HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Miao, Y. Articles by Robert, P. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Miao, Y. Articles by Robert, P. C. Agricola Articles by Miao, Y. Articles by Robert, P. C. Related Collections Nitrogen Maize Site-Specific Analysis

Potential Impact of Precision Nitrogen Management on Corn Yield, Protein Content, and Test Weight

^a College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural Univ., Beijing 100094, China
^b Precision Agriculture Center, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
^c Mosaic Crop Nutrition, 616 S. Jefferson Ave., Paris, IL 61944

View larger version (80K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Field plot showing Order 1 soil survey (USDA-NRCS), N treatment strips, corn quality sampling points, and the concept of "within-field locations" or "stations" in Field 1. Nitrogen treatment levels were 0, 112, 168, 224, and 336 kg N ha–1, and the N treatment strips run north–south.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Sample corn test weight responses to N rate: (A) linear response (negative), Hybrid 33J24, Field 1, 2001, Within-Field Location 2; (B) linear response (positive), Hybrid 33G26, Field 1, 2003, Within-Field Location 3; (C) linear with plateau response, Hybrid 33G26, Field 1, 2001, Within-Field Location 13; (D) quadratic response, Hybrid 33J24, Field 1, 2003, Within-Field Location 4; (E) quadratic with plateau response, Hybrid 33G26, Field 1, 2003, Within-Field Location 13; (F) no response, Hybrid 33J24, Field 2, 2003, Within-Field Location 14.

View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of economically optimum N rate (EONR), N treatment strips, and Order 1 soil survey (USDA-NRCS) in Field 1: (A) Hybrid 33G26, 2001; (B) Hybrid 33J24, 2001; (C) Hybrid 33G26, 2003; and (D) Hybrid 33J24, 2003.

View larger version (141K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of economically optimum N rate (EONR), N treatment strips, experimental area, and Order 1 soil survey in Field 2: (A) Hybrid 33G26; (B) Hybrid 33J24. The N treatment levels were 0, 112, 168, 224, and 336 kg N ha–1 and the N treatment strips run west–east.