1 / 1

INTRODUCTION

Maize Grain Yield Response to Preplant Nitrogen Placement At Different Distances f rom the Row J.L. Mullock 1 , J.T. Bushong 1 , B. Chim 2 , W.R. Raun 1 , and R.K. Taylor 3

carl
Download Presentation

INTRODUCTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Maize Grain Yield Response to Preplant Nitrogen Placement At Different Distances from the Row J.L. Mullock1, J.T. Bushong1, B. Chim2, W.R. Raun1, and R.K. Taylor3 1Plant & Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 2Crop & Soil Environmental Science, Virginia Tech, 3 Bio-Systems & Agriculture Engineering, Oklahoma State University INTRODUCTION RESULTS • Equipment with RTK Global Positioning Systems correction can provide sub-inch accuracy for nitrogen (N) applications • Maize grain yield has shown a positive response to mid-season N applied at distances closer to the row • This benefit was greater under hot, dry conditions. OBJECTIVE Figure 4. Mean maize grain yield response to preplant N placement at different distances from the maize row, Lake Carl Blackwell, OK, 2012. • This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of preplant N placement at different distances from maize rows on grain yield • Preplant N Placement, from Row • LAKE CARL BLACKWELL • No significant main effect for preplantplacement, from row • Trend analyses not significant • HENNESSEY • Significant linear trend yield to increase with increased placement of N from the row (α=0.05) • Quadratic trend, not significant • Cubic trend for placement (α=0.10) Figure 2. Mean maize grain yield response to preplant N rate, Lake Carl Blackwell, OK, 2012. • Preplant N Rate • LAKE CARL BLACKWELL • Over-all average yield of 3168 kg ha-1 • No significant main effect of N-rate (α=0.10) • Quadratic trend for N-rate (α=0.10) • No linear or cubic trend for N-rate • HENNESSEY • Over-all location yield average of 1981 kg ha-1 • No significant main effect of N rate • No linear, quadratic, or cubic trend for N-rate Lcb Figure 1. Preplant N applicator with moveable toolbar to change distance from the planted row mounted on an RTK equipped tractor. MATERIALS & METHODS • Study was conducted at two drylandlocations, summer of 2012 • Lake Carl Blackwell (LCB) - (Pulaski coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic UdicUstifluvents) • Hennessey - (Bethany fine, mixed, superactive, thermic PachicPaleustolls) • Preplant N rates, 0, 56, 112, & 224 kg N ha-1 • Nitrogen was applied in the form of urea-ammonium nitrate (28-0-0) • Preplant N distances from the maize row were 0, 8, 15, 25, and 38 cm. • Treatments were arranged in a RCBD with 3 replications. Figure 5. Mean maize grain yield response to preplant N placement at different distances from the maize row, Hennessey, OK, 2012. CONCLUSIONS • Yield levels were low at both locations, and response to N placement was reduced • After 2 site-years, results are inconclusive and evaluation will be continued Figure 3. Mean maize grain yield response to preplant N rate, Hennessey, OK, 2012. OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

More Related