4.7 Article

Calibrating the leaf colour chart for need based fertilizer nitrogen management in different maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes

Journal

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
Volume 120, Issue 2, Pages 276-282

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.10.014

Keywords

Need based; Nitrogen (N); Leaf colour chart (LCC); Threshold value; Maize

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large field to field variability restricts efficient fertilizer N management when broad based blanket recommendations are used in maize (Zea mays L). To achieve higher yields and to avoid nitrogen (N) deficiency risks, many farmers apply fertilizer N in excess of crop requirement in maize. Field experiments were conducted for five years (2005-2009) to establish and evaluate threshold leaf colour to guide in-season need based fertilizer N topdressings in four maize genotypes. Colour (of the first top maize leaf with fully exposed collar) as measured by comparison with different shades of green colour on a leaf colour chart (LCC) and maize grain yield was significantly correlated. The Cate-Nelson plot of chlorophyll (SPAD) meter/leaf colour chart values against relative grain yield of 0.93 for the experiments conducted during first two years indicated that LCC shade 5 during vegetative growth stages and LCC shade 5.5 at silking stage (R1) can guide crop demand driven N applications in maize. Evaluation of the established threshold leaf greenness during the next three years revealed that fertilizer N management using LCC 5 starting from six-leaf (V6) stage to before R1 stage resulted in improved agronomic and N recovery efficiency in different maize genotypes. There was no response to fertilizer N application at R1 stage. The study revealed that in maize, fertilizer N can be more efficiently managed by applying fertilizer N dose based on leaf colour as measured by LCC than blanket recommendation. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available