk/2005/ct_1105a6.htm
Brown D.M. and Bootsma, A. (1993). Crop heat units for corn and other warm season crops in
Ontario. Ministry of Agric. and Food Factsheet Agdex 111/31. Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food. Ontario, Canada.
Bruns, H.A. and Abel, C.A. (2003). Nitrogen fertility effects on Bt δ-endotoxin and nitrogen
concentrations of maize during early growth. Agronomy Journal, 95, 207-211.
Bullock, D.G.; Simmons, F.W.; Chung, I.M. and Johnson, G.I. (1993). Growth analysis of
corn grown with or without starter fertilizer. Crop Science, 33, 112-117.
Bundy, L.G. and Andraski, T.W. (1999). Site-specific factors affecting corn response to-starter
fertilizer. Journal of Production Agriculture, 12, 664-670.
Bundy, L.G. and Widen, P.C. (1991). Corn response to starter fertilizer: Planting date and
tillage effects. Better Crops, 76, 20–23. Potash and Phosphate Institute (ed.).
Burger, M. and Venterea, R.T. (2008). Nitrogen immobilization and mineralization kinetics of
cattle, hog, and turkey manure applied to soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72,
1570-1579.
Busch, W.C. and Duke H.R. (1996). Remote sensing of plant nitrogen status in corn.
Transations of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering, 39, 1869-1875.
Butler, T.J.; Han, K.J.; Muir, J.P.; Weindorf, D.C. and Lastly, L. (2008). Dairy manure
compost effects on corn silage production and soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 100,
1541-1545.
Campbell, C.A.; Zentner, R.P.; Selles, F.; McConkey, B.G. and Dyck, F.B. (1993). Nitrogen
management for spring wheat grown annually on zero-tillage: Yields and nitrogen use
efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 85, 107-114.
Casanova, D.; Epema, G.F. and Goudriaan, J. (1998). Monitoring rice reflectance at field level
for estimating biomass and LAI. Field Crops Research, 55, 83-92.
Chantigny, M.H., Angers, D.A., Belanger, G., Rochette, P., Eriksen-Hamel, N., Bittman, S.,
Buckley, K., Masse, D. and Gasser, M.O., 2008, Yield and nutrient export of grain corn
fertilized with raw and treated liquid swine manure. Agronomy Journal, 100, 1303-1309.
Cherr, C.M.; Scholberg, J.M.S. and McSorley, R. (2006). Green manure as nitrogen source for
sweet corn in a warm–temperate environment. Agronomy Journal, 98, 1173-1180.
Cerrato, M.E and Blackmer, A.M. (1991). Relationships between leaf nitrogen concentrations
and the nitrogen status of corn. Journal of Production Agriculture, 4, 525-531.
Chevalier, P. and Scharder, L.E. (1977). Genotypic differences in nitrate absorption and
partitioning of N among plant parts in maize. Crop Science, 17, 897-901.
Christensen, L.A. (2002). Soil, nutrient and water management systems used in US corn
production. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 774, United States Department of
Agriculture (USAID), USA.
Cook, R.J. 1988. Biological control and holistic plant-healthcare in agriculture. Alternative
Copeland, P.J.; Allmaras, R.R.; Crookston, R.K. and Nelson, W.W. (1993). Corn-soybean
rotation effects on soil water depletion. Agronomy Journal, 85, 203-210.
Costa, C.; Dywer, L.M.; Stewart, D.W.; Ma, B.L. and Smith, D.L. (2001). Interrelationships of
applied nitrogen and yield of leafy and non-leafy maize genotypes. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 24, 1173-1194.
Costa, C.; Dywer, L.M.; Stewart, D.W.; and D.L. Smith. (2002). Nitrogen effect on kernel
yield and yield components of Leafy and non-Leafy maize genotypes. Crop Science, 42,
1556-1563.
Cui, Y. and Wang, Q. (2006). Physiological responses of maize to elemental sulphur and
cadmium stress. Plant, Soil and Environment, 52, 523-529.
Decker, A.M.; Clark, A.J.; Meisinger, J.J.; Mulford, F.R. and McIntosh, M.S. (1994). Legume
cover crop contributions to no-tillage corn production. Agronomy Journal, 86, 126-135.
De Jong, R.; Yang, J.Y.; Drury, C.F.; Huffman, E.C.; Kirkwood, V. and Yang, X.M. (2007).
The indicator of risk of water contamination by nitrate-nitrogen. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science, 187, 179-188.
Desjardins, C.A.; Verge, R.L.; Hutchinson, X.; Smith, J.; Grant, W.; McConkey, B. and
Worth, D. (2005). Greenhouse gases. Pp. 142-149 In: A. Lefebvre, W. Eilers and B.
Chunn, Eds. Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Agri-Environmental
Indicator Report Series- Report # 2, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Dharmakeerthi, R.S.; Kay, B.D. and Beauchamp, E.G. (2006). Spatial variability of in-season
nitrogen uptake by corn across a variable landscape as affected by management.
Agronomy Journal, 98, 255-264.
Ding, W.; Hume, D.J.; Vyn, T.J. and Beauchamp, E.G. (1998). N credit for soybean to a
following maize crop in central Ontario. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 78, 29-33.
Doerge, T.A. (2002). Variable-rate nitrogen management creates opportunities and challenges
for corn producers. Plant Management Network, 5 Sept., 2002.
Dormaar, J.F. and Chang, C. (1995). Effect of 20 annual application of excess feedlot manure
on labile soil phosphorous. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 75, 507-515.
Dorna, J.W.; Wilhelm, W.W. and Power, J.F. (1084). Crop residue removal and soil
productivity with no-till corn, sorghum, and soybean. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 48, 640-645.
Driskell, B.N. and Richer, A.C. (1952). Correlation of plant tissue tests of corn, deficiency
symptoms, and soil analyses on Jordan fertility. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
16, 270.
Drury, C.F.; Tan, C.S.; Gaynor, J.D.; Oloya, T.O. and Welacky, T.W. (1996). Influence of
controlled drainage-subirrigation on surface and tile drainage nitrate loss. Jorunal of
Environmental Quality, 25, 317-324.
Drury, C.F.; Yang, J.Y.; De Jong, R.; Yang, M.X.; Huffman, E.C.; Kirkwood, V. and Reid, K.
(2007). Residual soil nitrogen indicator for agricultural land in Canada. Canadian Journal
of Soil Science, 87, 167-177.
Dwivedi, S.K.; Singh, R.S. and Dwivedi, K.N. (2002). Effect of sulphur and zinc nutrition on
yield and quality of maize in Typic ustochrept soil of Kanpur. Journal of Indian Society of
Soil Science, 50, 70-74.
Dwyer, L.M.; Andrews, C.J.; Stewart, D.W.; Ma, B.L.; and Dugas. J.A. (1995a). Carbohydrate
levels in field-grown leafy and normal maize genotypes. Crop Science, 35, 1020-1027.
Dwyer, L.M.; Stewart, D.W. and Glenn, F. (1998). Silage yields of Leafy and normal hybrids.
Proc. 53rd Ann. Corn and Sorghum Research Conference 1998. pp. 193-216. In Amer.
Seed. Trade Assoc., Inc. (ed.), Washington, D.C., USA.
Dwyer, L.M.; Ma, B.L.; Hayhoe, H.N. and Culley, J.L.B. 1995b. Tillage effects on soil
temperature, shoot dry matter accumulation and corn grain yield. Journal of Sustainable
Dwyer, L.M.; Stewart, D.W.; Carrigan, B.L.; Ma, B.L.; and Neave, A.P. 1999a. Guidelines for
comparisons among different corn maturity rating systems. Agronomy Journal, 91, 946-
949.
Dwyer, L.M.; Stewart, D.W.; Ma, B.L.; Carrigan, B.L.; Neave, A.P. and Balchin, D. 1999b.A
general thermal index for maize. Agronomy Journal, 91, 940-946.
Dwyer, L.M.; Tollenaar, M. and Houwing. L. (1991). A non-destructive method to monitor
leaf greenness in corn. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 71, 505-509.
Eghball, B. (2000). Nitrogen mineralization from field-applied beef cattle feedlot manure or
compost. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64, 2024-2030.
Eghball, B. and Power, J.F. (1999a). Composted and noncomposted manure application to
conventional and no-tillage systems. Agronomy Journal, 91, 819-825.
Eghball, B. and Power, J. F. (1999b). Phosphorus and nitrogen-based manure and compost
applications: corn production and soil phosphorus. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 63, 895-901.
Eghball, B.; Ginting, D. and Gilley, J.E. (2004). Residual effects of manure and compost
applications in corn production and soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 96, 442-447.
Eghball, B.; Wienhold, B.J.; Woodbury, B.L. and Eigenberg, R.A. (2005). Plant availability of
phosphorus in swine slurry and cattle feedlot manure. Agronomy Journal, 97, 542-548.
Ellings, A.; White, J. and Edmeades, G.O. (1998). Modelling tropical maize under drought and
low N. Agronomy Abstracts, 1996 Annual Meeting. Pp. 109. Madison, Wisconsin, USA:
American Society of Agronomy.
FAO. (1998). Guide to Efficient Plant Nutrition Management. Pp. 18. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Fang, Q.; Ma, L.; Yu, Q.; Malone, R.W.; Saseendran, S. A. and Ahuja L.R. (2008). Modeling
nitrogen and water management effects in a wheat-maize double-cropping system. Journal
of Environmental Quality, 7, 2232-2242.
Farmer, A.A and Farmer, A.M. (2000). Concentrations of cadmium, lead and zinc in livestock
feed and organs around a metal production centre in eastern Kazakhstan. Science Total
Environment, 257(1), 53-60.
Fearing, P.L.; Brown, D.; Vlachos, D.; Meghji, M. and Privalle L. (1997). Quantitative
analysis of Cry1A(b) expression in Bt maize plants, tissue, tissue and silage stability of
expression over successive generation. Molecular Breeding, 3, 169-176.
Feil, B.; Moser, S.B.; Jampaton, S. and Stamp, P. (2005). Mineral composition of the grains of
tropical maize varieties as affected by pre-anthesis drought and rate of nitrogen
fertilization. Crop Science, 45, 516-523.
Ferguson, R.B.; Hergert, G.W.; Schepers, J.S.; Gotway, C.A.; Cahoon, J.E. and Peterson, T.A.
(2002). Site-specific nitrogen management of irrigated maize: Yield and soil residual
nitrate effects. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66, 544-553.
Ferguson, R.B.; Shapiro, C.A.; Hergert, G.W.; Kranz, W.L.; Klocke, N.L. and Krull, D.H.
(1991). Nitrogen and irrigation management practices to minimize nitrate leaching from
irrigated corn. Journal of Production Agriculture, 4, 186-192.
Filella, I.; Serrano, L.; Serra, J. and Peñuelas, J. (1995). Evaluating wheat nitrogen status with
canopy reflectance indices and discriminant analysis. Crop Science, 35, 1400-1405.
Fischler, M. and Wortmann, C.S. (1999). Green manures for maize-bean systems in eastern
Uganda: Agronomic performance and farmers’ perceptions. Agro-forestry Systems, 47,
123-138.
Fleming, K.L.; Westfall, D.G., and Bausch, W.C. (2000). Evaluating management zone
technology and grid soil sampling for variable-rate nitrogen application.Pp. 12-22. In:
Proc. of the 5th International Conf. on Precision Agric. ASA-CSSASSSA, Madison, WI.
Flowers, M..; Weisz, R.; Heiniger, R.; Tarleton, B. and Meijer, A. (2003). Field validation of a
remote sensing technique for early nitrogen application decision in wheat. Agronomy
Journal, 95, 167-176.
Fox, R.H. and Bandel, V.A. (1986). Nitrogen utilization with no-tillage. Pp. 117-148. In:
Sprague, M.A.Triplett, G.B. (eds.). No-tillage and surface-tillage agriculture: The tillage
revolution. Wiley, New York (USA).
Francis, D.D.; Schepers, J.S., andVigil, M.F. (1993). Post anthesis nitrogen loss from corn.
Agronomy Journal, 85:659-663.
Fronning, B.E.; Thelen, K.D. and Min, D.H. (2008). Use of manure, compost, and cover crops
to supplement crop residue carbon in corn stover removed cropping systems. Agronomy
Journal, 100, 1703-1710.
Garg, K.P. and Welch, L.F. (1967). Growth and phosphorus uptake by corn as influenced by
phosphorus placement. Agronomy Journal, 59, 152-154.
Gehl, R.J.; Schmidt, J.P.; Godsey, C.B.; Maddux, L.D. and Gordon, W.B. (2006). Post-harvest
soil nitrate in irrigated corn: Variability among eight field sites and multiple nitrogen rates.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70, 1922-1931.
Gehman, A.M.; Kononoff, P.J.; Mullins, C.R. and Janicek, B.N. (2008). Evaluation of nitrogen
utilization and the effects of monensin in dairy cows fed brown mid rib corn silage.
Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 288-300.
Gilabert, M.A.; Gandia, S. and Melia, J. (1996). Analyses of spectral-biophysical relationships
for corn canopy. Remote Sensing of Environment, 55, 11-20.
Ginting, D.; Kessavalou, A.; Eghball, B. and Dorna, J.W. (2003). Greenhouse gas emission
and soil indicators four years after manure and composts applications. Journal of
Gitelson, A.A. (2004). Wide dynamic range vegetation index for remote quantification of
biophysical characteristics of vegetation. Journal of Plant Physiology, 161, 165-173.
Goss, J.A. (1968). Development, physiology and biochemistry of corn and wheat pollen.
Botanical Review, 34, 333-358.
Grande, J.D., Karthikeyan, K.G., Miller, P.S. and Powell, J.M. (2005a). Residue levels and
manure application timing effects on runoff and sediment losses. Journal of
Grande, J.D., Karthikeyan, K.G., Miller, P.S. and Powell, J.M. (2005b). Corn residue level and
manure application timing effects on phosphorus losses in runoff. Journal of
Griffith, D.R., Kladivko, E.J., Mannering, J.V., West, R.D. and Parsons, S.D. (1988). Long-
term tillage and rotation effect on corn growth and yield on high and low organic matter,
poorly drained soils. Agronomy Journal, 80, 599-605.
Griffin, T.; Liebman, M. and Jemison, Jr. J. (2000). Cover crops for sweet corn production in a
short-season environment. Agronomy Journal, 92, 144-151.
Gruhn, P.; Goletti, F. and Yudelman, M. (2000). Integrated nutrient management, soil fertility,
and sustainable agriculture: Current issues and future challenges. Food, Agriculture, and
the Environment Discussion Paper 32. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A.
Gupta, S.; Munyankusi, E.; Moncrief, J.; Zvomuya, F. and Hanewall, M. (2004). Tillage and
Manure Application Effects on Mineral Nitrogen Leaching from Seasonally Frozen Soils.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 33, 1238-1246.
Gutierrez-Rodriguez, M.; Reynolds, M.P.; Escalante-Estrada, J.A. and Rodriguez-Gonzalez,
M.T. (2004). Association between canopy reflectance indices and yield and physiological
traits in bread wheat under drought and well-irrigated conditions. Australian Journal of
Agricultural Research, 55, 1139-1147.
Halvorson, A.D.; Moiser, A.R.; Reule, C.A. and Bausch, W.C. (2006). Nitrogen and tillage
effects on irrigated continuous corn yields. Agronomy Journal, 98, 63-71.
Hanway, J.J. (1962). Corn growth and composition in relation to soil fertility: III. Percentages
of N, P and K in different plant parts in relation to stage of growth. Agronomy Journal, 54,
222-229.
Hashemi, A.M.; Herbert, S.J. and Putnam, D.H. (2005). Yield response of corn to crowding
stress. Agronomy Journal, 97, 839-846.
Hay, R.K.M. and Gilbert, R.A. (2001). Variation in the harvest index of tropical maize:
evaluation of recent evidence from Mexico and Malawi. Annals of Applied Biology, 138,
103-109.
Heckman, J.R. 2002. In-season soil nitrogen testing as a guide to nitrogen management for
annual crops. HortTechnology, 12, 706-710.
Heckman, J.R. and Kamprath, E.J. (1992). Potassium accumulation and corn yield related to
potassium fertilizer rate and placement. Soil Science Society of America, J. 56, 141-148.
Heckman, J.R.; Hlubik, W.T.; Prostak, D.J. and Paterson, J.W. (1995). Pre-sidedress soil
nitrate test for sweet corn. HortScience, 30, 1033-1036.
Heckman, J.R.; Samulis, R. and Nitzsche, P. (2002). Sweet corn crop nitrogen status
evaluation by stalk testing. HortScience, 37, 783-786.
Heckman, J.R.; Sims, J.T.; Beegle, D.B.; Coale, F.J.; Herbert, S.J.; Bruulsema, T.W. and
Bamka, W.J. (2003). Nutrients removal by corn grain harvest. Agronomy Journal, 95, 587-
591.
Heckman, J.R.; Jokela, W.; Morris, T.; Beegle, D.B.; Sims, J.T.; Coale, F.J.; Herbert, S.;
Griffin, T.; Hoskins, B.; Jemison, J.; Sullivan, W.M.; Bhumbla, D.; Estes, G. and Reid,
W.S. (2006). Soil test calibration of predicting corn response to phosphorus in the
Northwest USA. Agronomy Journal, 98, 280-288.
Heinrichs, E.A. (1988). Global production and plant stress. pp. 1-34. In: E.A. Heinrichs (ed.)
Plant Stress-Insect Interactions. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hensler, R.F.; Olsen, R.J. and Attoe, O.J. (1970). Effect of soil pH and application rate of
dairy cattle manure on yield and recovery of twelve plant nutrients by corn. Agronomy
Journal, 62, 828-830.
Herrmann, A. and Taube, F. (2005). Nitrogen concentration at maturity - an indicator of

nitrogen status in forage maize. Agronomy Journal, 97, 201-210.
Herrmann, A.; Kersebaum, K.C. and Taube, F. (2005). Nitrogen fluxes in silage maize
production: Relationship between nitrogen content at silage maturity and nitrate
concentration in soil leachate. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 73, 59-74.
Herron, G.M.; Dreier, A.F.; Flowerday, A.D.; Colville, W.L. and R.A. Olson. (1971). Residual
mineral N accumulation in soil and its utilization by irrigated corn (Zea mays L.).
Hilton, B.R.; Fixen, P.E. and Woodward, H.J. (1994). Effects of tillage, nitrogen placement,
and wheel compaction on denitrification rates in corn cycle of corn-oats rotations. Journal
of Plant Nutrition, 17, 1341-1757.
Hitsuda, K.; Yamada, M. and Klepker, D. (2005). Sulfur requirement of eight crops at early
stages of growth. Agronomy Journal, 97, 155-159.
Hosseini, S.M.; Maftoun, M.; Karimian, N.; Ronaghi, A. and Emam, Y. (2007). Effect of zinc
x boron interaction on plant growth and tissue nutrient concentration of corn. Journal of
Plant Nutrition, 30, 773-781.
Hussain, I.; Olson, K.R. and Ebelhar, S.A. (1999). Long-term tillage effects on soil chemical
properties and organic matter fractions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63, 1335-
1341.
Hutchinson, J.J.; Grant, B.B.; Smith, W.N.; Desjardins, R.L.; Campbell, C.A.; Worth, D.E. and
Verge, X.P. (2007). Estimates of direct nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian agro-
ecosystems and their uncertainties. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 87, 141-152.
Ibrahim, S.A. and Kandil, H. (2007). Growth, yield and chemical constituents of corn (Zea
mays L.) as affected by nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization under different irrigation
intervals. Journal of Applied Science Research, 3, 1112-1120.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC
Secretariat, Geneva, 52 pp.
Inman, D.; Khosla, R.; Westfall, D.G. and Reich, R. (2005). Nitrogen uptake across site
specific management zones in irrigated corn production systems. Agronomy Journal, 97,
169-176.
IRRI - International Rice Research Institute. (2007). Available online at
http://www.irri.org/irrc/SSNM/SSNM/aboutssnm.asp
Iversen, K.V.; Fox, R.H. and Piekielek, W.P. (1985). The relationship of nitrate concentrations
in young corn stalks to soil nitrogen availability and grain yield. Agronomy Journal, 77,
927-932.
Izaurralde R.C.; Feng, Y.; Robertson, J.A.; McGill, W.B.; Juna N.G and Olson, B.M. (1995).
Long-term influence of cropping systems, tillage methods, and N sources on nitrate
leaching. Canadian Journal of Soil Sicence, 75, 497-505.
Jarvis, S.C.; Stockdale, E.A.; Shepherd, M.A.; Powlson, D.S. and Donald, L.S. (1996).
Nitrogen mineralization in temperate agricultural soils: Processes and measurement.
Advances in Agronomy, 57, 187-235.
Jawson, M.D.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Galusha, D.K. and Aiken, R.M. (1993). Soil fumigation
within monoculture and rotations: Responses of corn and mycorrhizae. Agronomy Journal,
85, 1174-1180.
Jama, B.; Swinkels, R.A. and Buresh, R.J. (1997). Agronomic and economic evaluation of
organic and inorganic sources of phosphorus in western Kenya. Agronomy Journal, 89,
597-604.
Johnson, N.C.; Copeland, P.J.; Crookston, R.K. and Pfleger, F.L. (1992). Mycorrhizae:
Possible explanation for yield decline with continuous corn and soybean. Agronomy
Journal, 84, 387-390.
Johnston, A.M. and Dowbenko, R. (2004). Essential elements in corn. Pp.23-27. In: S. Bittman
and C.G. Kowalenko (eds.) Advances in Silage Corn Management. Pacific Field Corn
Association, Agassiz, BC, Canada.
Johnson, J. M.; Wilhelm, W.W.; Hatfield, J.L.; Voorhees, W.B. and Linden, D. 2003. Impact
of crop residue removal on crop and soil productivity. American Geophysical Union, Fall
Meeting 2003, abstract #B51B-03.
Jokela, W.E. (2004a). Applying starter fertilizer. Pp. 49-51. In: S. Bittman and C.G.
Kowalenko (eds.) Advances in Silage Corn Management. Pacific Field Corn Association,
Agassiz, BC, Canada.
Jokela, W.E. (2004b). Using solid manure: Vermont experience. Pp. 59. In: S. Bittman and
C.G. Kowalenko (eds.) Advances in Silage Corn Management. Pacific Field Corn
Jones, C. and Jacobson, J. 2005. Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility. Nutrient Management
Module No. 2. Montana State University Extension Services. 4449-2.
Kaiser, D.E.; Mallarino, A.P.; Haq, M.U. and Allen, B.L. (2009). Runoff phosphorus loss
immediately after poultry manure application as influenced by the application rate and
tillage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 38, 299-308.
Katsvario, T.W.; Cox, W.J.; Van Es, H.M. and Glos, M. (2003). Spatial yield response of two
corn hybrids at two nitrogen levels. Agronomy Journal, 95, 1012-1022.
Kayode, G.O. and Agboola, A.A. (1983). Investigation on the use of macro-and micro-
nutrients to improve maize yield in South Western Nigeria. Fertility Research, 4, 211-221.
Keeney, D.R. and Nelson, D.W. (1982). Nitrogen-inorganic forms. Pp. 643-698. In: A.L. Page,
R.H. Miller, and D.R. Keeney (eds). Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and
microbiological properties. Agronomy – A series of Monographs. No. 9. 2nd ed.
ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, USA.
Keerthisinghe, G.; Zapata, F. and Chalk, P. (2003). Plant Nutrition: Challenges and Task
Ahead. Paper Presented in the IAF-FAO Agricultural Conference. Rome Italy, 26-28
March, 2003.
Khan, M.J.; Khan, M.H.; Khattak, R.A. and Jan, M.T. (2006). Response of maize to different
levels of sulphur. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37, 41-51.
Khan, S.A.; Mulvaney, R.L. and Hoeft, R.G. (2001). A simple soil test for detecting sites that
are nonresponsive to nitrogen fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65,
1751-1760.
Kim, D.G.; Isenhart, T.M.; Parkin, T.B.; Schultz, R.C. and Loynachan, T.E. (2009). Nitrate
dissolved nitrous oxide in ground water within cropped fields and riparian buffers.
Biogeoscience Discovery, 6, 651-685.
Kleinman, P.J.A.; Wolf, A.M.; Sharpley, A.N.; Beegle, D.B. and Saporito, L.S. (2005). Survey
of water-extractable phosphorus in livestock manures. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 69, 701-708.
Knipling, E.B. (1970). Physical and physiological basis for the reflectance of visible and near-
infrared radiation from vegetation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 1, 155-159.
Koch, B.; Khosla, R.; Frasierb, W.M.; Westfall, D.G. and Inman, B. (2004). Economic
feasibility of variable-rate nitrogen application utilizing site-specific management zones.
Kowalenko, C.G. (2004). Determining nutrients available in soil. Pp. 27-33. In: S. Bittman and
Kuo, S. and Jellum, E.J. (2002). Influence of winter cover crop and residue management on
soil nitrogen availability and corn. Agronomy Journal, 94, 501-508.
Kusa, K.; Hu, R.; Sawamoto, T. and Hatano, R. (2006). Three years of nitrous oxide and nitric
oxide emissions from silandic andosols cultivated with maize in Hokkaido, Japanese Soil
Science and Plant Nutrition, 52, 103-113.
Laboski, C.A.M. and Lamb, J.A. (2003). Changes in soil test phosphorus concentration after
application of manure or fertilizer. Soil Science Society America Journal, 67, 544-554.
Lamond, R.E. and Leikam, D.F. (2002). Chloride in Kansas: Plant, soil, and fertilizer
considerations. MF-2570. Kansas State Univ., Manhattan. Lemunyon, Kansas, USA.
Lawrence, J.R.; Ketterings, Q.M. and Cherney, J.H. (2008). Effect of nitrogen application on
yield and quality of silage corn after forage legume-grass. Agronomy Journal, 100, 73-79.
Legg, J.O. and Meisinger, J.J. (1982). Soil nitrogen budget. Pp. 503-566. In: F.J. Stevenson
(ed.) Nitrogen in agricultural soils. Agronomy – A series of Monographs. No. 22.
ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, USA.
Lemunyon, J.L. and Gilbert, R.G. (1993). The concept and need for a phosphorus assessment
tool. Journal of Production Agriculture, 6, 449-486.
Lessard, R.; Rochette, P.; Gregorich, E.G.; Pattey, E. and Desjardins, R.L. (1996). Nitrous
oxide fluxes from manure-amended soil under maize. Journal of Environmental Quality,
25, 1371-1377.
Li, C.F.; Cao, C.G.; Wang, J.P.; Zhan, M.; Yuan, W.L. and Shahrear, A. (2008). Nitrogen
losses from integrated rice–duck and rice–fish ecosystems in southern China. Plant and
Soil, 307, 207-217.
Liang, B.C. and MacKenzie, A.F. (1994). Corn yield, nitrogen uptake and nitrogen use
efficiency as influenced by nitrogen fertilization. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 74,
235-240.
Lindsay, W.L. and Norwell., W.A. (1969). Development of a DTPA micronutrient soil test.
Soil Science of Amercan Proceeding, 35, 600-602. Research and Training Center. 21-24
September, 1998. İzmir, Turkey.
Lisuma, J.B.; Semoka, J.M.R. and Semu, E. (2006). Maize yield response and nutrient uptake
after micronutrient application on a volcanic soil. Agronomy Journal, 98, 402-406.
Lithourgidis, A.S.; Matsi, T.; Barbayiannis, N. and Dordas, C.A. (2007), Effect of liquid cattle
manure on corn yield, composition, and soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 99, 1041-
1047.
Lory, J.A. and Scharf, P.C. (2003). Yield goal versus delta yield for predicting fertilizer
nitrogen need in corn. Agronomy Journal, 95, 994-999.
Lupwayi, N.Z.; Girma, M. and Haque, I. (2000). Plant nutrient contents of cattle manures from
small farms in experimental stations in the Ethiopian highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystem
and Environment. 78, 57-63.
Ma, B.L. and Dwyer, L.M. (1998). Nitrogen uptake and use of two contrasting corn hybrids
differing in leaf senescence. Plant and Soil, 199, 283-291.
Ma, B.L. and Dwyer, L.M. (1999). Within plot variability in available soil mineral N in
relation to leaf greenness and yield. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,
30, 1919-1928.
Ma, B.L. and Dwyer, L.M. (2001). Maize kernel moisture, carbon and nitrogen concentrations
from silking to physiological maturity. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 81, 225-232.
Ma, B.L, Dwyer, L.M.; Costa, C.; Cober, E.R. and Morrison, M.J. (2001). Early prediction of
soybean yields from canopy reflectance measurement. Agronomy Journal, 93, 1227-1234.
Ma, B.L.; Dwyer, L.M. and Costa, C. (2003). Row spacing and fertilizer nitrogen effects on
plant growth and grain yield of maize. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 83, 241-247.
Ma, B.L.; Dwyer, L.M. and Gregorich, E.G. (1999a). Soil nitrogen amendment effects on
nitrogen uptake and grain yield of maize. Agronomy Journal, 91, 650-656.
Ma, B.L., Dwyer, L.M. and Gregorich, E.G. (1999b). Soil N amendment, effects on seasonal N
mineralization and N cycling in maize production. Agronomy Journal, 91, 1003-1009.
Ma, B.L.; Li, M.; Dwyer, L.M. and Stewart, G. (2004). Effect of in-season application
methods of fertilizer nitrogen on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in maize.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 84, 169-176.
Ma, B.L.; Morrison, M.J. and Voldeng, H.D. (1995). Leaf greenness and photosynthetic rate in
soybean. Crop Science, 35, 1411-1414.
Ma, B.L.; Morrison, M.J. and Dwyer, L.M. (1996). Canopy light reflectance and field
greenness to assess nitrogen fertilisation and yield of maize. Agronomy Journal, 88, 915-
920.
Ma, B.L. and Subedi, K.D. (2005). Yield, grain moisture and nitrogen use of Bt corn hybrids
and their conventional near-isolines. Field Crops Research, 93, 199-211.
Ma, B.L.; Subedi, K.D. and Costa, C. (2005). Comparison of crop-based indicators with soil
nitrate test for corn nitrogen requirement. Agronomy Journal, 97, 462-471.
Ma, B.L.; Subedi, K.D. and Liu, A. (2006a). Variation in grain N removal associated with
management practices in maize production. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 76, 67-
80.
Ma, B.L.; Subedi, K.D.; Stewart, D.W. and Dwyer, L.M. (2006b). Dry matter accumulation
and silage moisture changes after silking in Leafy and dual-purpose corn hybrids.
Ma, B.L.; Subedi, K.D. and Zhang, T.Q. (2007). Pre-sidedress nitrate test and other crop-based
indicators for fresh market and processing sweet corn. Agronomy Journal, 99, 174-183.
Ma, B.L. and Wu, T.Y. (2008). Plant available N in the soil: Relationships between preplant
and presidedress nitrate tests for corn production. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil
Science, 171, 458-465.
Ma, B.L.; Ying, J.; Dwyer, L.D.; Gregorich, E.G. and Morrison, M.J. (2003). Crop rotation
and soil nitrogen amendment effects on maize production in Eastern Canada. Canadian
Journal of Soil Science, 83, 483-495.
Mackey, A.D.; Kladivko, E.J.; Barber, S.A. and Griffith, D.R. (1987). Phosphorous and
potassium uptake by corn in conservation tillage systems. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 51, 970-974.
Magdoff, F.R. (1991). Understanding the Magdoff pre-sidedress nitrate test for corn. Journal
of production Agriculture, 4, 297-305.
Magdoff, F.R.; Ross, D. and Amandon, J. (1984). A soil test for nitrogen availability to corn.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48, 1301-1304.
Mahalakshmi, V. and Bidinger, F.R. (2002). Evaluation of stay green sorghum germplasm
lines at ICRISAT. Crop Science, 42, 965-974.
Maho, H.; Yoshinori, H.; Toshinori, N. and Kenji, K. (2007). Nitrate leaching in granitic
regosol as affected by N uptake and transpiration by corn. The Journal of Plant Nutrition
and Soil Science, 53, 300-309.
Malakouti, M. J. (2008). The effects of micronutrients in ensuring efficient use of
micronutrients. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 32, 215-220.
Mallarino, A.P. and Borges, R. (2006). Phosphorus and potsssium distribution in soil
following long-term deep-band fertilization in different tillage systems. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 70, 702-707.
Mallarino, A.P.; Stewart, B.M.; Baker, J.L.; Downing, J.D. and Sawyer, J.E. (2002).
Phosphorus indexing for cropland: Overview and basic concepts of the Iowa phosphorus
index. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 57, 440–447
Mallory, E.B. and Griffin, T.S. (2007). Impacts of soil amendment history on nitrogen
availability from manure and fertilizer. Soil Science Society of American Journal, 71, 964-
973.
Mamo, M.; Malzer, G.L.; Mulla, D.J.; Huggins, D.R. and Strock, J. (2003). Spatial and
temporal variation in economically optimum nitrogen rate for corn. Agronomy Journal,
95, 958-964.
Marquard, R.D. and Tipton, J.L. (1987). Relationship between extractable chlorophyll and an
in situ method to estimate leaf greenness. Horticulture Science, 22, 1327.
McCullough, D.E.; Aguilera, A. and Tollennar, M. (1994). N uptake, N partitioning, and
photosynthetic N-use efficiency of an old and a new maize hybrid. Candian Journl of
Plant Science, 74, 749-484.
Mehrotra, N.K.; Khanna, V.K. and Agarwala, S.C. (1986). Soil-sodicity-induced zinc
deficiency in maize. Plant and Soil, 92, 63-71.
Miao, Y.; Mulla, D.J.; Robert, P.C. and Hernandez, J.A. (2006). Within-field variation in corn
yield and grain quality responses to nitrogen fertilization and hybrid selection. Agronomy
Journal, 98, 129-140.
Monneveux, P.; Sánchez, C.; Beck D. and Edmeades, G.O. (2005). Drought tolerance
improvement in tropical maize source populations. Crop Science, 46, 180-191.
Misselbrook. (2004). Using solid manures. Pp. 57-58. In: S. Bittman and C.G. Kowalenko
(eds.) Advances in Silage Corn Management. Pacific Field Corn Association, Agassiz,
BC, Canada.
Moll, R.H.; Kamprath, E.J. and Jackson, W.A. (1982). Analysis and interpretation of factors
which contribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization. Agronomy Journal, 74:562-564.
Monneveux, P.; Sanchez, C.; Beck, D. and Edmeades, G.O. (2005). Drought Tolerance
improvement in tropical maize source populations: evidence of progress. Crop Science,
46, 180-191.
Morris, M. L. (2002). Impacts of International Maize Breeding Research in Developing
Countries, 1966-1998. Mexico, D.F.:CIMMYT.
Mosier, A.R. (2001). Exchange of gaseous nitrogen compounds between agricultural systems
and the atmosphere. Plant and Soil, 228, 17-27.
Mosier, A.R.; Duxbury, J.M.; Freney, J.R.; Heinemeyer, O. and Minami, K. (1996). Nitrous
oxide emission from agricultural fields: Assessment, measurement and mitigation. Plant
and Soil, 181, 95-108.
Mosier, A.R. and Hutchinson, G.L. (1981). Nitrous oxide emissions from cropped fields.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 10, 169-173.
Mosier, A.; Kroeze, C.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger, S. and van Cleemput, O. (1998).
Closing the global N2O budget: Nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen
cycle. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 225–248.
Muchow, R.C. (1998). Nitrogen utilization efficiency in corn and sorghum. Field Crops
Research, 56, 209-216.
Murwira, H.K. and Palm, C.A. (1998) Developing multiple fertilizer use strategies for
smallholder farmers in Southern Africa in CIMMYT and EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organisation). Pp. 205-209. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Eastern and Southern
Africa Regional Maize Conference, 21-25 September, 1998. Maize Production
Technology for the Future: Challenges and Opportunities, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Nagy, J. (1997). The effect of fertilization on the yield of maize (Zea mays L.) with and
without irrigation. Cereal Research Communications, 25, 69-76.
Nan, Z.; Li, J.; Zhang, J. and Cheng, G. (2002). Cadmium and zinc interactions and their
transfer in soil-crop system under actual field conditions. Science of the Total
Environment, 285, 187-195.
Niehues, B. J.; Lamond, R.E.; Godsey, C.B. and Olsen C.J. (2004). Starter nitrogen fertilizer
management for continuous no-till corn production. Agronomy Journal, 96, 1412-1418.
Nielson, R.L. (2006). N loss mechanisms and nitrogen use efficiency. 2006 Purdue University
Nitrogen Management Workshop. Purdue University, USA.
Novak, V. and Vidovic, J. (2003). Transpiration and nutrients uptake dynamics in maize (Zea
mays L.). Ecological Modelling, 166, 99-107.
Oenema, O.; Oudendag, D. and Velthof, G.L. (2007). Nutrients losses from manure
management in the European Union. Livestock Science, 112, 261-272.
Oktem, A. (2005). Response of sweet corn (Zea mays saccharata Sturt) to nitrogen and intra
row spaces in semi-arid region. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 8,160-1463.
OMAFRA. (2002) Corn: Plant analysis. Agromomy Buide for Field Crops (chapter 3). Ontario
Ministry of Aggiculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Toronto, ON. Available online at
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub811/3planal.htm.
Ortega, R.A.; Peterson, G.A. and Westfall, D.G. (2002). Residue accumulation and changes in
soil organic matter as affected by cropping intensity in no-till dryland agroecosystems.
Osborne, S.L.; Schepers, J.S.; Francis, D.D. and Schlemmer, M.R. 2002a. Use of spectral
reflectance to estimate in-season biomass and grain yield in nitrogen and water–stressed
corn. Crop Science, 42, 165-171.
Osborne, S.L.; Schepers, J.S.; Francis, D.D. and Schlemmer, M.R. 2002b. Detection of
phosphorus and nitrogen deficiencies in corn using spectral radiance measurements.
Osterhaus, J.T.; Bundy, L.G. and Andraski, T.W. (2008). Evaluation of the Illinons soil nitrate
test for predicting corn nitrogen needs. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72, 143-
150.
Otegui, M.E. and Bonhommer, R. (1998). Grain yield component in maize. I- Ear growth and
kernel set. Field Crops Research, 56, 247-256.
Owens, L.B. (2008). Groundwater: Pollution from nitrogen fertilizers. Pp 459-463. in Trimble,
S.W.; Stewart, B.A. and Howell, T.A. (eds.) Encyclopodia of Water Science. Taylor and
Francis, New York, NY, USA.
Oyer, L.J. and Touchton, J.T. (1990). Utilizing legume cropping systems to reduce nitrogen
fertilizer requirements for conservation-tilled corn. Agronomy Journal, 82, 1123-1127.
Pearson, C.J. and Jacobs, B.C. (1987). Yield components and nitrogen partitioning in maize in
response to nitrogen before and after anthesis. Austrilian Journal of Agricultural
Research, 38, 1001-1009.
Penny, D.C.; Nolan, S.C.; McKenzie, R.C.; Goddard, T.W. and Kryzanowski, L. (1996). Yield
and nutrient mapping for site-specific fertilizer management. Communications in Soil
Science and Plant Analysis, 27, 522-527.
Peterson, R.H. and Hicks, D.R. (1973). Minnesota relative maturity rating of corn hybrids.
Agron. No. 27. University of Minnisoda, Agriculture Extension Service, St. Paul, MN,
USA.
Pumphrey, F.V.; Koehler, F.E.; Allmaras, R.R. and Roberts, S. (1963). Method and rate of
applying zinc sulphate for corn on zinc-deficient soil in western Nebraska. Agronomy
Journal, 55, 235-238.
Raimbault, B.A. and Vyn, T.J. (1991). Crop rotation and tillage effects on maize growth and
soil structural stability. Agronomy Journal, 83, 979-985.
Rajcan, I. and Tollenaar, M. 1999a. Source: sink ratio and leaf senescence in maize. I. Dry
matter accumulation and partitioning during kernel filling. Field Crops Research, 60, 245-
253.
Rajcan, I. and Tollenaar, M. 1999b. Source: sink ratio and leaf senescence in maize. II.
Nitrogen metabolism during kernel filling. Field Crops Research, 60, 255-265.
Randall, G.W.; Vetech, J.A. and Murrell, T.S. (2001). Corn response to phosphorus placement
under various tillage practices. Better Crops, 85, 12-15.
Raun, W.R. and Johnson, G.V. (1999). Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal
production. Agronomy Journal, 91, 357-363.
Raun, W.R.; Solie, J.B.; Johnson, G.V.; Stone, M.L.; Mullen, R.W.; Freeman, K.W.;
Thomason, W.E. and Lukina, E.V. (2002). Improving nitrogen use efficiency in cereal
grain production with optical sensing and variable rate application. Agronomy Journal, 94,
1815-1820.
Reid, L.M.; Zhu, X. and Ma, B.L. (2001). Crop rotation and nitrogen effects on maize
susceptibility to gibberella (Fusarium graminearum) ear rot. Plant and Soil, 237, 1-14.
Rendig, V.V. and Crawford, Jr., T.W. (1984). Partitioning into maize grain N fractions of N
absorbed through the roots before and after pollination. Journal of Food and Agriculture,
36, 645-650.
Rieck-Hinz, A.M.; Miller, G.A. and Schafer, J. (1996). Nutrient content of dairy manure from
three handling systems. Journal of Production Agriculture, 9, 82-86.
Ritchie S.W.; Hanway, J.J. and Benon, G.O. (1993). How a maize plant develops. Sp. Rpt. No.
48. Iowa State University of Science and Technology. Co-operative Extension Services.
Ames. IA.
Roberts, R.K; Mahajanashetti, S.B.; English, B.C.; Larson, J.A. and Tyler, D.D. (2002).
Variable rate nitrogen application on corn fields: the role of spatial variability and
weather. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Econ Economics, April, 2002. Available
online at http://purl.umn.edu/15512
Roberts, S. and Rhee, J.K. (1993). Critical nutrients concentrations and DRIS analysis of leaf
and grain from high yield-yielding corn. Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis, 24, 2679-2687.
Roth, G.W. (2003). Experience with Leafy hybrids in Pennsylvania for silage production.
Pp.49-54. Proceedings of the Northeast Corn Improvement Conference. Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Roy, R.C. and Ball-Coelho, B. (2004). Cover cropping to manage residual nitrogen. Pp. 85-89.
In: Bittman, S. and Kowalenko, C.G. (eds.) Advances in Silage Corn Management. Pacific
Field Corn Association, Agassiz, BC, Canada.
Rozas H.S.; Echeverria, H.E.; Studdert, G.A. and Dominguez, G. (2000). Evaluation of the
pre-sidedress soil nitrogen test for no-tillage maize fertilized at planting. Agronomy
Journal, 92, 1176-1183.
Ruiz Diaz, D.A.; Hawkins, J.A.; Sawyer, J.E. and Lundvall, J.P. (2008). Evaluation of in-
season nitrogen management strategies for corn production. Agronomy Journal, 100,
1711-1719.
Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Echeverria, H.E. and Barberi, P.A. (2004). Nitrogen balance as affected by
application time and nitrogen feretilizer rate in irrigated no-tillage maize. Agronomy
Journal, 96, 1622-1631.
Sanchez, C.A.; Porter, P.S. and Ulloa, M.F. (1991). Relative efficiency of broadcast and
banded phosphorus for sweet corn produced on histosols. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 55, 871-875.
Schaper, H. and Chacko, E.K. (1991). Relation between extractable chlorophyll and portable
chlorophyll meter readings in leaves of eight tropical and subtropical fruit-tree species.
Journal of Plant Physiology, 138, 674-677.
Scharf, P.C.; Kitchen, N.R.; Sudduth, K.A.; Darvis, J.G.; Hubbard, V.C. and Lory, J.A. (2005).
Field-scale variability in optimum nitrogen fertilization rates for corn. Agronomy Journal,
97, 452-461.
Schepers, J.S.; Francis, D.D.; Vigil, M. and Below, F.E. (1992). Comparison of corn leaf
nitrogen concentration and chlorophyll meter readings. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis, 23, 2173-2187.
Schepers, J.S.; Varvel, G.E.; and Watts, D.G. (1995). Nitrogen and water management
strategies to reduce nitrate leaching under irrigated maize. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 20(3-4), 227-239.
Scharf, P.C.; Wiebold, W.J. and Lory, J.A. (2002). Corn yield response to nitrogen fertilizer
timing and deficiency level. Agronomy Journal, 94, 435-441.
Schmitt, M.A. and Randall, G.W. (1994). Developing a soil nitrogen test for improved
recommendations for corn. Journal of Production Agriculture, 7, 328-334.
Schmidt, J.P.; DeJoia, A.J.; Ferguson, R.B.; Taylor, R.K.; Young, R.K. and Havlin, J.L.
(2002). Corn yield response to nitrogen at multiple in-field locations. Agronomy Journal,
94, 798-806.
Schoper, J.B.; Lambert, R.J. and Vasilas, B.L. (1987). Pollen viability, pollen shedding, and
combining ability for tassel heat tolerance in maize. Crop Science, 27, 27-31.
Schröder, J.J.; Neeteson, J.J. Oenema, O. and Struik, P.C. (2000). Does the crop or the soil
indicate how to save nitrogen in corn production? Reviewing the state of the art. Field
Crops Research, 66, 151-161.
Schulte, E.E. and Kelling, K.A. (1999). Plant Analysis: a Diagnostic Tool. In NCH-46, Crop
Fertilization. Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
47907. Available online at http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/NCH/NCH-46.html
Serchan, D.P.; Upreti, R. and Maskey, S.L. (2004). Effects of micronutrients on production of
maize (Zea mays L.) in the acid soils of Chitwan Valley. In: Proceedings of an
International Workshop on Micro-Nutrients in South and South East Asia held in
Kathmandu, Nepal, 8-11 September, 2004.
Shaver, D.L. (1983). Genetics and breeding of maize with extra leaves above the ear.
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference, American Seed
Trade Association, Washington D.C.
Sheaffer, C.C.; Halgerson, J.L. and Jung, J.H. (2006). Hybrid and N fertilization affect corn
silage yield and quality. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 192, 278-283.
Shehu, Y. Alhassan, W.S.; Mensah, C.W.K.; Aliyu, A. and Phillips, C.J. C. (1997). The effect
of green manuring and chemical fertilizer application on maize yield, quality and soil
composition. Tropical Grasslands, 32, 139-142.
Serchan, D.P.; Upreti, R. and Maskey, S.L. (2004). Effects of micronutrients on production of
maize (Zea mays L.) in the acid soils of Chitwan Valley. In: Proceedings of an
International Workshop on Micro-Nutrients in South and South East Asia held in
Kathmandu, Nepal, 8-11 September, 2004.
Singh, U. and Wilkens, P.W. (2001). Simulating water and nutrient stress effect physiological
developments in maize. CIMMYT, D.F.: Mexico. Also available online at
http://www.cimmyt.org/research/NRG/map/research_results/gis_series/modeling00_01
Slafer, G.A. and Andrade, F.H. (1991). Changes in physiological attributes of the dry matter
economy of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through genetic improvement of grain
yield potential at different regions of world. A review. Euphytica, 58, 37-49.
Smiciklas, K.D. and Moore, A.S. (2008). The drainage nitrate concentrations in response to
fertilizer nitrogen application. Journal of Agronomy, 7, 163-169. ISSN 1812-5379.
Snapp, S.S.; Swinton, S.M.; Labarta, R.; Mutch, D.; Black, J.R.; Leep, R.; Nyiraneza, J. and
O’Neil, K. (2005). Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within
cropping systems niches. Agronomy Journal, 97, 322-332.
Stanger, T.F. and J.G. Lauer. (2006). Optimum plant population of Bt and non-Bt corn in
Wisconsin. Agronomy Journal, 98, 914-921.
Stevens, W.B.; Hoeft, R.G. and Mulvaney, R.L. (2005). Fate of nitrogen-15 in a long-term
nitrogen rate study: I. Interactions with soil nitrogen. Agronomy Journal, 97, 1030-1045.
Stewart, D.W.; Dwyer L.M. and Carrigan, L. (1998). Phenological temperature response of
maize. Agronomy Journal, 90, 73-79.
Subedi, K.D. (1997). Indigenous green manures in Nepal: Farmers’ local knowledge agrees
with formal experimental results. ILEIA, 13 (3), 16-17.
Subedi, K.D. (2002). Maize and finger millet relay intercropping system in the hills of Nepal:
issues for sustainability. Pp. 170-174. In: N. R. Rajbhandary, J.K. Ransom, K. Adhikari
and A. F. E. Palmer (eds.) Sustainable Maize Production Systems for Nepal. Proceedings
of a Maize Symposium held December 3-5, 2001, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Subedi, K.D.; Sthapit, B.R.; Joshi, K.D.; Floyd, C.N.; Pandey, R.R. and Rana, R.B. (1993).
Indigenous upland rice culture in the western hills of Nepal: Contribution of farmers'
knowledge in rainfed farming. Preceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Sustainable Agriculture, CEICAPAR, Mexico, December 1-4, 1993.
Subedi, K.D. and Ma, B.L. 2005a. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy
maize hybrids. Crop Science, 45, 740-747.
Subedi, K.D. and Ma, B.L. 2005b. Effect of N-deficiency and timing of N supply on the
recovery and distribution of labelled 15N in contrasting maize hybrids. Plant and Soil, 273,
189-202.
Subedi, K.D. and Ma, B.L. (2007). Dry matter and nitrogen partitioning patterns in Bt and
non-Bt near isoline maize hybrids. Crop Science, 47, 1186-1192.
Subedi, K.D. and Ma, B.L. (2009). Assessment of some major yield-limiting factors on maize
production in a humid temperate environment. Field Crops Research, 110, 21-26.
Subedi, K.D. and Sapkota, G.P. (2002). Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) in
maize: Pilot testing of IPNM with farmers in Sindhupalanchowk. Pp.163-169. In: N.P.
Rajbhandari, K.K. Ransom, K. Adhikari and A.F.P. Palmer (eds.) Sustainable maize
production systems for Nepal. Proceedings of a Maize Symposium held December 3-5,
2001, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Subedi, K.D.; Ma, B.L. and Smith, D.L. (2006). Response of leafy and non-leafy maize hybrid
to plant population densities and fertilizer nitrogen levels. Crop Science, 46, 1860-1869.
Sulivan, D.M. and Cogger, C.G. (2004). Post-harvest nitrate test. Pp. 37-38. In: S. Bittman and
Sullivan, P. (2003). Overview of cover crops and green manures. Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA). Available online at www.attra.ncat.org.
Swinkels, R. and Franzel, S. (1997). Adoption potential of hedgerow intercropping in maize-
based cropping systems in the highlands of western Kenya 2. Economic and farmers'
evaluation. Experimental Agriculture, 33, 211-223.
Syers, J.K. (1997). Manging soil for long-term productivity. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London (B) 352, 1011-1021.
Ta, C.T. and Weiland, R.T. (1992). Nitrogen partitioning in maize during ear development.
Crop Science, 32, 443-451.
Tabu, I.M, Obure, R.K.; Bationa, A. and Mumera, L. (2006). Effect of soil fertility
management and nitrogen fertilizer rate on maize yield in small holder farmers fields.
Journal of Agronomy, 5, 191-1495.
Tariq, M.; Khan, M.A. and Parveen, S. (2002). Response of maize to applied soil zinc. Asian
Journal of Plant Science, 1, 476-477.
Teal, R.K.; Tubana, B.; Girma, K.; Freeman, K.W.; Arnall, D.B.; Walsh, O. and Raun, W.R.
(2006). In-season prediction of corn grain yield potential using normalized difference
vegetation index. Agronomy Journal, 98, 1488-1494.
Tejada, M.; Gonzalez, J.L.; Garcia-Martinez, A.M.; and Parrado, J. (2008). Effect of different
green manures on soil biological properties and maize yield. Bioresource Technology, 99,
1758-1767.
Thomas, J.R. and Gausman, H.W. (1977). Leaf reflectance vs. leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid
concentrations for eight crops. Agronomy Journal, 69, 799-802.
Timmons, D.R. and Dylla, A.S. (1981). Nitrogen leaching as influenced by nitrogen
management and supplemental irrigation level. Journal of Environmental Quality, 10,
421-426.
Tollenaar, M. (1977). Sink source relationships during reproductive development in maize: A
review. Maydica, 22, 49-75.
Tollenaar, M. and Wu, J. (1999). Yield improvement in temperate maize is attributable to
greater stress tolerance. Crop Science, 39, 1597-1604.
Triplett, Jr. G.B. and Dick, W.A. (2008). No-tillage crop production: A revolution in
agriculture. Agronomy Journal, 100, 153-165.
Tollenaar, M. and Daynard, T.B. (1978). Leaf senescence in short season maize hybrids.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58, 869-874.
van Es, H.M.; Schindelbeck, R.R. and Jokela, W.E. (2004). Effect of manure application
timing, crop, and soil type on phosphorus leaching. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33,
1070-1080.
Vanotti, M.B. and Bundy, L.G. (1994). Corn nitrogen recommendations based on yield
response data. Journal of Production Agriculture, 7, 249-256
Vanotti, M.B. and Bundy, L.G. (1995). Soybean effects on soil nitrogen availability in crop
rotation. Agronomy Journal, 87, 676-680.
Vaughan, J.D. and Evanylo, G.K. (1998). Corn response to cover crop species, spring
desiccation time, and residue management. Agronomy Journal, 90, 536-544.
Vetsch, J.A. and Randall, G.W. (2002). Corn production as affected by tillage system and
starter fertilizer. Agronomy Journal, 94, 532-540.
Vetsch, J.A. and Randall G.W. (2004). Corn production as affected by nitrogen application
timing and tillage. Agronomy Journal, 96, 502-509.
Volf, C.A.; Ontkean, G.R.; Bennett, D.R.; Chanasyk, D.S. and Miller, J.M. (2007). Phosphorus
losses in simulated rainfall runoff from manured soil of Alberta. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 36, 730-741.
Vyn, T.J. and Janovicek, K.J. (2001). Potassium placement and tillage system effects on corn
response following long-term no till. Agronomy Journal, 93, 487-495.
Vyn, T.J.; Janovicek, K.J.; Miller, M.H. and Beauchamp, E.G. (1999). Soil nitrate and crop
response to proceeding small grain fertilization and cover crops. Agronomy Journal, 91,
17-24.
Vyn, T.J. and Tollenaar, M. (1998). Physical and chemical parameters of corn grain associated
with three decades of maize yield improvement. Field Crops Research, 59, 135-140.
Wang, J.Y. (1960). A critique of the heat unit approach to plant response studies. Ecology, 4,
785-790.
Wang, D.; Prato, T.; Qiu, Z.; Kitchen, N.R. and Sudduth, K.A. (2003). Economics and
encvironmental evaluation of variable rate nitrogen and lime application for claypan soil
fields. Precision Agriculture, 4, 35-52.
Waskom, R.M.; Westfall, D.G.; Spellman, D.E. and Soltanpur, P.N. (1996). Monitoring
nitrogen status of corn with a portable chlorophyll meter. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis, 27, 545-560.
Webster, C.P.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Shepherd, M.A. and Lord, E. (1992). Methods for
measuring nitrate leaching from sandy soils. Aspects of Appied Biology, 30, 77-80.
Weiland, R.T. and Ta, C.T. (1992). Allocation and retranslocation of 15N by maize (Zea mays
L.) hybrids under field conditions of low and high N fertility. Austrilian Journal of Plant
Physiology, 19, 77-88.
Weiss, W.P.; Conrad, H.R. and St. Pierre, N.R. (1992). A theoretically-based model for
predicting total digestable nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 39, 95.
Westerman, R.L.; Raun, W.L. and Johnson, G.V. (1999). Nutrient and water use efficiency.
Pp.175-189. In: M.E. Sommers (ed.) Handbook of Soil Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Westgate, M.E.; Forcella, F.; Reicosky, D.C. and Somsen, J. (1997). Rapid canopy closure for
maize production in the northern US Corn Belt: Radiation use efficiency and grain yield.
Field Crops Research, 49, 249-258.
Whalen, S.C. (2000). Nitrous oxide emission from an agricultural soil fertilized with liquid
swine waste or constituents. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64, 781-789.
Wibawa, W.D.; Dludlu, D.L.; Swenson, D.G.; Hopkins, D.G. and Danke, W.C. (1993).
Variable fertilizer application based on yield goal, soil fertility, and soil map unit. Journal
of Production Agriculture, 6, 225-261.
Wienhold, B.J. and Halvorson, A.D. (1999). Nitrogen mineralization responses to cropping,
tillage, and nitrogen rate in the northern great plains. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 63, 192-196.
Wilhelm, W.W.; Johnson, J.M.F.; Hatfield, J.L.; Voorhees, W.B. and Linden, D.R. (2004).
Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: A literature review.
Wittry, D.J. and Mallarino, A.P. (2004). Comparison of uniform and variable-rate phosphorus
fertilizer for corn-soybean rotations. Agronomy Journal, 96, 26-33.
Wolfe, A.M. and Eckert, D.J. (1999). Crop sequence and surface residue effects on the
performance of no-till corn grown in a poorly drained soil. Agronomy Journal, 91, 363-
367.
Wood, C.W.; Reeves, D.W.; Duffield, R.R. and Edmisten, K.L. (1992). Field chlorophyll
measurements for evaluation of corn nitrogen status. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 15, 487-
500.n
Worku, M.; Banziger, M.; Erley, G. S.; Friesen, D.; Diallo, A.O. and Horst, W.J. (2007).
Nitrogen uptake and utilization in contrasting nitrogen efficient tropical maize hybrids.
Crop Science, 47, 519-528.
Wu, T.Y. and Ma, B.L. 2008. Variable vs. uniform rate of nitrogen: Spatial variation in soil
mineral N, canopy reflectance and grain yield of corn. Proceedings of Northeast and
Northcentral Corn Improvement Conference. Linthicum, MD.
Wu, T.Y.; Ma, B.L. and Liang, B.C. (2008). Quantification of seasonal soil nitrogen
mineralization for corn production in eastern Canada. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,
81, 279–290.
Xie, R. and MacKenzie, A.F. (1986). Urea and manure effects on soil nitrogen and corn dry
matter yields. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 50, 1504-1509.
Yang, C.; Everitt, J.H. and Bradford, J.M. (2001). Comparison of uniform and variable rate of
nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer applications for grain sorghum. Transactions of
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 44, 201-209.
Yost, R.S.; Kamparth, E.J.; Lobato, E. and Naderman, G. (1979). Phosphorus response of corn
on an oxisol as influenced by rates and placement. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 43, 338-343.
Ziadi, N.; Brassard, M.; Belanger, G.; Cambouris, A.N.; Tremblay, N.; Nolin, M.C.;
Claessens, A. and Parent L.E. (2008). Critical nitrogen curve and nitrogen nutrition index
for corn in eastern Canada. Agronomy Journal, 100, 271-276.
Zhang, H.; Johnson, G. and Fram, M. (2007). Managing Phosphorus from Animal Manure.
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets, Publication PSS-2249. Available online at
http://osufacts.okstate.edu.
Zublena, J.P.; Baird, J.V. and Lilly, J.P. (1991). Nutrient content of fertilizer and organic
materials. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Publication AG-439-18.
Zvomuya, F.; Helgasonb, B.L.; Larney, F.J.; Janzen, H. H.; Akinremi, O.O. and Olson, B.M.
(2006). Predicting phosphorus availability from soil-applied composted and non-
composted cattle feedlot manure. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 928-937.
View publication stats

Corn Book Research Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corn Book Research Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · January 2011

Sustainable Livelihood in Nepal View project

Wheat Sterility Problem in Sub-Tropical Asia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CORN CROP PRODUCTION: GROWTH,

K. D. Subedi and B. L. Ma1

2. CORN: TYPES, USAGES AND CLASSIFICATIONS

2.1. Classification Based on Plant Taxonomy

• Flour corn — Zea mays var. amylacea

2.2. Classification Based on Growing Environments or Adaptation

Although no universally accepted system exists for classifying corn production

• Low land tropical

2.3. Classification Based on Plant Stature or Leaf Types

2.4. Classification Based on Uses

2.5. Classification Based on Growing Duration (Maturity Classes)

• Early maturing varieties (<110 d)

The rate of development of corn from planting to maturity is dependent mainly on

GDD = ∑ (TA – TB)∆t (1)

CHU = (Ymin + Ymax)/2 (2)

Ymin = 9/5 (Tmin - 4.4) (3)

and Ymax = 3.33 (Tmax - 10.0) - 0.084(Tmax - 10.0)² (4)

FT(veg) = 0.0432 TA² - 0.000894TA3 (5)

FT(fill) = 5.358 + 0.01128TA² (6)

and GTI is expressed as

3. CORN-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS

In the more tropical or sub-tropical environments, corn is grown in a subsistence label by

3.3. Corn Based Crop-Rotations

3.4. Based on Water Availability

3.5. Based on Tillage Practices

3.5.1. Conventional Tillage

3.5.3. Conservation Tillage

4. CORN GROWTH AND PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF YIELD

Growth stage Morphological characterization

4.2. Yield Components and Yield Determinants

4.3. Dry Matter Production and Partitioning

5.2. Classification of Essential Plant Nutrients

Table 2. Essential plant nutrients, their source, roles in the plant,

Element Origin Ionic forms absorbed by Role in plant Typical concentration

Element Origin Ionic forms absorbed by Role in plant Typical concentration

Table 3. Mobility of essential plant nutrients within the plant

Mobile Nutrients Immobile Nutrients

5.3. Deficiency Symptoms of the Essential Plant Nutrients

Table 4. Typical deficiency symptoms of various plant nutrients and favourable

Nutrient Deficiency symptoms Favourable conditions

Purple margins or entire leaves especially Low test-P containing soils

Nutrient Deficiency symptoms Favourable conditions

5.4. Nutrients Composition in Corn Plants

Component Dry Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

5.5. Sources of Essential Plant Nutrients

Table 6. Nutrient content of organic materials

Nutrient Range Mean± SD

Table 9. Common chemical fertilizers and their nutrients composition

Nutrients concentration (% by weight)

Ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 30-33 0 0 0 0 0

Calcium nitrate/urea Ca(NO3)2+4CO(NH2)2

Potassium nitrate KNO3

Nutrients concentration (% by weight)

Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) NH4H2PO4

Ammonium phosphate sulphate 4NH4H2PO4+(NH4)2SO4

Ammonium polyphosphate (APP) (NH4)3HP2O7

Phosphate rock 0 2-35 0 — — 0

Urea ammonium phosphate (UAP) CO(NH2)2.NH4H2PO4

Potassium nitrate KNO3