Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Field Crops Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr

Estimating maize nutrient uptake requirements

T.D. Setiyono a , D.T. Walters a , K.G. Cassman a , C. Witt b , A. Dobermann c,∗
a
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, PO Box 830915, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915, USA
b
International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) Southeast Asia Program, PO Box 500 GPO, Penang 10670, Malaysia
c
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Generic, robust models are needed for estimating crop nutrient uptake requirements. We quantified
Received 17 February 2010 and modeled grain yield–nutrient uptake relations in maize grown without significant biotic and abiotic
Received in revised form 15 May 2010 stresses. Grain yield and plant nutrient accumulation in above-ground plant dry matter (DM) of commer-
Accepted 16 May 2010
cial maize hybrids were measured at physiological maturity in on-station and on-farm experiments in
Nebraska (USA), Indonesia, and Vietnam during 1997–2006. These data were used to model the nutrient
Keywords:
requirements for yields up to 20 Mg ha−1 using the QUEFTS (QUantitative Evaluation of the Fertility of
Nutrient use efficiency
Tropical Soils) approach. The model required estimation of two boundary lines describing the minimum
Nutrient uptake
Grain nutrient removal
and maximum internal nutrient efficiencies of N, P and K (IE, kg grain per kg nutrient in plant DM), which
Maize were estimated at 40 and 83 kg grain kg−1 N, 225 and 726 kg grain kg−1 P and 29 and 125 kg grain kg−1
QUEFTS K, respectively. The model predicted a linear increase in grain yield if nutrients are taken up in balanced
Crop nutrient requirements amounts of 16.4 kg N, 2.3 kg P and 15.9 kg K per 1000 kg of grain until yield reached about 60–70% of the
Nitrogen yield potential. The corresponding IEs were 61 kg grain kg−1 N, 427 kg grain kg−1 P and 63 kg grain kg−1 K.
Phosphorus The model predicted a decrease in IEs when yield targets approached the yield potential limit. A spher-
Potassium ical model was derived from QUEFTS model outputs and found to be particularly suitable for practical
applications such as estimating fertilizer needs. The proposed spherical model offers generality across
environments and management practices, allowing users to estimate the optimal N, P and K uptake
requirements based on two inputs: estimated yield potential and yield target. Further improvements in
modeling the relationship between N uptake and grain yield can be made by taking into account differ-
ences in harvest index. Accuracy in the simulation of N uptake using the spherical model was improved
from an RMSE of 35 kg N ha−1 to 25 kg N ha−1 when harvest index was accounted for, suggesting that
the relationship between N uptake and actual yield is affected by both yield potential and efficiency in
biomass partitioning.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Current nutrient management strategies for irrigated maize still

Increasing demand for food, fiber and biofuel has significant
impact on fertilizer consumption at both local and global scales.
At issue is whether maize fertilizer use can be kept in balance
for achieving production goals and preserving soil quality and the
environment (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002). Nutrient mining
is a major cause of low crop yields and unsustainable agriculture
in parts of the developing world, particularly Africa. At the other
extreme, nutrients such as N and P often move beyond the bounds
of the agricultural field because the management practices fail to
achieve adequate congruence between nutrient supply and crop
nutrient demand (van Noordwijk and Cadisch, 2002).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +63 2 580 5600.
E-mail address: a.dobermann@irri.org (A. Dobermann).
lack a practical but robust and globally applicable tool for esti-
mating balanced nutrient requirements for achieving a targeted
maize yield goal. Most nutrient recommendation algorithms in the
Midwest USA, for example, are state-specific and none of them
explicitly deal with estimating N, P or K requirements as a function
of yield potential, yield target, and nutrient supply from indige-
nous sources (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002). Indigenous sources
include nutrient supply from soil, available nutrients from wet/dry
deposition, heterotrophic N2 fixation, and in irrigated systems, the
useful nutrient supply brought in with applied water. Nutrient bud-
geting approaches or environmental indices for phosphorus (P)
are increasingly used for guiding fertilizer applications, but they
also rely on robust estimates of crop nutrient removal (per unit
yield) and of nutrient recycling. The situation is often worse in
many developing countries, where blanket recommendations for
fertilizer use still predominant. Quantitative fertilizer recommen-
dation algorithms that account for demand, supply, and efficiency

0378-4290/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2010.05.006
 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168
terms are well suited to site-specific applications and are applicable
across wider range of environmental and management conditions.
Understanding nutrient efficiency and yield–uptake relations in
maize is thus a crucial step toward developing more robust fertilizer
recommendation algorithms.
Many studies have been conducted to quantify nutrient removal
with maize grain (Heckman et al., 2003), understand nutrient
uptake dynamics under different growth conditions (Karlen et
al., 1988; Walker and Peck, 1974), or measure and model the
decline in critical plant nutrient concentration with increasing
crop biomass accumulation (Greenwood et al., 1990). However,
estimates of nutrient requirements are often derived from field
experiments conducted at relatively few locations, mostly research
stations, whereas only few studies have attempted to model nutri-
ent uptake–yield relationships in maize across widely differing
farming environments.
Dutch researchers (van Duivenbooden et al., 1996; van Keulen,
1977, 1986; van Keulen and Van Heemst, 1982) studied the
relationship between yield and plant nutrient accumulation for
major crops. They found a generic linear range followed by a
parabolic–plateau and concluded that an upper boundary exists
at which a nutrient’s concentration in grain (and straw) becomes
diluted to the maximum possible extent when that nutrient is the
sole factor-limiting yield. Janssen et al. (1990) and Smaling and
Janssen (1993) further developed these concepts in the QUEFTS
(QUantitative Evaluation of the Fertility of Tropical Soils) model
using two linear boundaries that described the range from maxi-
mum accumulation (“excess”) to maximum dilution (“deficiency”)
of N, P, and K in maize. Those envelopes were then mathematically
combined into linear–parabolic–plateau curves for estimating opti-
mal (balanced) nutrient requirements of all three macronutrients.
The QUEFST approach has been applied in studies on rice in Asia
(Witt et al., 1999) and West Africa (Haefele et al., 2003), wheat in
China (Liu et al., 2006) and India (Pathak et al., 2003), and maize
in Africa (Janssen et al., 1990; Saidou et al., 2003) and China (Liu et
al., 2006). It has also provided a scientifically sound and practically
robust, generic basis for new site-specific nutrient management
concepts in these cereal crops (Dobermann et al., 2002; Khurana et
al., 2008; Witt et al., 2008). Although the assumptions and concepts
used in the QUEFTS model are reasonable, the original purpose of
this model was to quantify yield for a given nutrient supply from the
soil. Even though QUEFTS can be used for estimating plant uptake
for a certain yield level (Smaling and Janssen, 1993), no straightfor-
ward algorithm is available to solve for uptake at a given attainable
yield using QUEFTS. In Witt et al. (1999), for example, a solver mod-
ule in Microsoft® Office Excel was used to calculate nutrient uptake
for a given rice yield goal.
Previous studies on nutrient uptake requirements and inter-
nal nutrient efficiencies in maize were mainly conducted for grain
yields up to about 10 Mg ha−1 (Janssen et al., 1990; Liu et al., 2006;
van Duivenbooden et al., 1996). Our study involves a large database
of nutrient uptake from irrigated and favorable rainfed maize envi-
ronments when crops were grown in well-managed on-farm and
on-station trials in subtropical and tropical (North Vietnam and
Indonesia) and temperate (multiple sites in Nebraska, USA) cli-
mates. This database covers a wide yield range, from about 1 to
nearly 20 Mg ha−1 . The output of this analysis is therefore expected
to describe nutrient uptake and yield relations for maize grown
with minimal biotic or abiotic stress other than limitation of N,
P and K. The specific objectives of this study were to: (1) deter-
mine the envelope functions describing relationships between
grain yield and nutrient (N, P, K) uptake by irrigated maize across a
wide range of yields and environments; (2) quantify the balanced
N, P, and K uptake requirements of irrigated maize; and (3) derive
a novel spherical model as a simple, robust decision tool for esti-
mating nutrient uptake requirements of irrigated maize.
159
Fig. 1. Box plots of grain yield of maize for different sub-sets of data used in this
study: NE, USA-HY (high-yield site at Lincoln, NE, USA), NE, USA-F (on-farm sites in
Nebraska, USA), VN-F (on-farm sites in North Vietnam), and ID-F (on-farm sites in
Indonesia). Solid and dashed lines indicate median and mean, respectively. The box
boundaries indicate the upper and lower quartiles, the whisker caps indicate 90th
and 10th percentiles, and the circles indicate the 95th and 5th percentiles.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Data
The database used for this analysis included more than 2500
measurements of maize yield, total dry matter and nutrient uptake
collected from various studies conducted by the authors in collab-
oration with other partners during 1997–2006. Given the diversity
of experimental conditions, specific details of these field studies
are not reported here because this paper aims at evaluating the
relationship between grain yield and plant nutrient accumulation
for a wide range of possible nutrient supplies and environmental
conditions. Methods for plant sampling and nutrient anlaysis, how-
ever, are described below. The database included two contrasting
maize-growing regions, which also differed significantly in maize
yield potential and actual yields obtained in our studies (Fig. 1):
(a) High-yielding maize in Nebraska, USA: multiple locations
across Nebraska, representing different environments, soil
types and cropping practices in the Western Corn Belt. Specific
sub-sets included (i) an on-farm trial on potassium response
conducted on a sandy soil at one location over 2 years (A. Dober-
mann and C. Shapiro, unpublished), (ii) a high-yielding maize
experiment conducted at Lincoln, NE for 6 years (Adviento-
Borbe et al., 2007), (iii) two large irrigated maize fields and one
large favorable rainfed maize field at Mead, NE sampled for 2
years (Verma et al., 2005), and (iv) on-farm nutrient response
trials conducted at 11–12 locations across Nebraska for 3 years
(Dobermann et al., 2006; Wortmann et al., 2009).
(b) Lowland and upland maize in Southeast Asia: two sub-regions,
representing different environments, soil types and cropping
practices. Specific sub-sets included (i) on-farm research tri-
als on site-specific nutrient management conducted for 2 years
in 24 farmers’ fields in two contrasting environments (alluvial
soils vs. degraded soils) in the Red River Delta, North Vietnam
(Son et al., 2004), and (ii) on-farm research trials on site-specific
nutrient management conducted for 2 years in 25 farmers’
fields across five different regions of Indonesia, namely North
Sumatra, South Sumatra, Central Java, East Java, and South
Sulawesi (Witt et al., 2008).
Cropping systems varied widely. In Nebraska, maize was either
grown as continuous maize or following soybean. In Indone-
sia, double and triple cropping systems such as maize–maize,
160 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168
rice–maize–maize and rice–rice–maize were predominant. In
North Vietnam, maize was grown during winter, following two
crops of irrigated rice. Soil types included Mollisols for most
Nebraska sites, whereas Inceptisols, Entisols, Alfisols, Vertisols,
Ultisols and Oxisols were represented at the southeast Asian loca-
tions. All on-farm experiments were researcher-managed, with
good control of weeds, diseases and insect pests. One site in
Nebraska and three sites in Indonesia were under favorable rainfed
conditions. All other sites had full sprinkler or furrow irriga-
tion. At all sites, commercially available maize hybrids adapted
to the specific environment were grown. Plant population densi-
ties were mostly in the range of 60,000–80,000 plants ha−1 , but
also included some high-density treatments with up to about
110,000 plants ha−1 (at Lincoln, NE). Tillage practices ranged from
intensive plowing at some locations in Asia, to disking, ridge-till or
no-till. The data set contained many different nutrient management
treatments to establish a wide range of nutrient dilution and accu-
mulation situations, including single-nutrient omission plots such
as +PK (N omitted), +NK (P omitted) and +NP (K omitted) as well
as treatments with optimal fertilizer management and treatments
with excessive NPK rates. Nitrogen applications ranged from 0 to
375 kg N ha−1 (average of 187 kg N ha−1 ). Phosphorus applications
ranged from 0 to 130 kg P ha−1 (average of 22 kg P ha−1 ). Potas-
sium applications ranged from 0 to 160 kg K ha−1 (average of 44 kg
K ha−1 ). At locations with known deficiencies, other nutrients (Mg,
Zn, S) were applied to ensure that nutrients other than N, P, or K
were not limiting.
Plant measurements followed similar protocols at all sites. Har-
vest areas for plant sampling varied from 6 m2 in Vietnam and
Indonesia to 9–13.5 m2 in the Nebraska trials. A 6-plant sample at
R6 stage of maize (physiological maturity) was collected to deter-
mine nutrient concentrations in grain and stover and obtain the
harvest index. All plant parts were oven-dried to constant weight
at 70 ◦ C and ground for chemical analysis. Quality control mea-
sures included the chemical analysis of standard plant samples with
known N, P and K concentrations. Plot grain yield and final plant
population density were measured from the whole harvest area.
Final dry matter yield was calculated from the grain yield mea-
sured at harvest and the harvest index obtained from the 6-plant
sample collected at R6 stage. Plant nutrient accumulation in grain,
cobs, and vegetative parts was calculated from nutrient concentra-
tions measured in the R6 sample and the estimated final dry matter
fractions.
Grain yields are reported at a standard moisture content of
0.155 g H2 O g−1 fresh weight. All nutrient concentrations in grain
and straw are reported on an oven-dry weight basis (about 3% resid-
ual moisture after drying at 70 ◦ C). The harvest index, i.e., grain DM
as a proportion of above-ground plant DM, was obtained from the
oven-dry 6-plant sample. The nutrient harvest index is the nutrient
accumulation in grain as a proportion of total nutrient accumula-
tion in above-ground plant DM. The internal efficiency (IE, kg kg−1 )
of a nutrient is defined as the amount of grain yield in kg ha−1
(adjusted to 15.5% moisture content) produced per kg plant N, P or
K accumulation in above-ground plant DM (oven-dry weight). The
reciprocal internal efficiency (RIE, kg kg−1 ) was calculated from the
average IE of all data and is the amount of a nutrient in the plant
DM needed to produce 1000 kg grain (on 15.5% moisture basis).
2.2. Model development
Data analysis largely followed Witt et al. (1999). Only a brief
description will be provided here, focusing on some differences in
our study. Key steps included:
(a) screen the data set and remove outliers/potential errors;
(b) for each nutrient, fit boundary lines to the data cloud of grain
yield vs. nutrient uptake; the two boundary lines describe the
maximum and minimum accumulation of the nutrient in the
plant, respectively;
(c) simulate curves of balanced uptake requirements of N, P and K
at different yield potential levels;
(d) use the simulated nutrient requirement curves to derive and
parameterize a new spherical model for practical applications
such as estimating nutrient uptake requirements for a certain
yield goal.
Only few samples fell outside normally expected ranges of the
harvest index (Fig. 2). Preliminary analysis indicated that they had
minimal effect on the fitted boundary lines (envelopes). Therefore,
unlike in Witt et al. (1999), no data points were removed based on
HI. Instead, as suggested by Witt et al. (1999), we used the 2.5th
and 97.5th percentiles of nutrient IE for defining the final envelope
function coefficients. Values outside this range were discarded as
potential measurement errors. Janssen et al. (1990) included the
r-value (uptake required to produce any measurable grain yield)
in their envelopes of the relationship between yield and nutrient
uptake. However, because this value is small, difficult to define,
and has little impact on the modeled uptake requirements in yield
ranges of practical interest (Witt et al., 1999) it was not included in
our models.
Using the envelope coefficients derived from the irrigated maize
uptake data in our study, a spreadsheet version of the QUEFTS
model was used to generate optimum yield vs. nutrient uptake
curves for yield potential levels ranging from 5 to 20 Mg ha−1 . An
automatic iteration module was added to facilitate the data gen-
erating steps using Microsoft® Visual Basic for Applications (VBA).
A spherical model (Dobermann et al., 2006) was used as a simpli-
fied algorithm describing the yield–uptake relations predicted by
the QUEFTS. In this spherical model, yield target is simulated as a
function of nutrient uptake and yield potential:
         3  
3 x 1 x
y = if x ≤ c, b − ,b (1)
2 c 2 c
where y is yield target (Mg ha−1 ), x is nutrient uptake for a given
yield target (kg ha−1 ), b is yield potential (Mg ha−1 ), and c is uptake
at yield approaching the maximum yield (kg ha−1 ).
To solve nutrient uptake for a given yield goal y and yield poten-
tial b the following simplified cubic solving algorithm (Nickalls,
1993) was used:
   4   −y 
x = if y ≥ b, x ≥ c, c 2 cos + cos−1 (2)
3 b
 
b × 103
x = min x, (3)
YA
The ‘if’ functions in Eqs. (1) and (2) have three arguments (sep-
arated by commas): (i) logical test (true or false), (ii) the value if
logical test equals true, and (iii) the value if logical test equals false.
YA is the envelope coefficient (slope) for the maximum nutrient
accumulation (kg grain kg nutrient uptake−1 ). The ‘min’ expres-
sion in Eq. (3) allows correction of uptake when y approaches b
(otherwise uptake approaches infinity as y approaches b).
The spherical equation was fitted to the simulated QUEFTS
yield–uptake data using SigmaPlot 10 (Systat Software, Richmond,
CA). Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship
between the coefficients b and c in Eq. (1). In theory, the uptake at
which yield reaches a maximum is positively correlated with yield
potential.
 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168 161

Fig. 2. Distribution of grain yield and harvest index of irrigated maize in studies conducted in Nebraska and Southeast Asia.

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Grain yield and above-ground biomass
Maize grain yield (15.5% m.c.) in the present study ranged from
0.3 to 19.0 Mg ha−1 with an average of 12.0 Mg ha−1 (Table 1). The
grain yield mean in this study was much higher than the world aver-
age (1997–2006) of 4.5 Mg ha−1 (FAO, 2008). Average grain yield
for the various data sub-sets (Fig. 1) was 30–150% higher than the
corresponding national maize grain yield averages (1997–2006) of
8.2, 3.0, and 3.0 Mg ha−1 in USA, Indonesia, and Vietnam, respec-
tively (FAO, 2008). During the 2000–2005 period, the average grain
yield of irrigated maize in Nebraska was 11.0 Mg ha−1 (NASS, 2008),
whereas grain yields in our experiments averaged 13.8 Mg ha−1 .
The relatively higher maize grain yields in individual sub-sets as
compared to national and state average are an indication of what
can be achieved with good management, and that the data used
in our analysis represented conditions of mostly excellent man-
agement, with only small yield losses due to abiotic and biotic
stresses. Maximum grain yield in this study is less than the theoret-
ical potential yield of 25 Mg ha−1 (Tollenaar, 1983), but was within
the vicinity of the reported maximum yields (19.4–20.9 Mg ha−1 )
in USA (Tollenaar and Lee, 2002).
Mean grain yield in NE (13.8 Mg ha−1 ) was more than twice
the average maize yield achieved in the Southeast Asia studies
(5.8 Mg ha−1 ). This was mainly due to differences in the cli-

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of grain yield (at 15.5% moisture), total above-ground dry matter (TDM), harvest index, concentrations of N [N], P [P], and K [K] in grain and stover (all
on oven-dry weight basis), plant N, P, and K accumulation in grain, and TDM, and nutrient harvest index (kg nutrient in grain per kg nutrient in TDM) at maturity of irrigated
maize in Nebraska and South East Asia (all data).

Parameter Unit n Mean SD Minimum 25% Q Median 75% Q Maximum

−1
Grain yield Mg ha 2579 12.01 4.14 0.32 9.98 13.28 15.03 19.01
Total dry matter Mg ha−1 2579 20.83 7.05 0.84 17.48 22.33 25.75 37.71
Harvest Index kg kg−1 2579 0.50 0.06 0.17 0.46 0.51 0.55 0.62
[N] in grain g kg−1 2341 13.30 2.15 4.90 11.93 13.36 14.76 19.63
[P] in grain g kg−1 2363 2.63 0.79 0.55 2.01 2.59 3.19 5.15
[K] in grain g kg−1 2361 3.63 0.80 0.99 3.12 3.60 4.06 9.73
[N] in stover g kg−1 2339 8.11 2.22 2.21 6.54 8.02 9.61 19.88
[P] in stover g kg−1 2363 0.52 0.41 0.05 0.22 0.42 0.70 4.15
[K] in stover g kg−1 2361 21.82 7.04 1.54 18.21 22.80 26.44 41.71
N uptake grain kg ha−1 2341 148.5 53.6 3.4 122.3 155.5 181.9 305.5
P uptake grain kg ha−1 2363 29.8 13.8 0.6 19.3 29.0 40.5 70.8
K uptake grain kg ha−1 2361 40.3 14.5 2.4 31.4 41.8 50.4 96.9
N uptake total kg ha−1 2341 232.2 81.8 6.8 189.5 239.1 286.9 471.2
P uptake total kg ha−1 2363 35.2 15.1 1.1 23.2 34.4 46.7 79.9
K uptake total kg ha−1 2361 269.1 122.8 4.3 186.9 270.4 360.2 597.9
N harvest index kg kg−1 2341 0.64 0.08 0.21 0.59 0.64 0.70 0.97
P harvest index kg kg−1 2363 0.84 0.10 0.21 0.79 0.86 0.91 0.98
K harvest index kg kg−1 2361 0.17 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.68

n = number of observation; SD = standard deviation; Q = quartile.

162 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the internal efficiency of N, P and K (IE, kg grain kg nutrient−1 ) and its reciprocal term (RIE, kg nutrient Mg grain yield−1 ) for irrigated maize in Nebraska
and South East Asia.

Data set Parameter n Mean SD Min. 25% Q Med. 75% Q Max.

All IE-N 2341 56 11 22 49 55 62 125

IE-P 2363 400 134 172 302 367 468 1157
IE-K 2361 56 26 23 40 50 64 220
RIE-N 2341 18.4 3.5 8.0 16.1 18.2 20.5 46.3
RIE-P 2363 2.7 0.8 0.9 2.1 2.7 3.3 5.8
RIE-K 2361 20.4 6.9 4.6 15.5 20.0 25.3 43.3

Optimal NPK IE-N 191 50 6 30 46 49 54 70

rates IE-P 194 321 60 207 280 313 352 654
IE-K 191 51 21 29 37 43 60 117
RIE-N 191 20.5 2.5 14.4 18.7 20.2 21.9 33.2
RIE-P 194 3.2 0.5 1.5 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.8
RIE-K 191 21.8 6.3 8.5 16.8 23.2 26.8 34.1

Nebraska IE-N 2005 56 9 33 49 55 61 96

IE-P 2005 394 132 184 297 362 463 1110
IE-K 2005 50 16 24 39 48 59 133
RIE-N 2005 18.4 3.0 10.4 16.3 18.2 20.5 30.7
RIE-P 2005 2.8 0.8 0.9 2.2 2.8 3.4 5.4
RIE-K 2005 21.6 6.2 7.5 17.0 20.9 26.0 42.0

SE Asia IE-N 337 59 18 22 47 55 66 125

IE-P 359 434 140 172 341 397 491 1157
IE-K 357 89 41 23 61 82 109 220
RIE-N 337 18.5 5.6 8.0 15.1 18.3 21.1 46.3
RIE-P 359 2.5 0.7 0.9 2.0 2.5 2.9 5.8
RIE-K 357 14.0 7.3 4.6 9.2 12.1 16.5 43.3

n = number of observations; SD = standard deviation; Q = quartile; Med. = median; Min. = minimum; Max. = maximum.

matic yield potential. Simulations with the Hybrid-Maize model
(Yang et al., 2006) showed that maize yield potential at the
Nebraska sites was typically within a range of 14–20 Mg ha−1 for
the location-specific growing conditions and management prac-
tices (hybrid maturity and plant density) used in our studies. At
recommended fertilizer rates, actual yields in Nebraska were typ-
ically within 80–90% of the simulated yield potential. In contrast,
simulated maize yield potential was 8–10 Mg ha−1 in North Viet-
nam and 10–14 Mg ha−1 at the Indonesian sites (A. Dobermann,
J.M. Pasuquin and J. Timsina, unpublished), and actual yields with
recommended nutrient supply were mostly within 70–80% of the
yield potential. Maximum grain yield measured in North Vietnam
was 7.2 Mg ha−1 , whereas in Indonesia it reached 12.8 Mg ha−1 in
East Java and 13.7 Mg ha−1 in Central Java. Hence, in addition to
climate, it is likely that generally poorer soils and high disease and
insect pressure caused slightly greater yield gaps in Southeast Asia
as compared to the Nebraska sites.
Total above-ground dry matter (TDM) ranged from 0.8 to
37.7 Mg ha−1 with an average of 20.8 Mg ha−1 , while harvest index
(HI) ranged from 0.17 to 0.62 with an average of 0.50 (Table 1).
Similar to grain yield, TDM and HI were higher in Nebraska
(23.6 Mg ha−1 and 0.51) than in Southeast Asia (10.9 Mg ha−1 , 0.46).
Half of all observations were within a narrow HI range of 0.46–0.55.
The average HI of 0.5 is in agreement with the range values for mod-
ern varieties of most intensively cultivated grain crops, which fall
within a HI of 0.4–0.6 (Hay, 1995). The relatively small deviation in
harvest index indicated that lower grain yield in Southeast Asia as
compared to grain yield in the Nebraska was related to the differ-
ence in biomass production (Table 1). Differences in the distribution
of harvest index as compared to grain yield are shown in Fig. 2. The
range from the 2.5th to 97.5th percentile is narrower for HI than
for grain yield. The congruence of median and mean of the normal
distribution is closer for the distribution plot of HI than for grain
yield. For grain yield, there appears to be more than just one peak
in the data distribution, associated with Nebraska and Southeast
Asia data sets. Due to a greater proportion of data from Nebraska,
which tends to be in the high-yield region, the median is stretched
toward the higher grain yield side of the mean (Fig. 2).
3.2. Nutrient concentrations, uptake and internal efficiencies
Average nutrient concentrations in grain were 13.3 g N kg−1 ,
2.6 g P kg−1 and 3.6 g K kg−1 (oven-dry weight basis), while con-
centrations in stover (stems, leaves, husks) were 8.1 g N kg−1 ,
0.5 g P kg−1 and 21.8 g K kg−1 (Table 1). However, due to the
wide range of environmental and management conditions, nutri-
ent concentrations varied tremendously in both grain (4.9–19.6 g
N kg−1 , 0.6–5.2 g P kg−1 and 1.0–9.7 g K kg−1 ) and stover (2.2–19.9 g
N kg−1 , 0.1–4.2 g P kg−1 and 1.5–41.7 g K kg−1 ). Lowest nutrient
concentrations were mainly observed in nutrient omission plots. In
contrast, maximum nutrient concentrations occurred in situations
of excessive supply in situations where other nutrient deficiencies
and environmental conditions limited plant growth. On average,
nutrient accumulation in the above-ground plant dry matter was
232 kg N ha−1 , 35 kg P ha−1 and 269 kg K ha−1 at an average yield
of 12 Mg ha−1 (Table 1). The nutrient harvest index, i.e., nutrient
accumulation in grain as a proportion of nutrient accumulation in
above-ground plant DM, was highest for P (0.84), followed by N
(0.64) and K (0.17).
Concentrations of N and P in grain were higher in Nebraska
(13.5 g N kg−1 and 2.7 g P kg−1 ) than in Southeast Asia (12.0 g
N kg−1 and 2.1 g P kg−1 ). Most notable, average K concentration in
stover was more than twice as much in Nebraska (23.7 g K kg−1 )
than in Southeast Asia (11.2 g K kg−1 ). Similarly, accumulation of
K in total dry matter was nearly three times higher in Nebraska
(299 kg K ha−1 ) than in Southeast Asia (106 kg K ha−1 ), while the K
harvest index was much smaller in Nebraska (0.15) as compared
to Southeast Asia (0.28). This largely reflects the generally high K
status of Nebraska soils used for growing maize (Wortmann et al.,
2009).
Across all sites and seasons, the median measured IEs were
55 kg grain per kg plant N, 367 kg grain per kg plant P and 50 kg
grain per kg plant K, equivalent to RIE of 18.2 kg N, 2.7 kg P and
20.0 kg K per Mg grain yield produced (Table 2) or a N:P:K ratio
of 6.8:1:7.6 in plant DM. As expected, IE varied widely, from 22 to
125 kg kg−1 for N, 172 to 1157 kg kg−1 for P, and 23 to 220 kg kg−1
for K. This wide variation in IE indicates how difficult it is to esti-
 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168 163

mate nutrient uptake requirements from empirical studies that are
limited in terms of diversity in environmental and management
situations. The median IE and RIE for N and P were quite similar
between the two mega regions in our study, whereas the IE of K
was significantly larger in Southeast Asia (82 kg kg−1 ) as compared
to Nebraska (48 kg kg−1 ), for the reasons cited above. Median IEs
across all sites and seasons when optimal rates of fertilizers were
applied were 49 kg grain per kg plant N, 313 kg grain per kg plant P
and 43 kg grain per kg plant K. The lower IEs were due to the exclu-
sion of data from N, P, and K omission plots that tend to have higher
IEs (data not shown). The overall ranges in IEs were also less in data
that include only optimal N, P, and K rates, with IE ranging from 30
to 70 kg kg−1 for N, 207 to 654 kg kg−1 for P, and 29 to 117 kg kg−1
for K.
Our measurements of IEs, largely conducted in farmers’ fields,
were higher for N and P, but lower for K than those found in previous
studies. For example, summarizing results of more than 50 older
on-station experiments, van Duivenbooden et al. (1996) reported
IEs of 43 kg grain per kg plant N, 285 kg grain per kg plant P and
60 kg grain per kg plant K. This was equivalent to average nutri-
ent requirements of 23.4 kg N, 3.5 kg P and 16.6 kg K per Mg grain
yield produced. In field experiments conducted from 1985 to 1995
in five regions of China, Liu et al. (2006) found average IEs of 42 kg
grain per kg plant N, 255 kg grain per kg plant P and 51 kg grain per
kg plant K, equivalent to average nutrient requirements of 23.6 kg
N, 3.9 kg P and 19.8 kg K per Mg grain yield produced. Hence, dif-
ferences between these studies and our new data mainly occurred
for N and P. They were mostly caused by (i) a newer generation of
commercial maize hybrids used at most of the sites in our study
and (ii) generally higher yield levels and less abiotic stresses in our
experiments, most of which were irrigated. Both factors may also
be the cause of higher HI in our studies compared to others that
were used to estimate internal nutrient efficiencies. With regard
to (i), it has been shown, for example, that modern maize hybrids
maintain higher leaf photosynthesis during grain filling and tend to
have greater stress tolerance, higher HI and greater translocation of
nutrients such as N (Ding et al., 2005; Echarte et al., 2008; Tollenaar
et al., 2004; Tollenaar and Lee, 2002), resulting in an increased
N harvest index and thus also increased IE of N as compared to
inbreds or older hybrids. A low HI in some older studies may also
be caused by suboptimal N management, resulting in reduced grain
filling.

Fig. 3. Relationships between grain yield and N, P and K uptake (a–c) and grain yield and N, P ad K removal with grain (d–f). YU and YG curves are the QUEFTS-simulated
balanced N, P, or K uptake or grain removal requirements to achieve a certain grain yield target for the given maximum nutrient dilution (YD) and nutrient accumulation
(YA) envelopes fitted to the datasets. Balanced nutrient uptake curves are shown for two levels of yield potential: 20 Mg ha−1 (Nebraska) and 14 Mg ha−1 (Southeast Asia).
164 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168

Table 3 d in our study (40 and 83 kg grain kg N−1 , 225 and 726 kg grain kg
Envelope coefficients relating grain yield of maize (GY) to the maximum accumula-
P−1 , 29 and 129 kg grain kg K−1 ) were comparable to the values
tion (a) and maximum dilution (d) of N, P, and K in the above-ground dry matter of
maize at maturity. For comparison, previously published value of a and d are shown for maize proposed by Janssen et al. (1990), especially for K, but
for studies conducted in Africa (Janssen et al., 1990) and in China (Liu et al., 2006). significantly larger than the values reported by Liu et al. (2006) for
maize in China (Table 3) and the literature data summarized by van
kg grain kg nutrient−1
Duivenbooden et al. (1996).
N P K With the new a and d coefficients derived from our data, the
Maximum nutrient accumulation (a) QUEFTS model was used to simulate balanced nutrient uptake
This study 40 225 29 requirements for N, P, and K across yield potentials ranging from 6
Janssen et al. (1990) 30 200 30
to 20 Mg ha−1 . In QUEFTS, interaction of the three dominant nutri-
Liu et al. (2006) 21 126 19
ents N, P, and K in relation to yield follows Liebscher’s law of the
Maximum nutrient dilution (d) optimum, i.e., a production factor that is in minimum supply con-
This study 83 726 125
tributes more to yield if other factors are closer to their optimum
Janssen et al. (1990) 70 600 120
Liu et al. (2006) 64 384 90 level (de Wit, 1992). Interaction of the three nutrients therefore
governs the slope of the yield–uptake curve up to a yield level

This illustrates the need to regularly update information on crop

nutrient update requirements and nutrient removal with grain. Fre-
quently, old information is still used in fertilizer recommendations
and nutrient budgeting for various purposes, leading to erroneous
results. Using the lower IEs reported earlier for N and P in maize,
for example, would lead to potentially excessive fertilizer recom-
mendations for these nutrients.

3.3. Estimating the optimum nutrient uptake for a specific yield

target

The boundary lines describing yield–uptake relations for N, P,

and K obtained from this study are shown in Fig. 3 and Table 3. For
each nutrient, the lower boundary line represents the maximum
accumulation (a) of that nutrient in the plant, which is equivalent
to the minimum IE (see Table 2) and reflects either a restriction
on the plant-internal utilization of that nutrient due to other con-
straints, or, in the case of K, an excessive (“luxury”) uptake beyond
amounts required to produce grain. In contrast, the upper bound-
ary line represents the maximum dilution (d) of that nutrient in the
plant, which is equivalent to maximum IE and generally reflects a
severe deficiency of that nutrient. The slope coefficients for a and

Table 4
Balanced uptake requirements, internal efficiencies (IE, kg grain kg nutrient−1 ), and
reciprocal internal efficiencies (RIE, kg nutrient Mg grain yield−1 ) of N, P, and K for
irrigated maize as simulated with the QUEFTS model to achieve certain grain yield
targets and assuming a maximum yield of 20 Mg ha−1 . All values are expressed on
elemental basis.

Yield Required nutrient Internal efficiency Reciprocal internal

(Mg ha−1 ) uptake (kg ha−1 ) (kg grain kg efficiency (kg
nutrient−1 ) nutrient Mg grain−1 )

N P K N P K N P K

1 16 2 16 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9

2 33 5 32 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
3 49 7 48 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
4 66 9 64 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
5 82 12 80 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
6 99 14 95 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
7 115 16 111 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
8 131 19 127 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
9 148 21 143 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
10 164 23 159 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
11 181 26 175 61 427 63 16.4 2.3 15.9
12 197 28 191 61 426 63 16.5 2.3 15.9
13 216 31 209 60 423 62 16.6 2.4 16.1
14 234 33 227 60 419 62 16.7 2.4 16.2
15 257 37 249 58 409 60 17.2 2.4 16.6
16 285 41 276 56 394 58 17.8 2.5 17.3
Fig. 4. The balanced N, P, K uptake requirements for certain yield targets (YU) as
17 317 45 307 54 376 55 18.7 2.7 18.1
simulated with the QUEFTS model based on the boundary lines obtained from this
18 356 51 345 51 354 52 19.8 2.8 19.2
study, those proposed by Janssen et al. (1990), and those proposed by Liu et al.
19 409 58 397 46 326 48 21.5 3.1 20.9
(2006) at two maximum yield levels: maximum yield in Nebraska (Ymax-NE) and
20 563 80 546 36 249 37 28.2 4.0 27.3
maximum yield in Liu et al. (2006) (Ymax-Liu).
 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168
Fig. 5. The balanced requirements of total nutrient uptake (a–c) and nutrient removal with grain (d–f) as simulated with QUEFTS (symbols), and the fitted spherical models
(lines, r2 = 0.998) for grain yield at several maximum yield levels (6–20 Mg ha−1 ).
that plateaus at the environmental yield potential, which is deter-
mined by solar radiation and temperature. Table 4 illustrates this
for a specific environment with a yield potential of 20 Mg ha−1 ,
such as occurs in parts of Nebraska. The model predicted a linear
increase in grain yield if nutrients are taken up in balanced amounts
of 16.4 kg N, 2.3 kg P and 15.9 kg K per 1 Mg of grain until yield
reached about 60% of the yield potential. The corresponding opti-
mal IEs were 61 kg grain kg−1 N, 427 kg grain kg−1 P and 63 kg grain
kg−1 K for balanced nutrition. The model predicted a decrease in IEs
when yield targets approached the yield potential. In Fig. 3a–c, the
corresponding curve is superimposed on the entire data set, and
a similar QUEFTS-simulated curve is shown for the Southeast Asia
environment, with a yield potential of only 14 Mg ha−1 . One notable
difference in our study to those by others for maize, wheat and rice
(Liu et al., 2006; Pathak et al., 2003; Witt et al., 1999) is the presence
of large amounts of data points in the high-yield regions, near the
yield potential in both environments.
Net removal of nutrients with the grain is used in many practical
algorithms for guiding fertilizer recommendations, based on the
assumption that what is removed must be replenished to maintain
a sustainable production system (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002).
However, grain nutrient removal coefficients (kg removed per unit
yield) are not constant. Using the same QUEFTS-based simulation
approach, the balanced grain nutrient removal associated with the
NE and SE Asia yield potentials is shown in Fig. 3e and f. Fig. 3d
suggests, for example, that when yield reached the plateau, grain
N removal was 271 and 195 kg N ha−1 for Nebraska and Southeast
165
Asia, respectively. The balanced grain nutrient removal was 59, 77,
and 19% of total N, P, and K uptake, respectively.
A comparison of optimal nutrient uptake–yield curves using
boundary line coefficients derived from this study and other stud-
ies is shown in Fig. 4. The curves based on the proposed new a and
d coefficients have a larger slope (=less nutrients required per unit
yield target), especially as compared to the coefficients reported in
Liu et al. (2006). The proposed revised model, based on the more
recent and wider-ranging date used in our study, is likely to rep-
resent a relationship that is globally applicable as long as factors
other than N, P, and K are not limiting.
Our final objective was to develop a simple, empirical model that
could be used as a tool to calculate the required nutrient uptake
for a certain yield target, in an environment with a well-defined
yield potential – without having to use a more complex model
such as QUEFTS. To that end, we found that the proposed spherical
model (Eq. (1)) fitted the simulated QUEFTS model outputs very
well (r2 = 0.998), for both yield–uptake and yield–grain nutrient
removal relations (Fig. 5). In Fig. 5, the yield potential parameter
b in Eq. (1) was based on the range found in our dataset. Variable
c (uptake or grain removal when yield approaches maximum) was
linearly related (r2 = 1.00) to yield potential (Fig. 6). Therefore, the
combination of Eq. (1) and the regression equations in Fig. 6 provide
a simpler approximation of yield–uptake or yield–grain nutrient
removal relationships for each nutrient (N, P, or K). This approach
has the advantage of a straightforward calculation of uptake or
grain nutrient removal at a specified yield target. Eq. (2)/(3) in con-
166 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168

Fig. 6. Regression lines (r2 = 1.0) for the relationships between the spherical model coefficients c and b for grain yield vs. nutrient uptake and grain yield vs. grain nutrient
removal, with symbols representing the c and b coefficients associated with the simulations in Fig. 5.

QUEFTS approach had a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 37 kg

N ha−1 and a normalized RMSE of 15% (Fig. 7a). However, the
observed negative relationship between the normalized N uptake
(N uptake/maximum N uptake at a particular yield level) and HI
(Fig. 8) suggest that HI can be used to improve estimation of N
uptake for a given yield target. Stepwise regressions based on the
observed grain yield showed an improvement in regression r2 (data
not shown), suggesting that regression coefficients for normalized
N uptake vs. HI are influenced by grain yield level in relation to
the yield potential ceiling for the environment in question. Based
on these observations, the following algorithm was developed for
adjustment of the predicted N uptake based on HI:

UN HI adjusted = UN f (HI) (4)

f (HI) = a(HI) + b (5)

a= − 0.2619 Yg+1.8629, a= min(a, −1.28), a= max(−2.40, a)

b = 0.1456 Yg − 0.3126, b = min(b, 2.07), b = max(1.43, b)

where UN HI adjusted is N uptake adjusted based on HI, UN is N

uptake predicted by the spherical-QUEFTS approach, Yg is yield
target (Mg ha−1 ), and HI is the harvest index (kg grain/kg above-
ground DM). Such an adjustment of N uptake predictions resulted
in a 10 kg N ha−1 smaller RMSE (Fig. 7b), and also eliminated the
trend of under-predicting N uptake at higher observed N uptake
(compare Fig. 7a and b). Improvement in prediction of N uptake
based on correction for HI as yields approach yield potential should
occur for all nutrients that have much higher concentration in grain
than in vegetative tissues at physiological maturity because the

Fig. 7. Comparisons of the observed and simulated N uptake without adjustment

based on harvest index (a) and with adjustment based on harvest index (b). Simu-
lation errors (simulated–observed) are shown as inserts. RMSE = root mean square
error; and NRMSE = normalized root mean square error (RMSE/mean observed).

junction with regression equations in Fig. 6 can be used for that

purpose.
Further improvements could be made to increase precision
of the nutrient uptake and removal estimates. For example,
Fig. 8. Relationship between observed harvest index and observed normalized
when compared to measured data at recommended nutrient N uptake (N uptake/maximum N uptake for a particular yield level) (r2 = 0.46,
management levels, N uptake simulated with the above spherical- p < 0.001).
 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168
magnitude of the concentration ratio between grain and vegetative
tissues decreases as yields approach the plateau (data not shown).
However, it is generally important to follow good N management
practice before making adjustments to nutrient uptake or removal
coefficients based on a lower HI.
4. Conclusions
Due to the large variation in IE values found in this and other
studies on maize, quantifying internal nutrient efficiencies (and/or
net removal) through a generic modeling approach is likely to be
more reliable than attempting to specify an average value from
limited empirical data. Our study demonstrates the relationship
between grain yield and total nutrient uptake (or nutrient removal
with grain) can be modeled using the QUEFTS model or a simpler,
spherical model across a wide range of maize environments and
grain yield levels. This approach not only allows estimating the
nutrient requirements for achieving a specified yield target, but also
provides a powerful tool for identifying nutritionally and econom-
ically optimal yield targets in relation to yield potential at a given
location. The proposed spherical model can easily be incorporated
in existing or new fertilizer prescription algorithms or models. It is
robust across environments and management practices, allowing
users to estimate the optimal N, P and K uptake requirements based
on two inputs: estimated site yield potential and yield target.
Using this approach yield potential is the key location-specific
parameter required for estimating nutrient uptake requirements
for a specific location, whereas functions describing IE can be
modeled with generic parameters. Site yield potential can be esti-
mated using a simulation model such as Hybrid-Maize if long-term
historical weather data are available (Yang et al., 2006). Use of
satellite-derived data for solar radiation provides opportunities
to estimate yield potential in regions that only have long-term
data on temperature and rainfall (Bai et al., 2010). Calibration of
the QUEFTS model for maize grown across temperate and trop-
ics environments required estimating slopes of two boundary lines
describing the maximum accumulation (a) and dilution (d) of N,
P and K in the plant in relation to grain yield. We propose to use
aN = 40, dN = 83, aP = 225, dP = 726, aK = 29 and dK = 125 as standard
model parameters in QUEFTS for modern maize hybrids with a HI
of approximately 0.50 when grown under irrigated or favorable
rainfed conditions with no severe abiotic constraints.
On condition that plant growth is primarily limited by nutrient
supply, the proposed model predicted a linear increase in maize
yield if nutrients are taken up in balanced amounts of 16.4 kg N,
2.3 kg P and 15.9 kg K per Mg of grain, until yield reached about
60–70% of the yield potential. The corresponding IEs were 61 kg
grain kg−1 N, 427 kg grain kg−1 P and 63 kg grain kg−1 K for a bal-
anced nutrition. With yield approaching the yield potential, IE of
nutrients decreased. Hence, managing maize crops at yield levels
of more than 60–70% of the site yield potential requires greater
amounts of nutrients per unit increase in grain yield, and greater
care in applying nutrients to avoid losses to the environment, espe-
cially for N.
The generic methodology used in our study can also be applied
to developing more region- or location-specific envelopes describ-
ing the relationship between grain yield and nutrient uptake. This
could allow taking into account genetic, environmental or man-
agement differences that may affect the IE of nutrients, such as
those between open-pollinated and hybrid varieties, if there are
systematic differences in HI or nutrient uptake and translocation.
Such envelopes are likely to be narrower than the global models
developed in our study, and may thus be useful for further increas-
ing the precision of estimating nutrient uptake requirements for
purposes of precision nutrient management. A key requirement
167
for doing such location-specific adjustment is, however, that reli-
able grain yield and nutrient uptake data are collected under best
management practices and conditions that fully reflect farming
environments, not just those of few research stations.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the State of Nebraska,
the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), the International
Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), Canpotex International Pte.
Ltd., the International Potash Institute (IPI), the Fluid Fertilizer
Foundation (FFF), Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl., and the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC). The authors wish to thank
the following scientists and their institutions for conducting the
field experiments. Nebraska: D. Binder, G. Teichman, C. Wortmann,
R. Ferguson, C. Shapiro, D. Tarkalson, G. Hergert (all University
of Nebraska); Indonesia: Sari S. Girsang (AIAT North Sumatera),
Andarias M. Murni (AIAT Lampung), Supadmo (AIAT Central Java),
Suwono (AIAT East Java), Peter Tandisau (AIAT South Sulawesi),
Sania Saenong and Subandi (ICRI), Sunendar Kartaatmadja (IPNI)
and J.M. Pasuquin (IPNI); Vietnam: T.T. Son, N.V. Chien, and V.T.K.
Thoa (NISF).
References
Adviento-Borbe, M.A.A., Haddix, M.L., Binder, D.L., Walters, D.T., Dobermann, A.,
2007. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes and global warming potential in four high-
yielding maize systems. Global Change Biol. 13, 1972–1988.
Bai, J., Chen, X., Dobermann, A., Yang, H., Cassman, K.G., Zhang, F., 2010. Evaluation
of NASA satellite- and model-derived weather data for simulation of maize yield
potential in China. Agron. J. 102, 2–16.
de Wit, C.T., 1992. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agric. Syst. 40, 125–151.
Ding, L., Wang, K.J., Jiang, G.M., Liu, M.Z., Niu, S.L., Gao, L.M., 2005. Post-anthesis
changes in photosynthetic traits of maize hybrids released in different years.
Field Crops Res. 93, 108–115.
Dobermann, A., Cassman, K.G., 2002. Plant nutrient management for enhanced pro-
ductivity in intensive grain production systems of the United States and Asia.
Plant Soil 247, 153–175.
Dobermann, A., Ferguson, R.B., Hergert, G.W., Shapiro, C.A., Tarkalson, D., Walters,
D.T., Wortmann, C.S., 2006. Nitrogen response in high-yielding corn systems of
Nebraska. In: Schlegel, A.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Great Plains Soil Fertility
Conference. Denver, CO, March 7–8, 2006. Kansas State University, Manhattan,
KS, pp. 50–59.
Dobermann, A., Witt, C., Dawe, D., Abdulrachman, S., Gines, G.C., Nagarajan, R.,
Satawathananont, S., Son, T.T., Tan, P.S., Wang, G.H., Chien, N.V., Thoa, V.T.K.,
Phung, C.V., Stalin, P., Muthukrishnan, P., Ravi, V., Babu, M., Chatuporn, S.,
Kongchum, M., Sookthongsa, J., Sun, Q., Fu, R., Simbahan, G.C., Adviento, M.A.A.,
2002. Site-specific nutrient management for intensive rice cropping systems in
Asia. Field Crops Res. 74, 37–66.
Echarte, L., Rothstein, S., Tollenaar, M., 2008. The response of leaf photosynthesis
and dry matter accumulation to nitrogen supply in an older and a newer maize
hybrid. Crop Sci. 48, 656–666.
FAO, 2008. FAOSTAT Database – Agricultural Production. Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization of the United Nations, Rome. Available from: http://apps.fao.org.
Greenwood, D.J., Lemaire, G., Gosse, G., Cruz, P., Draycott, A., Neeteson, J.J., 1990.
Decline in percentage N of C3 and C4 crops with increasing plant mass. Ann.
Bot. 66, 425–436.
Haefele, S.M., Wopereis, M.C.S., Ndiaye, M.K., Barro, S.E., Ould Isselmo, M., 2003.
Internal nutrient efficiencies, fertilizer recovery rates and indigenous nutrient
supply of irrigated lowland rice in Sahelian West Africa. Field Crops Res. 80,
19–32.
Hay, R.K.M., 1995. Harvest index: a review of its use in plant breeding and crop
physiology. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126, 197–216.
Heckman, J.R., Sims, J.T., Beegle, D.B., Coale, F.J., Herbert, S.J., Bruulsema, T.W., Bamka,
W.J., 2003. Nutrient removal by corn grain harvest. Agron. J. 95, 587–591.
Janssen, B.H., Guiking, F.C.T., Van der Eijk, D., Smaling, E.M.A., Wolf, J., van Reuler,
H., 1990. A system for quantitative evaluation of the fertility of tropical soils
(QUEFTS). Geoderma 46, 299–318.
Karlen, D.L., Flannery, R.L., Sadler, E.J., 1988. Aerial accumulation and partitioning of
nutrients by corn. Agron. J. 80, 232–242.
Khurana, H., Phillips, S., Bijay, S., Bijay, S., Alley, M., Dobermann, A., Sidhu, A., Yad-
vinder, S., Yadvinder, S., Peng, S., 2008. Agronomic and economic evaluation of
site-specific nutrient management for irrigated wheat in northwest India. Nutr.
Cycling Agroecosyst. 82, 15–31.
Liu, M.Q., Yu, Z.R., Liu, Y.H., Konijn, N.T., 2006. Fertilizer requirements for wheat and
maize in China: the QUEFTS approach. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 74, 245–258.
NASS, 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA, Washington. Available
from: http://www.usda.gov/nass.
168 T.D. Setiyono et al. / Field Crops Research 118 (2010) 158–168
Nickalls, R.W.D., 1993. A new approach to solving the cubic: Cardan’s solution
revealed. Math. Gaz. 77, 354–359.
Pathak, H., Aggarwal, P.K., Roetter, R.P., Kalra, N., Bandyopadhaya, S.K., Prasad, S.,
van Keulen, H., 2003. Modelling the quantitative evaluation of soil nutrient sup-
ply, nutrient use efficiency, and fertilizer requirements of wheat in India. Nutr.
Cycling Agroecosyst. 65, 105–113.
Saidou, A., Janssen, B.H., Temminghoff, E.J.M., 2003. Effects of soil properties, mulch
and NPK fertilizer on maize yields and nutrient budgets on ferralitic soils in
southern Benin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 100, 265–273.
Smaling, E.M.A., Janssen, B.H., 1993. Calibration of QUEFTS: a model predicting
nutrient uptake and yields from chemical soil fertility indices. Geoderma 59,
21–44.
Son, T.T., Chien, N.V., Thoa, V.T.K., Dobermann, A., 2004. Site-specific nutrient
management in irrigated rice systems of the Red River Delta, Vietnam. In: Dober-
mann, A., Witt, C., Dawe, D. (Eds.), Increasing Productivity of Intensive Rice
Systems Through Site-Specific Nutrient Management. Science Publishers, Inc.,
International Rice Research Institute, Enfield, NH, USA and Los Baños, Philip-
pines, pp. 217–242.
Tollenaar, M., 1983. Potential vegetative productivity in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63,
1–10.
Tollenaar, M., Ahmadzadeh, A., Lee, E.A., 2004. Physiological basis of heterosis for
grain yield in maize. Crop Sci. 44, 2086–2094.
Tollenaar, M., Lee, E.A., 2002. Yield potential, yield stability, and stress tolerance in
maize. Field Crops Res. 75, 161–169.
van Duivenbooden, N., de Wit, C.T., van Keulen, H., 1996. Nitrogen, phos-
phorus and potassium relations in five major cereals reviewed in respect
to fertilizer recommendations using simulation modeling. Fert. Res. 44,
37–49.
van Keulen, H., 1986. Crop yield and nutrient requirements. In: van Keulen, H., Wolf,
J. (Eds.), Modelling of Agricultural Production: Weather, Soils and Crops. Pudoc,
Wageningen, pp. 155–181.
van Keulen, H., 1977. Nitrogen Requirements of Rice with Special Reference to Java.
Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Technical Assistance Programme, Bogor,
Indonesia.
van Keulen, H., Van Heemst, H.D.J., 1982. Crop response to the supply of macronu-
trients. Agric. Res. Rep. 916. Pudoc, Wageningen.
van Noordwijk, M., Cadisch, G., 2002. Access and excess problems in plan nutrition.
Plant Soil 247, 25–40.
Verma, S.B., Dobermann, A., Cassman, K.G., Walters, D.T., Knops, J.M.H., Arkebauer,
T.J., Suyker, A.E., Burba, G.G., Amos, B., Yang, H.S., Ginting, D., Hubbard, K.G., Gitel-
son, A.A., Walter-Shea, E.A., 2005. Annual carbon dioxide exchange in irrigated
and rainfed maize-based agroecosystems. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 131, 77–96.
Walker, W.M., Peck, T.R., 1974. Relationship between corn yield and plant nutrient
content. Agron. J. 66, 253–256.
Witt, C., Dobermann, A., Abdulrachman, S., Gines, H.C., Wang, G.H., Nagarajan, R.,
Satawathananont, S., Son, T.T., Tan, P.S., Tiem, L.V., Simbahan, G.C., Olk, D.C., 1999.
Internal nutrient efficiencies of irrigated lowland rice in tropical and subtropical
Asia. Field Crops Res. 63, 113–138.
Witt, C., Pasuquin, J.M., Dobermann, A., 2008. Site-specific nutrient management
for maize in favorable tropical environments of Asia. In: Proc. 5th International
Crop Sci. Congress, Jeju, Korea.
Wortmann, C.S., Dobermann, A., Ferguson, R.B., Hergert, G.W., Shapiro, C.A.,
Tarkalson, D.D., Walters, D.T., 2009. High-yielding corn response to applied
phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur in Nebraska. Agron. J. 101, 546–555.
Yang, H.S., Dobermann, A., Cassman, K.G., Walters, D.T., 2006. Features, applications,
and limitations of the Hybrid-Maize simulation model. Agron. J. 98, 737–748.