Published May, 2002
Corn Yield Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer Timing and Deficiency Level
Peter C. Scharf,* William J. Wiebold, and John A. Lory
ABSTRACT
Nitrogen fertilizer is typically applied to corn (Zea mays L.) shortly
before planting, but there are several reasons why later N applications
may be of interest: to spread work away from the busy planting season,
to avoid the frequent wet field conditions in spring, to reduce or
remedy in-season N loss in wet years, or to allow use of in-season
diagnostic tools. One of the obstacles to the use of later N applications
is the fear that irreversible yield loss will occur due to N stress. Our
objective was to evaluate the yield impact of delaying N applications
until the late vegetative growth stages and as far as silking. We con-
ducted a total of 28 experiments with timing of a single N application
as the experimental treatment. We found little or no evidence of
irreversible yield loss when N applications were delayed as late as
stage V11, even when N stress was highly visible. There was weak
evidence of minor yield loss (about 3%) when N applications were
delayed until stage V12 to V16. Only 3 of the 28 experiments had N
applications later than V16—all were at silking and relative yields
were 0.71, 0.89, and 0.95. Though full yield was not achieved when
N applications were delayed until silking, yield was still highly respon-
sive to N application at this stage—yield response exceeded 2.2 Mg
ha⫺1 in all three experiments.
N itrogen fertilizer is typically applied to corn
shortly before planting, but there are several rea-
sons why later N applications may be of interest: to
spread work away from the busy planting season, to avoid
the frequent wet field conditions in spring, to reduce or
remedy in-season N loss in wet years, or to allow use
of in-season diagnostic tools.
Planting time is one of the busiest and most time-
sensitive periods of the year for grain producers and is
an inconvenient time to apply N fertilizer. Moving N
applications away from this busy period is the main
motivation for fall applications of N. Unfortunately, fall
N application creates a substantial risk of losing N and
yield (Blackmer, 1996). Nitrogen applications after plant-
ing offer an alternative way to move N applications
away from the busy planting season but are seldom used
by producers. There are many reasons for this, one of
which is the fear that irreversible yield loss will occur
due to N stress, especially if weather causes delays in
the planned application timing.
Delaying application of some or all N fertilizer until
after planting may allow for precise diagnosis of N
needs, by either in-season soil testing (Blackmer et al.,
1989), sensing crop color (Varvel et al., 1997; Blackmer
et al., 1996), or estimating weather effects on soil N
availability (Honeycutt, 1994). Application rates that
precisely match crop needs could result in less residual
soil NO3⫺ available for leaching (Andraski et al., 2000)
Dep. of Agron., 210 Waters Hall, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO
65211. Contrib. from the Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn. Journal Ser. No.
13 150. Received 25 June 2001. *Corresponding author (scharfp@
missouri.edu).
Published in Agron. J. 94:435–441 (2002).
435
and positively impact water quality. Understanding the
effect of delayed N application on yield is critical to the
use of any of these management tools.
Fertilizer N recovery by the crop may sometimes be
greater when N application is delayed compared with
application at planting (Russelle et al., 1983; Jokela and
Randall, 1997). This is probably due to greater exposure
of N applied at planting to a range of possible loss
processes (immobilization, leaching, denitrification, and
clay fixation) at a time when N uptake rates are rela-
tively low. Rate of N uptake as the corn plant develops is
affected by weather, planting date, and time of fertilizer
application but is generally greatest between V8 and
silking (Russelle et al., 1983). When N fertilizer applica-
tions were delayed until V16, the highest rate of N
uptake was generally delayed until after silking (Rus-
selle et al., 1983). This would suggest that applying N
fertilizer until at least the silking stage may be a reason-
able management option.
Most of the research on N application after planting
has compared applications at or before planting to side-
dress applications at growth stage V8 or earlier. These
applications can typically be accomplished with tractor-
drawn equipment, whereas later applications require
high-clearance vehicles. In many cases, there are no
yield differences between preplant and sidedress N ap-
plications (Jokela and Randall, 1989; Roth et al., 1995).
Sidedress N applications sometimes give small yield in-
creases (Bundy et al., 1992; Reeves and Touchton, 1986;
Welch et al., 1971) or small yield decreases (Stecker et
al., 1993). However, even when grain yield is not af-
fected, total dry matter production may be reduced with
late sidedress N applications (Jokela and Randall, 1989).
Delayed N applications may not be appropriate for corn
silage production.
Investigation of N applications later than the V8
growth stage has been limited. The studies that have
been conducted have been confined mostly to irrigated
systems. Irrigation presents a readily available delivery
system for N at stages later than V8 and also creates
risk that N fertilizer will be leached out of the root zone,
especially on sandy soils.
For irrigated corn grown on sandy soils, sidedress
applications tend to produce higher yields than preplant
applications (Bundy et al., 1983; Rehm and Wiese,
1975). Supplemental N applications later than normal
sidedress time can produce yields higher than those
obtained with preplant or sidedress applications alone
(Evanylo, 1991; Gascho et al., 1984; Rehm and Wiese,
1975). Jung et al. (1972) observed equivalent yields
when a single N application was made from 5 to 8 wk
after planting, but yields began to decline when N appli-
cation was delayed until the ninth week or later. They
did not report growth stages, but 5 to 8 wk after planting
is likely to correspond to the V5 to V12 growth stages.
436 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, MAY–JUNE 2002
Fig. 1. Locations of N-timing experiments.
Conclusions are similar for irrigated corn on heavy-
textured soils—delaying N applications as late as V16
usually produces yields equivalent to or greater than
those with earlier applications. On irrigated silty clay
loam soils, Olson et al. (1986) measured higher grain
yields (averaged over 15 yr) when N was applied at the
11- to 12-leaf stage than when it was applied at planting,
and Russelle et al. (1983) measured higher yields when
N was applied at V8 or V16 than when it was applied
at planting or V4. In contrast, Binder et al. (2000) found
that corn yields declined when N applications were de-
layed—the earliest stage associated with significant
yield reduction was V6 in the first year of the study and
VT in the second year.
Late N applications in irrigated systems can be moved
into the soil and the root zone by irrigation water. Late
N applications in dryland production systems might be-
have differently, for example, being ineffective when
rainfall is limited after N applications. Only a few re-
ports of N applications later than V8 in dryland systems
are available. Randall et al. (1997) found equivalent
corn yields with all N fertilizer applied at planting or
with 30% applied at planting and 70% delayed until
V16. Miller et al. (1975) obtained a large yield response
to N and equivalent yields regardless of whether N was
applied in May, June, July, or a May–June split.
In summary, most trials with N applications later than
V8 have found little or no evidence of grain yield reduc-
tion with delayed N applications. Jung et al. (1972) ob-
served yield reductions when N applications were de-
layed until 9 wk after planting on an irrigated sandy
soil, and Binder et al. (2000) observed yield reductions
when N applications were delayed until V6 to VT, de-
pending on the year.
Very few studies have been conducted with N applica-
tions later than V8 under dryland conditions. Our objec-
tive was to evaluate the yield impact of delaying N
applications for dryland corn until the late vegetative
growth stages and as far as silking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
On-Station Experiments
Experiments were established at the Bradford Research
Farm in Boone County, MO, from 1995 to 1998, but 1997
results are not reported due to drought. Timing of N fertilizer
was the experimental variable. A single application of 180 kg
N ha⫺1 was applied either at planting, growth stage V7 (Ritchie
et al., 1993), V14, or silking. Nitrogen was hand-applied as
ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3 ). Care was taken to apply N
below leaves to avoid burn.
The experimental design was a randomized complete block
with four replications. Four hybrids (DeKalb 668, Pioneer
3163, Pioneer 3394, and Ciba 4575) were arranged in a com-
plete factorial design with the N-timing treatments. Reported
means for each N-timing treatment are averaged over hybrids.
No-tillage production practices were used. Plots were four
rows wide with dimensions of 3 by 7.5 m. Planting population
was 60 000 seeds ha⫺1.
Plots were end-trimmed to 6 m long before harvest. The
center two rows of each plot were harvested with a plot com-
bine. Yields were corrected to a moisture content of 150 g kg⫺1.
Yield when N was applied at planting was defined as the
standard yield for these experiments. Relative yield for later
applications was calculated by dividing mean yield for N ap-
plied at a given time by the yield with N applied at planting.
On-Farm Experiments
Experiments were established in production corn fields in
Missouri in 1997, 1998, and 1999 with a total of 25 site-years.
Experiments were located in all four major corn-producing
regions of Missouri (Fig. 1) and represented a broad cross
section of soils, hybrids, climate, and management practices
that are typical for corn production in Missouri (Table 1). Our
findings should thus apply to a broad population of corn fields
in Missouri and potentially to other states with similarities in
climate and soils.
Timing of N fertilizer was the experimental variable. A
single application of 225 kg N ha⫺1 was applied either at
planting, growth stage V6 (Ritchie et al., 1993), or two or
three later times. Crop growth stage was determined at the
time of application. The latest N application timing at any
experimental location was V15.5. Additional plots received N
rates from 0 to 335 kg N ha⫺1 at planting to characterize the
magnitude of the yield response to N and verify the sufficiency
of the 225 kg N ha⫺1 rate. Plots were four rows wide and 12 m
long. At planting and growth stage V6, ammonium nitrate
was surface-applied with a custom-built hand-push Gandy
spreader equipped with drop tubes, which was calibrated im-
mediately before treatment application. Later applications
were hand-applied ammonium nitrate. The experimental de-
sign was completely randomized with three replications. All
cultural practices other than N fertilizer application and har-
vest were performed by cooperating producers.
Minolta SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter readings were taken
from midway along the uppermost collared leaf each time N
was applied. Readings were taken on 10 plants per plot in 10
zero-N plots and in 10 plots that had received a high rate of
N (ⱖ225 kg N ha⫺1 ) at planting. Chlorophyll meter readings
were not taken in the two 1999 experiments nor at V14 to
V15 in the four 1997 experiments that were fertilized at those
times. In both 1997 and 1998, the latest chlorophyll meter
readings were taken at V13.
The center two rows of each plot were hand-harvested (1.5
by 6 m). Harvest population was also determined in this area.
Grain was shelled and weighed, and grain moisture was deter-
mined with a hand-held moisture meter. Yields were corrected
to a moisture content of 150 g kg⫺1.
A quadratic-plateau function was used to describe yield
response to N rate at planting and to obtain a plateau yield.
Least-squares optimization was performed with PROC NLIN
in SAS to obtain these functions. Relative yield was then
 SCHARF ET AL.: CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO N FERTILIZER TIMING AND DEFICIENCY LEVEL 437

Table 1. Background information for N-timing experiments.

Soil
Planting Previous Mineral N to 90 cm
Location Year Series Texture† Great Group Hybrid date Tillage‡ crop§ Manure¶ at planting
kg ha⫺1
1 1995 Putnam sil Albaqualfs Four# 23 May NT SB None NA††
2 1996 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Four# 20 May NT SB None NA
3 1998 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Four# 11 May NT SB None NA
4 1997 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Pioneer 32-31 6 May NT SB Hog lagoon 152
effluent
5 1997 Higginsville sil Argiudolls Cargill 7997 9 May T Corn Hog lagoon 157
effluent
6 1997 Contrary sil Eutrudepts Stine 9706 13 May T SB Hog pit 160
slurry
7 1997 Libourn fsl Fluvaquents Pioneer 3335 9 Apr. T SB None 58
8 1997 Sibley sil Argiudolls Northrup King 7070 9 May NT DC SB None 73
9 1997 Putnam sil Albaqualfs Pioneer 3394 15 May NT SB None 51
10 1997 Luton c Haplaquolls Asgrow 801 12 May NT SB None 92
11 1997 Contrary sil Eutrudepts Pioneer 3335 13 May NT SB None 70
12 1997 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Pioneer 3260 6 May T SB Hog lagoon 255
effluent
13 1997 Putnam sil Albaqualfs Cargill 7997 17 May T SB None 84
14 1997 Moville sil Fluvaquents Garst 8342 29 Apr. T SB None 42
15 1997 Caruthersville sl Udifluvents Pioneer 3335 8 Apr. T Corn None 46
16 1997 Sibley sil Argiudolls DeKalb 626 29 Apr. T Corn Hog pit 604
slurry
17 1998 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Pioneer 33Y09 12 May T SB Hog lagoon 246
effluent
18 1998 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Pioneer 31K62 25 Apr. T SB Hog pit 175
slurry
19 1998 Mexico sil Epiaqualfs Pioneer 33K61 24 Apr. NT SB None 64
20 1998 Dundee sil Endoaqualfs Pioneer 3326 31 Mar. T SB None 4
21 1998 Putnam sil Albaqualfs Patriot 7170 18 May NT SB None 21
22 1998 Nodaway sil Udifluvents DeKalb 668 5 May T Wheat None 10
23 1998 Monona sil Hapludolls Unknown 1 May NT SB None 22
24 1998 Monona sil Hapludolls Pioneer 33Y09 18 Apr. NT SB Hog lagoon 29
sludge 1997
25 1998 Knox sil Hapludalfs Unknown‡‡ 21 Apr. NT SB None 1
26 1998 Caruthersville sl Udifluvents Pioneer 3394 17 Apr. T Corn None 54
27 1999 Farrenburg fsl Hapludalfs Unknown‡‡ 7 Apr. T DC SB None 21
28 1999 Wiota sil Argiudolls Pioneer 33A14 12 Apr. NT SB None 96
† sil, silt loam; sl, sandy loam; fsl, fine sandy loam; c, clay.
‡ T, tilled; NT, not tilled.
§ SB, soybean; DC SB, double-crop soybean.
¶ Manure applied within 6 mo before planting, except as noted.
# Four corn hybrids planted: DeKalb 668, Pioneer 3163, Pioneer 3393, and Ciba 4575.
†† NA, not available.
‡‡ White corn.

calculated by dividing mean yield for N applied at a given
time by the plateau yield for that experiment. Magnitude of
yield response was calculated by subtracting mean yield of the
zero-N plots from the mean yield for N applied at a given time.
Linear regression analyses were performed using PROC
REG in SAS. Quadratic-plateau and linear-plateau regres-
sions were performed using PROC NLIN in SAS. When time
of N application was used as the independent variable in
regression analysis, it was defined as the vegetative stage (from
0–15.5), with silking assigned a value of 20 (because there are
approximately 20 leaves and silking occurs shortly after the
emergence of the last leaf and the tassel). A t-test was used
to estimate the probability that mean relative yield ⫽ 1.00 for
several groups of data with later N application times.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Yield as a Function of Nitrogen
Application Timing
Average plateau yield of these 28 experiments was
10.3 Mg ha⫺1, and average yield response to N fertilizer
was 3.1 Mg ha⫺1. This value includes nonresponsive
sites. Corn yield responded to added N fertilizer in 22
of 28 experiments. The nonresponsive locations were 5,
6, 10, 12, 16, and 17, all of which received manure in
the year of the study, except for Location 10. Locations
12, 16, and 17 had high levels of soil mineral N at planting
time (Table 1), and we would have predicted no need
for additional N at these locations. Average yield of
nonresponsive experiments was 10.4 Mg ha⫺1, which
was not different than the average plateau yield of re-
sponsive experiments. Rainfall distribution and amount
was in general good for these experiments, with some
drought stress in July 1997 and July–August 1999.
When experiments were analyzed individually using
linear regression, N application time was a significant
(␣ ⫽ 0.05) predictor of yield for two of the three on-
station experiments (Locations 1 and 3) and 2 of the 25
on-farm experiments (Locations 26 and 27). In all four
experiments with a significant response, yield decreased
as N application delay increased. The frequency of yield
loss with delayed N application was greater in the on-
station experiments because longer delays were included
in the experiments. When the latest N application time
(silking) was not included in the analysis, N application
time was not a significant predictor of yield for any of
the on-station experiments.
A similar approach was used to examine the possibil-
ity that delaying N applications would delay develop-
ment and result in increased grain moisture at harvest.
Regression of grain moisture against time of N applica-
438 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, MAY–JUNE 2002
Fig. 2. Relative yield as a function of timing of a single N application.
Conclusions and models are nearly identical for (a) all 28 experiments
or (b) the 22 N-responsive experiments. Simple linear models are
not statistically significant. (a) Quadratic-plateau or linear-plateau
models are highly significant (P ⫽ 0.001) but are not significant
when data from N applied at silking are omitted. Pre-emergence
N applications were randomly assigned vegetative stage values
between 0 and 1 to make the data easier to see.
tion was significant (␣ ⫽ 0.10) at only one location,
suggesting that N timing had a minimal effect on grain
moisture.
When data from all 28 experiments are pooled, there
is little evidence of yield reductions when N applications
were delayed as late as growth stage V16 (Fig. 2). Linear
regression analysis did not indicate a significant trend
in relative yield when N was applied between planting
and V16 for all sites (P ⫽ 0.72) or for responsive sites
only (P ⫽ 0.63) (Fig. 2b). Neither was linear regression
significant (P ⫽ 0.23) with data from N applications at
silking included.
Either linear-plateau or quadratic-plateau regression
analysis of all data in Fig. 2 produces significant models
(P ⫽ 0.001) indicating a drop in relative yield with delayed
N application. The break point in the linear-plateau
model is at stage V15, separating only the three N appli-
cations at silking as being different from all others. This
model essentially becomes a t-test comparing N applica-
tions at silking to all others. The quadratic-plateau
model (Fig. 2a) predicts yield loss beginning at V10,
with 3.5% yield loss by V15 and 14% yield loss by
silking. Most of the data fall in the range from planting
to V15, where predicted timing effects are small or none,
limiting the suitability of this analysis for describing
the data.
Many observations of relative yield deviated substan-
tially from 1.00 (Fig. 2). We don’t know whether these
deviations are purely experimental error (most data
points represent mean yield of only three plots), or
whether there is a balance between true yield increases
and yield decreases as N applications are delayed.
Lower variance of relative yield with N applications
at planting (Fig. 2) suggests the latter. However, the
standard deviation of relative yield for nonresponsive
locations is 0.055, and for responsive locations, it is 0.062
(excluding data from N applications at silking) (Fig.
2). Because the standard deviation of relative yield for
nonresponsive locations should represent pure experi-
mental error with no treatment effect, these values sug-
gest that most of the variability in relative yield of re-
sponsive locations is due to experimental error rather
than treatment effects.
Another way to examine the data is to use t-tests. At
growth stages V12 and later, more data points in Fig. 2
are below 1.00 than are above it. A t-test shows that
there is a high probability of a true yield reduction (P ⫽
0.012 for H0: relative yield ⫽ 1.00) for all N applications
delayed until V12 or later. The mean relative yield for
these data is 0.95. If only data for N applications from
V12 to V16 are considered, P ⫽ 0.042 and mean relative
yield is 0.97. Mean relative yield when N was applied
at silking was 0.85, with values of 0.71, 0.89, and 0.95
for the three experiments receiving N applications at
silking.
Overall, our data suggest that risk of a small but real
yield reduction occurs when N applications are delayed
until the range V12 to V16 and that the risk and the
yield reduction are larger when N applications are de-
layed until silking. We found little or no evidence of
irreversible yield loss when N applications were delayed
as late as stage V11. This agrees with the findings of
Olson et al. (1986), Russelle et al. (1983), and Jung et
al. (1972) but contrasts with one of the site-years of
Binder et al. (2000) where yield losses were observed
when N applications were delayed only until V6.
Though full yield was not achieved in our experiments
when N applications were delayed until silking, yield was
still highly responsive to N application at this stage—yield
response exceeded 2.2 Mg ha⫺1 in all three experiments.
A N rate of 225 kg N ha⫺1 was sufficient to maximize
yield at all locations except one. Data from Location
21 are not included in any of the figures or collective
statistical analyses. The soil at this location was poorly
drained, and approximately 30 cm of precipitation fell
during May and June, resulting in apparently severe
denitrification loss of N. Yield response to N applied
at planting was linear up to 335 kg N ha⫺1, the highest
N rate applied, so calculating relative yield from the
225 kg N ha⫺1 applications at different timings was prob-
lematic. Regression of yield vs. N application time (from
planting to V12) for 225 kg N ha⫺1 was not significant
at this location. Average yield response to 225 kg N
ha⫺1 was 4.2 Mg ha⫺1.
Yield and Yield Response as a Function
of Nitrogen Stress
Binder et al. (2000) report that yield losses with de-
layed N applications could be predicted by both applica-
 SCHARF ET AL.: CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO N FERTILIZER TIMING AND DEFICIENCY LEVEL 439

Fig. 3. Degree of N stress observed, as indicated by relative SPAD chlorophyll meter readings, was not a significant predictor of relative yield
achieved when N fertilizer was applied at the time of the reading. This was true regardless of the time of the reading and N fertilizer application
within the range from growth stage V6 to V13. For all of the above groups, P ⬎ 0.40 for simple linear regression. Chlorophyll meter readings
were not taken after V13 through a few experiments received later N fertilizer applications.

tion timing and the magnitude of N stress that the crop
was experiencing at the time of the delayed application.
They used relative chlorophyll meter reading (the read-
ing of unfertilized plots divided by the reading from
well-fertilized plots) as their measure of N stress. In 22
experiments for which we have chlorophyll meter data
(from V5.5 to V13 only), neither N application timing,
relative chlorophyll meter reading, their squares, or
their cross product is a significant predictor of relative
yield in a regression model. Sometimes real effects are
lost in a coarse model like this, so we examined finer
subsets of data. When grouped by stage of N application,
there is little indication that relative chlorophyll meter
reading is useful for predicting relative yield (Fig. 3).
Similarly, when data are grouped by N stress, as indi-
cated by relative chlorophyll meter reading, there is
little evidence that delaying N application reduces yield
at any stress level (Fig. 4).
The most extreme combination of N stress and timing
occurred at Location 7 where relative chlorophyll meter
reading decreased from 0.92 at V6 to 0.88 at V8 to
0.72 at V13. Full yield was achieved with a single N
application at V13 in this experiment—relative yield
was 1.00, yield was 13.1 Mg ha⫺1, and yield response to
N was 6.5 Mg ha⫺1. This is similar to the observation
of Miller et al. (1975) that N application to severely
N-deficient and previously unfertilized corn at tasseling
resulted in a 6.2 Mg ha⫺1 yield response and the attain-
ment of full yield. The equation developed by Binder
et al. (2000) predicts relative yield of 0.90 for corn with
a relative chlorophyll meter reading of 0.72 at stage V13.
While relative chlorophyll meter readings were not
useful for predicting the magnitude of irreversible yield
loss in these experiments, they were useful for predicting
the magnitude of yield gain in response to N application
(Fig. 5). This supports earlier research documenting that
chlorophyll meters can be useful for predicting response
to N (Piekielek and Fox, 1992). Although relative chlo-
rophyll meter readings sometimes varied substantially
over time within an experiment, this variation did not
correspond to differences in relative yield or yield gain
to N applied at these times within a location. The signifi-
cant relationship that we observed between relative
chlorophyll meter reading and yield gain was the result
of differences between locations, rather than between
times within a location.
A relative chlorophyll meter reading ⱕ0.95 has been
suggested as indicating N deficiency and a high likeli-
hood of yield response to additional N fertilizer (Varvel
et al., 1997). While relative chlorophyll meter readings
were generally high in the six nonresponsive site-years,
we observed values of ⱕ0.95 in 5 of 17 samplings. The
lowest value observed was 0.93. Five of the six nonre-
sponsive site-years had received manure applications,
440 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, MAY–JUNE 2002
Fig. 4. Timing of a single N fertilizer application from V6 to V13 did not significantly influence relative yield, regardless of N stress level observed
at the time of fertilizer application (as indicated by relative SPAD chlorophyll meter reading). For all of the above groups, P ⬎ 0.25 for
simple linear regression.
so manure N mineralization after chlorophyll meter
readings may account for the lack of yield response.
Relative chlorophyll meter reading was not necessar-
ily consistent over time at a given location, but for our
full data set, there was no evidence (P ⫽ 0.91) that
relative chlorophyll meter reading tended to increase
or decrease as the season progressed. Thus, a reading
at any given time may represent an equally valid snap-
shot of crop N status. There was weak evidence that
Fig. 5. SPAD chlorophyll meter reading of unfertilized plots, relative
to the reading of well-fertilized plots, was a highly significant pre-
dictor of the magnitude of corn yield response to N fertilizer.
relative chlorophyll meter reading decreased over time
for 1997 data (P ⫽ 0.15) and increased over time for
1998 data (P ⫽ 0.09). This may indicate that weather
plays a role. Relatively wet weather around V6 in 1998
led to greater apparent N stress and lower relative chlo-
rophyll meter readings than in 1997 at the same stage.
This stress may have lessened as soils dried and mineral-
ization resumed.
Extrapolation of Our Results
to Other Environments
Climate may affect the relative risk of yield loss with
delayed N applications. Reduced early season growth,
as might be expected with delayed N applications, might
be expected to have less effect in areas with longer
growing seasons. Yield losses recorded in the literature
in association with delayed N are too few to evaluate
this idea, but the observation of Russelle et al. (1983)
that delayed N gave more favorable results with early
planted than late-planted corn would tend to support
it. It may also help to explain the attainment of full yield
in Kentucky (Miller et al., 1975) with N applications to
severely N-stressed corn at tasseling while we generally
observed yield reductions in central Missouri when ap-
plications were delayed that long.
Concern is sometimes expressed that late N applica-
tions will not be effective in dry weather due to posi-
 SCHARF ET AL.: CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO N FERTILIZER TIMING AND DEFICIENCY LEVEL
tional unavailability. Most of our 1997 experimental lo-
cations had ⬍3 cm of rain in July and experienced
considerable water stress. Nine of these experiments
received surface N applications in July (as late as 9 July)
that produced yields as high as those with earlier appli-
cations.
SUMMARY
Averaged over 28 N-timing experiments, we saw no
evidence of yield reduction when N applications were
delayed as late as V11, weak evidence of small yield
reductions (3%) when N applications were delayed until
V12 to V16, and moderate yield reductions (15%) when
N applications were delayed until silking. The risk of
yield loss associated with N applications delayed into
the mid- to late-vegetative stages of corn growth appears
to be acceptable and may be less than the risk associated
with fall N applications. Agronomically, delaying N ap-
plications to spread work load away from planting sea-
son, or allow in-season assessment of N need, appears
to be feasible. Extrapolation of these conclusions into
regions with a shorter growing season should be done
with caution. When weather causes unplanned delays
in N application, or when severe in-season N loss occurs,
our data suggest that economical response to N is likely
to be obtained until silking. Availability of high-clear-
ance equipment remains a factor limiting delayed N
applications for many producers, but availability of this
equipment appears to be increasing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Emmett and Jim Burke; John Waggoner; David
Bentley; Russell Flair; Fred and Ryland Utlaut; Bob Zeysing;
Melvin Keehart; David Copeland; Johnny Haer; Max Kurtz;
Duane Biermann; Karl Noellsch; Dale Goers; Randall Smoot;
Alan Adam; Larry Abell; Kenny Brinker; and Tom, Bill, and
John Becker for their interest, cooperation, comments, and
generosity in allowing us to work on their farms. For help
with field work and data organization, we are grateful to Tom
Anderson, Dave Hoehne, Pieter Los, and Andrea Peltzer.
Thanks to Alan Olness for his careful reading of and comments
on the manuscript. This work was made possible by financial
support from the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station
and the Missouri Commercial Agriculture Program.
REFERENCES
Andraski, T.W., L.G. Bundy, and K.R. Brye. 2000. Crop management
and corn nitrogen rate effects on nitrate leaching. J. Environ.
Qual. 29:1095–1103.
Binder, D.L., D.H. Sander, and D.T. Walters. 2000. Maize response
to time of nitrogen application as affected by level of nitrogen
deficiency. Agron. J. 92:1228–1236.
Blackmer, A.M. 1996. Losses of fall-applied nitrogen. p. 55–59. In
441
Proc. Integrated Crop Manage. Conf., Ames, IA. 19–20 Nov. 1996.
Iowa State Univ. Ext., Ames.
Blackmer, A.M., D. Pottker, M.E. Cerrato, and J. Webb. 1989. Corre-
lations between soil nitrate concentrations in late spring and corn
yields in Iowa. J. Prod. Agric. 2:103–109.
Blackmer, T.M., J.S. Schepers, G.E. Varvel, and G.E. Meyer. 1996.
Analysis of aerial photography for nitrogen stress within corn fields.
Agron. J. 88:729–733.
Bundy, L.G., T.W. Andraski, and T.C. Daniel. 1992. Placement and
timing of nitrogen fertilizers for conventional and conservation
tillage corn production. J. Prod. Agric. 5:214–221.
Bundy, L.G., K.A. Kelling, D.R. Keeney, and R.P. Wolkowski. 1983.
Improving nitrogen efficiency on irrigated sands using a nitrifica-
tion inhibitor. p. 165. In 1983 agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madi-
son, WI.
Evanylo, G.K. 1991. No-till corn response to nitrogen rate and timing
in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. J. Prod. Agric. 4:180–185.
Gascho, G.J., J.E. Hook, and G.A. Mitchell. 1984. Sprinkler-applied
and side-dressed nitrogen for irrigated corn grown on sand. Agron.
J. 76:77–81.
Honeycutt, C.W. 1994. Linking nitrogen mineralization and plant
nitrogen demand with thermal units. p. 49–79. In J.L. Havlin and
J.S. Jacobsen (ed.) Soil testing: Prospects for improving nutrient
recommendations. SSSA Spec. Publ. 40. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Jokela, W.E., and G.W. Randall. 1989. Corn yield and residual soil
nitrate as affected by time and rate of nitrogen application. Agron.
J. 81:720–726.
Jokela, W.E., and G.W. Randall. 1997. Fate of fertilizer nitrogen as
affected by time and rate of application on corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 61:1695–1703.
Jung, P.E., Jr., L.A. Peterson, and L.E. Schrader. 1972. Response of
irrigated corn to time, rate, and source of applied N on sandy soils.
Agron. J. 64:668–670.
Miller, H.F., J. Kavanaugh, and G.W. Thomas. 1975. Time of N appli-
cation and yields of corn in wet, alluvial soils. Agron. J. 67:401–404.
Olson, R.A., W.R. Raun, Yang Shou Chun, and J. Skopp. 1986. Nitro-
gen management and interseeding effects on irrigated corn and
sorghum and on soil strength. Agron. J. 78:856–862.
Piekielek, W.P., and R.H. Fox. 1992. Use of a chlorophyll meter to
predict sidedress nitrogen requirements for maize. Agron. J. 84:
59–65.
Randall, G.W., T.K. Iragavarapu, and B.R. Bock. 1997. Nitrogen
application methods and timing for corn after soybean in a ridge-
tillage system. J. Prod. Agric. 10:300–307.
Reeves, D.W., and J.T. Touchton. 1986. Subsoiling for nitrogen appli-
cations to corn grown in a conservation tillage system. Agron.
J. 78:921–926.
Rehm, G.W., and R.A. Wiese. 1975. Effect of method of nitrogen
application on corn (Zea mays L.) grown on irrigated sandy soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:1217–1220.
Ritchie, S.W., J.J. Hanway, and G.O. Benson. 1993. How a corn plant
develops. Spec. Rep. 48. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Roth, G.W., D.D. Calvin, and S.M. Lueloff. 1995. Tillage, nitrogen
timing, and planting date effects on Western Corn Rootworm injury
to corn. Agron. J. 87:189–193.
Russelle, M.P., R.D. Hauck, and R.A. Olson. 1983. Nitrogen accumu-
lation rates of irrigated corn. Agron. J. 75:593–598.
Stecker, J.A., D.D. Buchholz, R.G. Hanson, N.C. Wollenhaupt, and
K.A. McVey. 1993. Application placement and timing of nitrogen
solution for no-till corn. Agron. J. 85:645–650.
Varvel, G.E., J.S. Schepers, and D.D. Francis. 1997. Ability for in-
season correction of nitrogen deficiency in corn using chlorophyll
meters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:1233–1239.
Welch, L.F., D.L. Mulvaney, M.G. Oldham, L.V. Boone, and J.W.
Pendleton. 1971. Corn yields with fall, spring, and sidedress nitro-
gen applications. Agron. J. 63:119–123.