Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
AgronomyAgronomy
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

22 May 2023

Using Biostimulants, Soil Additives, and Plant Protectants to Improve Corn Yield in South Texas

,
,
and
1
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M Research and Extension Center, Corpus Christi, TX 78406, USA
2
BH Genetics, 5933 FM 1157, Ganado, TX 77962, USA
3
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Texas A&M Research and Extension Center, Corpus Christi, TX 78406, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy2023, 13(5), 1429;https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051429
This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2020 in the south-central and Coastal Bend regions of Texas to determine the effects of various biostimulants, soil additives, and plant protectants on corn growth and yield. In south-central Texas, the use of pop-up fertilizer (9-30-0 + Zn) either alone or in combination with either 2% N, bifenthrin, or bifenthrin + pyraclostrobin resulted in the greatest corn vigor but a yield response was only noted with pop-up fertilizer alone at 28,062 or 46,771 mL ha−1 in one year. In the Coastal Bend region, leaf tissue analysis showed that only Fe was affected with the use of any soil additive. Bacillus licheniformis + Bacillus megaterium + Bacillus pumilus increased Fe leaf tissue content by 20% over the untreated check. Radicoat seed coating at 438 mL ha−1 reduced corn plant stand by 10%, and Pseudomonas brassicaceanum reduced corn height when compared with the untreated check; however, no differences in test weight or yield from the untreated check were noted with any soil additives. Little if any impacts of the use of biostimulants, soil amendments, or plant protectants were seen in these studies.

1. Introduction

Growers are always trying to find ways to economically and efficiently improve their production systems. Since the early 1900s, the use of soil additives and plant protectants such as fungicides, insecticides, soil activators, soil conditioners, wetting agents, inoculants, microbial enhancers, soil stimulants, etc., have been promoted as a means to improve crop growth and yield [1,2]. Recent increases in production costs, especially for fertilizers, have renewed producers’ interest in these products. Many of these products have not been investigated scientifically and the claims about what these products can do are unproven.
Generally, soil additives can be distinguished from fertilizers in that they usually have little or no nutrient content. They also differ from fertilizers in that they do not provide a guaranteed analysis (e.g., 10-34-0 or 32-0-0). The manufacturers of these products often suggest that adding these products to the soil will enhance crop production by improving root growth, nutrient uptake, and increased yield. These enhancements are generally said to occur when standard fertilizer applications are made to a crop at the recommended or near recommended levels, although some additives claim to replace or significantly reduce the need for fertilizers [1,2].
Soil amendments are added to the soil to change and improve the soil. Unlike fertilizers, which only add nutrients to the soil, soil amendments may add some nutrients but also modify the condition of the soil itself. Tilth is the condition of the soil, and specifically its suitability for supporting plant roots. With improved tilth, roots penetrate the surrounding soil more easily and water infiltration improves. Soil amendments alter the soil in ways that affect the availability of plant nutrients that occur naturally or that are added by fertilizers [1,2].
Fertilizers impact plant growth directly, while soil amendments affect growth indirectly. Soil amendments are not fertilizer substitutes; instead, they help fertilizers become more effective by improving soil texture and tilth. Soil additives can typically be divided into three categories: (1) soil conditioners, (2) soil activators, and (3) wetting agents and surfactants. Soil conditioners usually are defined as materials that improve a soil’s physical condition or structure and, in turn, the soil’s aeration and water relationships [1,2].
In-furrow starter fertilizers containing single nutrients or combinations of nutrients are applied to improve early-season nutrient uptake, nutrient use efficiency, and plant growth [3,4,5,6]. Quinn et al. [7] found that starter fertilizer applications increased corn yield by an average of 5.2%, regardless of placement. Bermudez and Mallarino [3] reported that in-furrow fertilizer could increase corn grain yield by 1.1%, early-season growth by 27%, and plant N or P uptake by 30%. Additionally, in-furrow placement is more common due to reduced equipment costs, faster planter speeds, and less of an influence from early-season soil moisture conditions compared to the 5 cm to side × 5 cm to the side of the seed (5 × 5) starter placement [5,6].
Maintaining and/or improving soil structure is highly desirable in crop production and one of the most common methods of improving soil structure is by adding organic matter. Soil activators are marketed on the basis that they stimulate existing soil microbes or inoculate the soil with new beneficial organisms. Some manufacturers suggest that such products may improve the soil’s physical properties (increased structure, reduced compaction), increase fertilizer and soil nutrient uptake, improve crop yields and/or quality, correct soil ‘toxicities’ (such as salinity), and provide disease and insect control/resistance [8]. Wetting agents and surfactants have long been used to reduce the surface tension of water droplets and improve leaf surface coverage with foliar sprays. Surfactants are also used to reduce the risk of crop injury and improve the efficiency of preemergence herbicides having residual soil activity [9]. However, many related products are marketed on the basis that they will loosen tight or compacted soils, improve water infiltration and retention, enhance nutrient availability, and increase crop yields [10].
Plant protectants such as fungicides and insecticides are also used to improve emergence, early-season plant growth, and crop yield [11,12,13,14,15]. Interestingly, Jordan et al. [12] reported that the peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yield response to acephate, Brady rhizobium (inoculant), and tebuconazole was independent and no interactions were involved. However, interactions were noted for tobacco thrips (Frankliniella fusca Hinds) control and peanut emergence and diameter. Additionally, with little disease occurrence, tebuconazole reduced yield in one experiment and did not positively affect yield in others. Pierson et al. [13] reported similar results in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. They reported that the use of a prophylactic application of a fungicide and starter fertilizer may not be profitable without the risk of soilborne diseases and nutrient deficiencies.
Several traditional soil amendments, plant protectants, and commercial fertilizers have been tested extensively through research trials to document both their benefits and limitations. Unfortunately, sufficient research funds often are not available to investigate the many new products being marketed, including non-traditional additives. Nevertheless, producers need to be aware of the types of products available and have some knowledge of their potential for improved crop production. Therefore, this research was conducted to evaluate biostimulants, soil additives, and plant protectants that are currently on the market in order to determine corn growth and yield response.

2. Materials and Methods

Field studies were conducted on grower’s fields in south-central Texas near Ganado during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons and in the Coastal Bend region at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center near Corpus Christi during the 2020 growing season to determine corn response to various biostimulants, soil additives, and plant protectants applied in-furrow at planting. Products used at each location are listed in Table 1 and Table 2, while variables for each location are presented in Table 3. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three to four replications depending on location. An untreated check was included each year at all locations.
Table 1. Type, manufacturer, and properties of in-furrow soil amendments used in south-central Texas.
Table 2. Type, manufacturer, and properties of soil amendments used in the Coastal Bend area of Texas.
Table 3. Variables associated with soil amendment studies in south-central and the Coastal Bend regions of Texas.
At all three locations, treatments were applied in 46.8 L ha−1 of water using a CO2-pressurized sprayer with one Teejet® orifice disc # 45 nozzle per row immediately after seed drop but prior to furrow closure. For the studies near Ganado, each plot consisted of two rows spaced 97 cm apart and 7.6 m long, while at the Corpus Christi location plot size was 4 rows spaced 102 cm apart and 9.1 m long. Traditional production practices were used to maximize corn growth, development, and yield at each location.
At Ganado, corn vigor was estimated visually on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 = large plant, vigorously growing; 9 = small, weak plants). Vigor was evaluated 21 and 51 days after planting (DAP) in 2016 and 6 and 16 DAP in 2017.
At Corpus Christi, plant height was measured at tassel by measuring the distance from the soil surface to the ear node and the tip of the tassel. Corn plants were evaluated for leaf damage (0 = no leaf damage; 9 = severe damage) 30 days after planting and during silk formation and for ear injury from insects (number of kernels affected/ear). No diseases were observed at the soft dough stage and lodging was not detected pre-harvest at any location. Ear leaf samples (15/plot) were collected at the R1 stage at mid-morning after the leaves had dried off. Samples were refrigerated and sent to the Texas A&M Soil, Water, and Forage Testing Laboratory (2610 F&B Road; College Station, TX 77845, USA) for analysis.
Corn yield was determined near Ganado using a Gleaner K2® small plot combine with a Harvest Master 800® scale system, while at the Corpus Christi location harvesting was completed using a 4-row New Holland TR 87® combine. Harvest was at 13 to 17% moisture and yield at all locations was adjusted to 15% moisture.
Data for the percentage of corn vigor, plant height, plants ha−1, test weight, and yield were transformed to the arcsine square root prior to analysis; however, non-transformed means are presented because arscine transformation did not affect the interpretation of the data. Data were subjected to ANOVA and analyzed using the SAS PROC MIXED procedure 23 [16].
Treatment means were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD at p ≤ 0.10 at the Ganado locations and p ≤ 0.05 at the Corpus Christi location. The untreated check was used for all data analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Ganado Locations

3.1.1. Vigor

In 2016, when evaluated 21 days after planting (DAP), any treatment which included the pop-up fertilizer resulted in greater vigor than any other treatment. Tebuconazole (Torque) and gibberellic acid (Pro-Gibb) + cytokinin (Radiate) also had greater vigor than the untreated check (Table 4). The use of an insecticide (bifentrin) or the fungicide (pyraclostrobin) alone did not improve vigor. At the 51 DAP evaluation, any pop-up fertilizer treatment, ionized sodium silicate (Quicksol), and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens + pyraclostrobin (Xanthion) at the low rate, and the microalgae (Pure Algae) treatment, resulted in greater vigor than the untreated check. Interestingly, although corn responded early-season to tebuconazole, the later-season evaluation showed no difference from the untreated check. Jordan et al. [12] reported in peanut that the use of tebuconazole in-furrow resulted in slow emergence and reduced early-season growth. They reported that tebuconazole reduced yield in only one of five experiments, even though peanut emergence was delayed in most experiments and peanut diameter was less when tebuconazole was applied. In peanut, Phipps [11] reported that the use of tebuconazole applied in-furrow suppressed Cylindrocladium black rot (caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticun); however, in our research no disease issues were noted.
Table 4. Use of soil amendments to improve corn yield near Ganado in 2016.
In 2017, at the 6 DAP evaluation, all treatments with the exception of those that contained pop-up fertilizer, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI 600 + pyraclostrobin, pyraclostrobin alone (Headline), and 2% N (Levesol), resulted in greater vigor than the untreated check (Table 5). The only exception for those treatments that contained pop-up fertilizer was pop-up fertilizer at the low rate, which resulted in a 19% increase in vigor over the untreated check. Bacillus licheniformis (VGR) + bifenthrin (Capture LFR) resulted in the greatest vigor. Mascagni et al. [17] reported that pop-up fertilizer at high rates may injure plants, and this may have accounted for the reduced vigor with pop-up fertilizer at this early evaluation. If fertilizer rates are too high or planting time conditions are too dry, salt injury can affect seed germination and the early growth of seedling corn plants.
Table 5. Use of soil amendments to improve corn yield near Ganado in 2017.
By 15 DAP, corn vigor evaluations had changed considerably as all treatments which contained pop-up fertilizer produced the greatest plant vigor. Treatments containing the Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747 + bifenthrin (Ethos XB), 2% N and both rates of the microalgae resulted in plant vigor similar to that of the untreated check. As in 2016, the use of fungicide only (pyraclostrobin) did not improve seedling vigor; however, contrary to 2016, the insecticide (bifenthrin)-only treatment did improve corn seedling vigor over the untreated check. Mascagni et al. [17] reported that on sandy loam and silt soils, growth responses with pop-up fertilizer over N alone were primarily due to the P in pop-up. This effect was probably due to reduced P availability early-season in the sandy, low organic matter, and light-colored soils, which are typically cold-natured.

3.1.2. Test Weight

In 2016, only the 7% total N + 10% chelated Fe (Sprint) treatment resulted in a lower test weight than the untreated check (Table 4), while in 2017 no differences were noted between the untreated check and any treatment (Table 5).

3.1.3. Yield

In 2016, although not significantly different from the untreated check, pop-up fertilizer + Zn at the high rate and pop-up fertilizer + Zn + bifenthrin + pyraclostrobin produced the highest numerical yields (Table 4). Several treatments, including 7% total N + 10% chelated Fe, ionized sodium silicate, both gibberellic acid treatments (Pro-Gibb), bifenthrin alone, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI 600 + pyraclostrobin at 44 + 219 ml ha−1, pyraclostrobin alone, and 2% N, produced yields that were lower than the untreated check, but none of those treatments included any pop-up fertilizer treatment. Lemus et al. [18] reported that the seasonal annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) dry matter yield was not different between the untreated check and gibberellic acid treatments. They concluded that temperatures in the southern US during annual ryegrass production may be too mild to observe a gibberellic acid response.
In 2017, pop-up fertilizer alone at 28,062 and 46,771 ml ha−1 resulted in corn yields that were greater than the untreated check, while the microalgae treatment at 1462 m ha−1 produced a yield lower than the untreated check (Table 5). No other treatments resulted in any differences compared to the untreated check. Placing small amounts of starter fertilizer in close proximity to the seed at planting can alleviate the effects of cold soil temperature on the P uptake and early corn growth [17]. Mascagni et al. [17] reported in 15 trials in Louisiana that starter fertilizer increased yield in only one third of the studies; however, early season plant growth was increased in all trials. The largest yield increases occurred on sandy loam soils with low organic matter.
Pop-up or starter fertilizers have shown mixed results in other studies [19,20,21,22,23]. Niehaus et al. [19] researched starter fertilizer placements of direct seed contact, dribble over-the-row, and a subsurface band (5 cm below and 5 cm to the side of the seed row) and reported that starter fertilizer, regardless of placement, often increased early-season dry matter production and significantly increased grain yields. Pierson et al. [13] concluded that the use of a fungicide and/or starter (pop-up) fertilizer in soybean was not profitable if soil-borne diseases or nutrient deficiencies were not present.
Wise [15] reported that the use of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747, MBI 600 Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI 600 + pyraclostrobin, or pyraclostrobin alone did not improve corn plant populations or yield at three planting dates. He concluded that where growers do not have a history of seedling disease, they may not need in-furrow fungicides even when planting in cool, wet conditions.
A. brasilense has been used on corn as a seed treatment in Brazil to improve N use and yield, resulting in increased corn growth and yield when combined with only half of the optimum rate of fertilizer N [21,22]. A meta-analysis of Azospirillum spp. indicated that yield increases in corn were achieved when the bacteria were applied without additional N, and only minimal increases when applied with N [23].

3.2. Corpus Christi Location

3.2.1. Tissue Samples

No differences were noted in leaf content with P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Cu, Mn, S, or B (Table 6). N levels (%) in the tissue samples were highest with the starter fertilizer only. N levels in the corn leaf tissue typically run from a low of 2.45% to a high of 3.51%, with normal being 2.76% [24]. All treatments produced N levels that were above normal. Fe levels (ppm) were highest, with Bacillus licheniformis + Bacillus megaterium + Bacillus pumilus (Accomplish LM) at 2339 mL ha−1. Typically, the concentration of Fe in corn leaf tissue samples taken at silking can range from a low of 10 ppm to a high of 251 ppm, with normal being 21 ppm [24]. No other differences were noted. In research on guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.), El-Sawah et al. [25] reported that biofertilizers produced from Bacillus spp. and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improved N, P, and K content in guar leaves. They suggested that biofertilizers increased the availability of essential nutrients in the soil, which translocated to the guar through the root system and therefore improved guar growth and yield.
Table 6. Corn tissue content when using soil amendments in the Coastal Bend area (Corpus Christi) of Texas in 2020.

3.2.2. Plant Populations

Seed coating (Radicoat) at 438 mL ha−1 resulted in a 10% stand reduction when compared with the untreated check. No other differences were noted (Table 7).
Table 7. Corn plant response to soil amendments in the Coastal Bend area of Texas in 2020.

3.2.3. Plant Height

Pseudomonas brassicaceanum (Bio-Yield) resulted in a 5% reduction in plant height compared with the untreated check. No other differences were noted (Table 7).

3.2.4. Leaf Damage

Bacillus licheniformis + Bacillus megaterium + Bacillus pumilus at 2339 Ml ha−1 and pop-up fertilizer resulted in the greatest leaf damage (Table 7). Leaf damage was very low because of the use of a hybrid with the Bt gene [26].

3.2.5. Test Weight

No differences were noted between any treatments (Table 7).

3.2.6. Yield

No differences were noted between any treatments (Table 7).

4. Conclusions

Few, if any, impacts of the use of biostimulants, soil amendments, or plant protectants were seen in these studies; however, other studies have reported varying results. McFarland [2] reported in various studies across the US that the use of soil activators has shown no significant beneficial effects on crop quality and yield. He also reported that lab evaluations of these products indicated that they did not increase the number or activity of soil microbes, and thus would not be expected to increase the rate or extent of crop residue decomposition. In contrast, El Sawah et al. [25] reported that various components of guar production (shoot length, root length, leaf area, plant dry weight, nutrient uptake, and yield) were significantly affected by the application of biofertilizers and their combination. Activities of soil enzymes, such as dehydrogenase, phosphatase, protease, and invertase, also improved in the rhizosphere soil of plants treated with biofertilizers. They also stated that increasing soil enzymes in the rhizosphere and the essential nutrients available for the guar plants increased seed quality by improving the proteins, carbohydrates, starch, fatty acids, and guaran content and reduced the use of chemical fertilizers by 25%.
When planting in other areas of the US, where cold, wet conditions may persist, the use of biostimulants, soil amendments, or plant protectants will prove beneficial. However, under conditions in south Texas where soil temperatures may commonly be 15 to 20 °C at planting, the corn seed can germinate and emerge in 7 days or less. Therefore, the use of biostimulants, soil amendments, or plant protectants is not as beneficial as under conditions where the corn seed may have to sit in cool, wet soils for several days or even several weeks before germination and emergence. Low temperatures delay seed germination [27], reduce growth rates and negatively impact plant vigor [28]. Temperature is also a primary driver of plant phenological development [29]. Vegetative growth and development processes, including the initiation of new leaves, the expansion of these leaves, and the extension of plant height, directly affect the plant’s ability to intercept solar radiation throughout the growing season, and temperature can alter these processes [30]. Additionally, research has shown that plant responses to abiotic stress are the primary limiting factor in growth and development [31,32].
Although no response was seen with algae in this study, recent research has indicated that a fast-growing green algae, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, contains an organelle called the pyrenoid that speeds up the conversion of carbon, which the algae absorbs from the air into a form that organisms can use for growth [33]. Using molecular modeling to identify the features of this pyrenoid that are most critical for enhancing carbon fixation and then engineering them into crops could provide a major boost to plant growth rates [34].
The use of these products will require recommendations specific to each individual farm to determine the appropriate organisms to use and the right agronomic management practices to ensure a positive crop response. Since many similar products are being introduced into the marketplace, additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these biostimulants, soil additives, and/or plant protectants on crop growth and yield. Achieving the maximum economic yield depends on using only those inputs which will provide a return on investment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.J.G.; Writing—original draft, W.J.G.; writing—review and editing, T.W.J., J.A.M. and M.J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received partial funding from BH Genetics and the Texas Corn Producers Board.

Data Availability Statement

All the data supporting the findings of this study are included in this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Darwin Anderson and Clint Livingston for plot maintenance and harvest.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. McFarland, M.L.; Stichler, C.; Lemon, R.G. Non-Traditional Soil Additives: Can They Improve Crop Production? Part 1; Texas A&M AgriLife Extension: Floresville, TX, USA, 2002; 4p.
  2. McFarland, M.L. Non-Traditional Soil Additives: Can they Improve Crop Production? Part 2; Texas A&M AgriLife Extension: Floresville, TX, USA, 2006; 4p.
  3. Bermudez, M.; Mallarino, A.P. Corn response to starter fertilizer and tillage across and within fields having no-till management histories. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 776–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wortmann, C.S.; Xerinda, S.A.; Mamo, M.; Shapiro, C.A. No-till row crop response to starter fertilizer in eastern Nebraska: I. Irrigated and rainfed corn. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kaiser, D.E.; Coulter, J.A.; Vetsch, J.A. Corn hybrid response to in-furrow starter fertilizer as affected by planting date. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 2493–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rutan, J.; Steinke, K. Pre-plant and in-season nitrogen combinations for the northern corn belt. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 2059–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Quinn, D.J.; Lee, C.D.; Poffenbarger, H.J. Corn yield response to sub-surface banded starter fertilizer in the U.S.: A meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 254, 107834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Weaver, R.W.; Dunigan, E.P.; Parr, J.R.; Hiltbold, A.E. Effects of two soil activators on crop yields and activities of soil microorganisms in the Southern United States. In Joint Regional Publication by the Agricultural Experiment Stations of Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina and Oklahoma; Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 189; Texas A&M AgriLife Extension: Floresville, TX, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kocarek, M.; Kodesova, R.; Sharipov, U.; Jursik, M. Effect of adjuvant on pendimethalin and dimethenamid-P behavior in soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 354, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wolkowski, R.P.; Keeling, K.A.; Oplinger, E.S. Evaluation of three wetting agents as soil additives for improving crop yield and nutrient availability. Agron. J. 1985, 77, 695–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Phipps, P.M. The response of CBR-susceptible and-resistant cultivars to preplant treatment with metam and in-furrow application of Folicur and Abound for disease management, 2002. FN Rep. 2003, 58, FC020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jordan, D.L.; Brandeburg, R.L.; Bailey, J.E.; Johnson, P.D.; Royals, B.M.; Curtis, V.L. Compatibility of in-furrow application of acephate, inoculant, and tebuconazole in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 2006, 33, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pierson, W.L.; Kandel, Y.R.; Allen, T.W.; Faske, T.R.; Tenuta, A.U.; Wise, K.A.; Mueller, D.S. Soybean yield response to in-furrow fungicides, fertilizers, and their combinations. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2018, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Quinn, D.J.; Poffenbarger, H.J.; Lee, C.D. Rye cover crop and in-furrow fertilizer and fungicide impacts on corn optimum seedling rate and grain yield. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 139, 126529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wise, K. Research Report: Effect of In-Furrow Fungicides on Corn Seedling Diseases and Yield. 2019. Available online: https://www.kycorn.org/news/2019/5/15/research-report-effect-of-in-furrow-fungicides-on-corn-seedling-diseases-and-yield (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  16. SAS Institute. SAS® Enterprise Guide 8.2 User’s Guide; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mascagni, H.J.; Boquet, D.; Bell, B. Influence of starter fertilizer on corn yield and plant development on Mississippi River alluvial soils. Better Crop. 2007, 91, 8–10. Available online: https://www.Ipni.net/publication/bettercrops.nsf/0/1A1444F06D99FESC852579800081D5BE/$FILE/Better%20Crops%202007-2%20p (accessed on 3 November 2022).
  18. Lemus, R.; White, J.A.; Morrison, J.I. Effect of gibberellic acid and nitrogen application on biomass and nutritive value of annual ryegrass. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2020, 7, e20089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Niehaus, B.J.; Lamond, R.E.; Godsey, C.B.; Olsen, C.J. Starter nitrogen fertilizer management for continuous no-till corn production. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1412–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Preza-Fontes, G.; Miller, H.; Camberto, J.; Roth, R.; Armstrong, S. Corn yield response to starter nitrogen rates following a cereal rye cover crop. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2022, 8, e20187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vicente Alves, M.; Nunes Nest, C.; Naibo, G.; Henrique Barreta, M.; Lazzari, M.; Florese Junior, A.; Skoronski, E. Corn seed inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense in different nitrogen fertilization management. Braz. J. Agric. Sci. Bras. Cienc. Agrar. 2020, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Galindo, F.S.; Teixeira Filho, M.C.M.; Buzetti, S.; Pagliari, P.H.; Santini, J.M.K.; Alves, C.J.; Megda, M.M.; Nogueira, T.A.R.; Andreotti, M.; Arf, O. Maize yield response to nitrogen rates and sources associated with Azospirillum brasilense. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 1985–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zeffa, D.M.; Fantin, L.H.; dos Santos, O.J.A.P.; de Oliveira, A.L.M.; Canteri, M.G.; Scapim, C.A.; Goncalves, L.S.A. The influence of topdressing nitrogen on Azospirillum spp. Inoculation in maize crops through meta-analysis. Bragantia 2018, 77, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Anonymous. Interpretive Nutrient Levels for Plant Analysis; College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State University: State College, PA, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.agsci.psu.edu/aasl/plant-analysis/plant-tissue-total-analysis/interpretive-nutrient-levels-for-plant-analysis/corn-field (accessed on 8 November 2022).
  25. El-Sawah, A.M.; El-Keblawy, A.; Ali, D.F.I.; Ibrahim, H.M.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; Sharma, A.; Hamoud, Y.A.; Shaghaleh, H.; Brestic, M.; Skalicky, M.; et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhance soil key enzymes, plant growth, seed yield, and qualitative attributes of guar. Agriculture 2021, 11, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pruter, L.S.; Brewer, M.J.; Murray, S.C.; Isakeit, T.; Pekar, J.J.; Wahl, N.J. Yield, insect-derived ear injury, and aflatoxin among developmental and commercial maize hybrids adapted to the North American subtropics. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 2950–2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Walne, C.H.; Gaudin, A.; Henry, W.B.; Reddy, K.R. In vitro seed germination response of corn hybrids to osmotic stress conditions. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2020, 3, e20087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wijewardana, C.; Hock, M.; Henry, B.; Reddy, K. Screening corn hybrids for cold tolerance using morphological traits for early-season seeding. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 851–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Angel, J.R.; Widhalm, M.; Todey, D.; Massey, R.; Biehl, L. The U2U corn growing degree day tool: Tracking corn growth across the US Corn Belt. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 15, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Calleja-Cabrera, J.; Boter, M.; Ofiate-Sanchez, L.; Pernas, M. Root growth adaptation to climate change in crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sanchez, B.; Rasmussen, A.; Porter, J.R. Temperatures and the growth and development of maize and rice: A review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cutforth, H.W.; Shaykewich, C.F.; Chio, C.M. Effect of soil water and temperature on corn (Zea mays L.) root growth during emergence. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1986, 66, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fei, C.; Wilson, A.T.; Mangan, N.M.; Wingreen, N.S.; Jonikas, M.C. Modelling the purenoid-based CO2 concentrating mechanism provides insights into its operating principals and a roadmap for its engineering into crops. Nat. Plants 2022, 8, 583–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sedwick, C. How Fast-Growing Algae Could Enhance Growth of Food Crops. Princeton Univ. Princet. Res. 2022. Available online: https://www.research.princeton.edu/news/how-fast-growing-algae-could-enhance-growth-food-crops (accessed on 7 November 2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
County Scale Corn Yield Estimation Based on Multi-Source Data in Liaoning Province
Previous
Spider Plant (Cleome gynandra L.): An Emerging Weed in the Sweet Corn–Brassica Cropping System
Next