Schwartz Thesis 2022

MANAGING NITROGEN AVAILABILITY FOR INCREASED YIELD OF CORN AND
SOYBEAN
BY
STEPHEN ARNOLD SCHWARTZ
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science in Crop Sciences
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 2022
Urbana, Illinois
Master’s Committee:
Professor Frederick Below, Chair

Professor Richard Mulvaney
Professor DoKyoung Lee
ABSTRACT
Over time, the productivity of corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]
has been influenced by many factors that have contributed to the United States, in 2021, accounting
for 32% and 31%, respectively, of the total world production for these crops. Improved cultivars
have played a significant role in the increased productivity of both corn and soybean with breeding
methods and genetic selection rapidly advancing the overall yield potential of these crops. With
better genetic yield potential, the total amount of nutrients demanded by corn and soybean has also
increased which has highlighted the importance of crop management practices that improve crop
fertility. Research into better fertilizer placement, new times for nutrient applications, enhanced
fertilizer sources, and the synergy between these and other management practices is key to
optimizing corn and soybean yield and quality. Nitrogen (N) is one of the most important nutrients
for corn and soybean because it is required in large quantities for the growth and development of
both crops which elevates the importance of proper N management. Therefore, the objective of
this research was to understand how N fertilizer management practices can be better deployed to
improve the productivity of both corn and soybean.
Yield Level Determines Corn Yield Response to Enhanced Nitrogen Management Practices
Nitrogen management practices can improve corn productivity, but their effectiveness can
vary widely based on environmental factors. Alternative application timings and placement
combinations of N fertilizer are used to manage N availability for various environments, but
polymer-coated N fertilizer offers a different approach to season-long N availability and creates
new N management opportunities. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of
conventional and enhanced N sources across fertilizer timing and placement combinations to
ii
optimize corn productivity. Nitrogen timings included supplying 180 lbs N acre-1 pre-plant or
divided equally across pre-plant and side-dress applications. Pre-plant fertilizer placement was
either broadcast on the soil surface or sub-surface banded 6 inches directly below the future crop
row, while side-dress provided urea ammonium nitrate (UAN; 32-0-0) applied at V6 along the
crop row (Y-drop). Nitrogen fertilizers applied pre-plant consisted of one standard source, urea
(46-0-0), and two polymer-coated sources, Environmentally Smart Nitrogen (ESN; polymer-
coated urea 44-0-0) and a 1:1 mixture of urea and ESN referred to as the Blend. To evaluate these
management combinations, field trials were conducted at three locations in Illinois in 2019, 2020,
and 2021 resulting in eight site years of data. Based on the average yield across all treatments, the
eight site years of data were divided into three groups, and ranked according to final yield, i.e.,
low yielding, (<200 bushel acre-1), average yielding, (200-249 bushel acre-1), and high yielding,
(>250 bushel acre-1). In the high yield group, applying the Blend increased grain yield by 5 bushel
acre-1 over urea and 4 bushel acre-1 over ESN. There was no difference in the yield response to the
various N sources in either the low or average groups. Banded placement of N fertilizer induced
greater yields than when the fertilizer was broadcast, averaging a 13 bushel acre-1 increase in the
low group and 4 bushel acre-1 more in the high yield group. Fertilizer placement, however, did not
significantly affect yield in the average group. Using a split application of N fertilizer in the low
group increased yield by 4 bushel acre-1 compared to only applying N fertilizer pre-plant, while in
the average and high groups yield was not impacted by split applications. Regardless of the yield
group, the Blend was the best N source when using Broadcast applications, increasing yields
compared to urea and ESN fertilization, respectively, by 5 and 6 bushel acre-1 in the low, 4 and 3
bushel acre-1 in the average, and 9 and 4 bushel acre-1 in the high group. The Blend and ESN
fertilizer affected corn yield similarly, on average across placements in the high yield group, but
iii
banding the urea increased yield by 10 bushel acre-1 compared to when it was supplied by
Broadcast. The variation in yield response to the source, placement, and timing combinations
across multiple yield levels makes it difficult to confidently select and recommend practices for
corn production and explains why variation in the response to N management practices is often
observed.
Foliar Protection to Increase the Yield Response of Soybean to Nitrogen Management
The high N requirement for soybean growth and yield implies that N fertilizer applications
may be needed to supplement biological N2 fixation. Historically, however, soybean yield
responses to added N have been inconsistent, suggesting that environmental or management
factors may temper the response to N. One important management factor that may affect the N
fertilizer response is foliar protection (fungicides for leaf diseases and insecticides for insect
feeding), which would prolong leaf area duration and allow for N-induced maintenance of leaf
photosynthesis. The objective of this study was to determine if foliar protection enhances the yield
response of soybean to N fertilization. Two soybean varieties were fertilized at Champaign, IL in
2020 and 2021 with 75 lbs N acre-1 as urea ammonium nitrate (UAN; 32-0-0) using five distinct
placements and timings and compared to an untreated control. Fertilizer treatments included: 1)
pre-plant broadcast sprayed on the soil surface; 2) pre-plant banded 2 inches beside and 2 inches
below the seed; 3) R3 side-dress placed at the base of the plant using Y-drops; 4) R3 side-dress
banded 6 inches deep between crop rows using a coulter; and 5) fertigation during seed
development (R1-R5) in five 12.5 lbs N acre-1 increments using subsurface irrigation to place the
N directly in the soybean root zone. All treatments were compared to an unfertilized control
treatment, which received no nitrogen. Foliar protection applications, consisting of both an
iv
insecticide and a fungicide, were made at the R3 growth stage in both years and compared to
experimental units that did not receive any foliar protection applications. In both 2020 and 2021,
banded placement of pre-plant N significantly reduced nodulation at the V6 growth stage but
broadcast placement had no negative impact on nodulation. All pre-plant N applications,
regardless of placement, increased canopy coverage by V6 and plant biomass at V6 and R3. When
averaged across all other factors, root zone placement in multiple small increments between the
R1 and R5.5 reproductive stages was the only nitrogen application that increased yield. However,
without a foliar protection application, no nitrogen application increased yield compared to the
unfertilized control. When foliar protection was included, both the pre-plant broadcast and R1-
R5.5 root zone placement treatments increased soybean grain yield. Soybean plants responded to
supplemental N with greater growth, but these applications needed to have minimal impact on
nodulation and required additional foliar protection for increased yields.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I want to express my utmost gratitude to Dr. Fred Below for giving me the
opportunity to attend graduate school. My time at the University of Illinois has been an incredible
blessing in my life and I am thankful for all of the knowledge, insight, and guidance Dr. Below
has provided over the last two years. I want to thank Juliann Seebauer for all of her work analyzing
samples and for revising and editing my papers. The data you have provided has been crucial for
my research and I have learned so much about scientific writing from you through this process. I
also want to thank the current and past members of the Crop Physiology Laboratory for their
support, hard work, and encouragement that has made this research possible. This has been the
greatest team I have ever been a part of, and I am so proud of the work we have put in and the
research we have produced over the last two years. Special thanks goes to Darby Danzl, Keith
Ehnle, Derek Lenzen, Samuel Leskanich, Marcos Loman, Vitor Favoretto, Jared Fender, Scott
Foxhoven, Dylan Guenzburger, Connor Sible, Logan Woodward, Eric Winans and countless
undergraduate students and visiting scholars for their assistance in conducting this research.
I also want to thank Dr. Richard Mulvaney and Dr. DoKyoung Lee for serving on my
committee and providing their insight and suggestions for my research and writing.
This research was made possible through funding and in-kind support from Netafim,
Nutrien Ag Solutions, and Syngenta. I have enjoyed working with these companies and greatly
appreciate the guidance, materials, and funding they have provided.
Lastly, I want to thank my wife, Kaya, parents, Jim and Jodi, brother, Stan, and countless
family, friends, and mentors in my life who have supported me over the years and helped me to
become who I am today. All the glory goes to God and my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: YIELD LEVEL DETERMINES CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO ENHANCED
NITROGEN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ..........................................................1
CHAPTER 2: FOLIAR PROTECTION TO INCREASE THE YIELD RESPONSE OF
SOYBEAN TO NITROGEN MANAGEMENT ....................................................49
APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES: CHAPTER 1 .......................................................96
APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES: CHAPTER 2 .....................................................124
vii
CHAPTER 1: YIELD LEVEL DETERMINES CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO
ENHANCED NITROGEN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
Nitrogen is the nutrient required in the greatest quantity for corn growth and development
(Bender et al., 2013), and it is the nutrient that is most limiting for corn grain yield because of its
role in photosynthesis and reproductive development (Below, 2001). Through genetic
improvements over time, grain yield and total biomass production have increased resulting in even
greater nutrient uptake (Bender et al., 2013). Soil mineralization accounts for a large fraction of
total crop N uptake (Stevens et al., 2005), but a soil’s N mineralization potential is an extremely
variable fraction of total soil N (Stanford & Smith, 1972). Corn uptake of soil mineralized N is
supplemented with applications of N fertilizer, and N from fertilizer accounts for an increasing
proportion of crop N uptake with greater rates of fertilizer applied (Stevens et al., 2005). Emphasis
is placed on improving fertilizer use efficiency because N use efficiency has a linear relationship
with the amount of fertilizer applied (Stevens et al., 2005) and because N can be lost to the
environment. The main N loss mechanisms are leaching, denitrification, and volatilization
(Nielsen, 2006), with nitrate leaching directly contributing to water eutrophication (Cambardella
et al., 1999). One of the leading causes of water contamination with nitrates is poorly timed N
fertilizer applications relative to crop uptake (Dinnes et al., 2002) leading to surplus soil nitrate
levels and increased leaching (Shaviv & Mikkelsen, 1993). The timing of N uptake by corn has
changed with genetic improvement as more N uptake occurs post-flowering in modern hybrids
(Haegele et al., 2013; Ciampitti & Vyn, 2012; Malhi et al., 2006). This shift has resulted in
approximately 65-70% of N being acquired during vegetative growth and the remaining 30-35%
1
during reproduction (Mueller & Vyn, 2016). This requirement for late season N availability has
emphasized the importance of N use efficiency (NUE) metrics to determine the relationship
between N fertilizer applications and crop N uptake. Management practices, such as using better
N sources, rates, placements, and application timings, are implemented to improve NUE and
reduce environmental losses by better matching N availability with corn N uptake.
Enhanced N sources such as polymer-coated urea (PCU) are a recognized approach for
improved N management. PCU refers to urea coated or encapsulated with organic or inorganic
polymers that act as a physical barrier to slow the release of urea (Shaviv, 2001). These products
can enhance fertilizer efficiency and reduce environmental loss by controlling the release of N
(Hauck, 1985; Shaviv & Mikkelsen, 1993; Peoples et al., 1995; Bøckman & Olfs, 1998; Shaviv,
1999). Specifically, PCU can reduce the amount of nitrate leaching (Pack et al., 2006; Wilson et
al., 2009; Xie et al., 2019; Shoji et al., 2001, Wang & Alva, 1996; Owens et al., 1999; Halvorson
et al., 2010; Halvorson et al., 2011) and ammonia volatilization (Cancellier et al., 2016; Xie et al.,
2019; Shoji et al., 2001; Halvorson et al., 2010; Halvorson et al., 2011) while increasing NUE
(Hauck, 1985; Shaviv & Mikkelsen, 1993; Peoples et al., 1995; Bøckman & Olfs, 1998; Shaviv,
1999; Xie et al., 2019: Shoji et al., 2001). Utilizing PCU’s improves NUE by synchronizing N
release with corn N uptake (Shaviv & Mikkelsen, 1993; Oertly, 1980; Hauck, 1985; Shaviv, 1993;
Shaviv, 1996). These enhanced N fertilizers are designed to be applied at planting to provide a
one-time N application to meet the N needs of the corn crop (Garcia et al., 2019), but they currently
represent only a small portion of N fertilizers applied to corn and this limits their ability to
remediate nitrate loss and water pollution (Shaviv, 2001). Though not widely utilized in corn
production systems, there have been numerous research studies on the effects of PCU on grain
yield, with a number of studies showing that PCU does not increase grain yield compared to
2
traditional urea fertilizer sources (Cahill et al., 2010; Halvorson et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2019;
Farmaha & Sims, 2013; Sistani et al., 2014; Venterea et al., 2011). Alternatively, others have
reported yield increases with PCU, associated with increases in NUE (Shapiro et al., 2016; Nelson
et al., 2008; Noellsch et al., 2009; Halvorson & Bartolo, 2014; Zheng et al., 2016; Zheng et al.,
2017; Hatfield & Parkin, 2014; Halvorson et al., 2014). Many factors determine the effectiveness
of PCU fertilizer applications including precipitation, fertilizer placement, and soil textures
(Nelson et al., 2008; Garcia et al., 2018). As expected, PCU fertilizer has increased effectiveness
when environmental conditions are prone to nitrate leaching (Garcia et al., 2020) and they perform
better on poorly drained soils than in droughty conditions (Nelson et al., 2008). By controlling the
release of N, PCU can also supply N through the reproductive growth stages for late season N
availability to sustain photosynthesis and supplement grain fill (Garcia et al., 2020; Zheng et al.,
2017; Shapiro et al., 2016; Hatfield & Parkin, 2014). This longevity, however, comes at the
expense of early season N availability which has been reported to decrease biomass accumulation
and N uptake by V9, and which can lead to reduced grain yield (Grant et al., 2012). Similarly,
PCU fertilizer can reduce yield in cool early season conditions because the slower N release can
lead to N deficiency (Farmaha & Sims, 2013). Urea, however, supplies early season N to the crop
making up for the potential lack of early season N with only PCU fertilizer (Garcia et al., 2020;
Zheng et al., 2017). These offset windows of N availability present opportunities for blending
conventional urea fertilizer with PCU to create a fertilizer source with optimal N availability, and
that better synchronizes N availability to crop N uptake (Payne et al., 2015). Many studies have
shown that blends of urea with PCU fertilizer can increase corn grain yield compared to both urea
and PCU fertilizer alone (Shapiro et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2017; Noellsch et al.,
2009). Even when the blend does not result in a yield advantage compared to PCU alone, the
3
decreased amount of PCU in the blend is more cost effective than applying full rates of PCU (Malhi
et al., 2010). Using PCU as a fertilizer source provides season-long N availability to increase NUE
and grain yield while reducing the potential for nitrate leaching that causes environmental damage.
Pairing PCU with conventional urea creates a blend that provides both early and late season N
availability to fully supply corn N uptake needs.
Pre-plant applications of N fertilizer are a convenient way to supply early season N, but as
recently reported a significant portion of corn N uptake in modern hybrids occurs later in the season
(Malhi et al., 2006; Ciampitti & Vyn, 2012; Haegle, 2013). While PCU fertilizer provides late
season N availability through prolonged release, split applications of N use mechanical
applications and additional field passes to supplement corn N demands. Split N applications, also
known as side-dress, shift a portion of the total N fertilizer applied to later growth stages. Side-
dress applications commonly apply N between the V4 and V8 growth stages, although the timing
can vary widely with some applications delaying 100% of the total N applied to the V11 growth
stage (Scharf et al., 2002) and others delaying up to VT (Panison et al., 2019). Shifting N
applications to in-season at multiple different growth stages has increased NUE and yield
compared to only pre-plant N applications (Garcia et al., 2020; Malhi et al., 2001; Lu et al., 2012).
Although agronomic yield advantages have been observed with side-dress applications, this
management practice is costly to implement (Cassman et al., 1992; Boman et al., 1995; Bly &
Woodard, 2003) and not guaranteed to improve yield. There are reports of V6 side-dress
applications decreasing yield by 12% (Binder et al., 2000) and of split applications at VT
decreasing yield in six of nine site years (Walsh et al., 2012). Similarly, Fernandez et al. (2020)
conducted a meta-analysis that showed split applications did not have a consistent yield advantage
over pre-plant, while Mueller et al. (2017) observed inconsistent yield responses to split
4
applications but consistent improvements in NUE. A major environmental factor responsible for
the inconsistent responses to split applications is rainfall events that induce leaching and high soil
moisture conditions that can lead to denitrification. Under conditions conducive to N loss, split N
applications result in more consistent yield increases (Nelson et al., 2008; Malhi et al., 2010).
Conversely, split N applications have not increased yield under dry conditions (Adriaanse &
Human, 1993) demonstrating that split applications are most effective when pre-plant N
availability is reduced due to N loss. Additionally, split N applications have been ineffective in
highly productive soils that mineralize N throughout the growing season, thereby reducing the
benefits of additional in-season N fertilizer (Nafziger & Rapp, 2021). Others have shown that on
coarse textured soils, or in years with consistent rainfall, split applications of N are more likely to
improve corn yield (Spackman et al., 2019). Conversely, on fine textured soils with untimely
rainfall, split applications of N did not improve grain yield compared to only applying fertilizer N
pre-plant (Spackman et al., 2019).
Improved N fertilizer sources and application timings can be supplemented with better
fertilizer placement to increase NUE and grain yield. Concentrating N fertilizer near the seed
especially as urea, can damage corn seedlings and inhibit growth making safety through proper
placement key (Fan & MacKenzie, 1995). Banded placement of dry N fertilizer, therefore, is
traditionally made below seeding depth and/or beside the seed furrow. Broadcast applications of
urea on the soil surface are subject to volatility reducing the NUE of the applied fertilizer (Rinaldi
et al., 2019). While using enhanced fertilizer sources can reduce N losses from volatilization, sub-
surface placement of N fertilizer in a band also reduces volatility (Singh & Nye, 1988; Tomar &
Soper, 1981). This reduction in N losses with banded placement has resulted in increased yield
compared to broadcast applications (Garcia et al., 2020; Nash et al., 2013; Howard & Tyler, 1989;
5
Lehrsch et al., 2000; Nelson et al., 2008; Nkebiwe et al., 2016). Greater yield may result from
increased N concentration within the crop (Nash et al., 2013) and larger plant biomass with greater
light interception during vegetative growth stages (Garcia et al., 2020). The yield advantage of
banded placement can be enhanced by using PCU instead of conventional urea (McKenzie et al.,
2010; Nash et al., 2013) and banded PCU has shown synergistic yield increases compared to
broadcast application of urea (Nash et al., 2013). Improved placement, however, is more costly
than broadcast applications making it difficult to implement on a wide scale even though broadcast
N is less available for root uptake (Nkebiwe et al., 2016). Additionally, past research has identified
scenarios where banded placement had no yield advantage compared to broadcast applications
(Fox et al., 1986; Raun et al., 1989), especially in environments that are responsive to additional
N fertilizer (Garcia et al., 2020).
Traditionally, N management practices utilize alternate N application timing and placement
combinations to manage environmental variability that can impact corn productivity. Properly
integrating polymer-coated N fertilizer sources into existing N management systems will require
a better understanding of current practices and their effectiveness when paired with PCU fertilizer.
The introduction of enhanced N sources into current management practices may not improve corn
productivity in some scenarios but identifying the synergistic interactions between traditional
management and enhanced N sources is key to optimizing grain yield in a wide variety of
environments. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the individual effectiveness
and the interactions of N management practices such as enhanced N source, better fertilizer
placement, and improved application timing, to identify the management system that optimizes
corn grain yield in a variety of environmental conditions.
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field Characteristics
The experiment was conducted during the 2019, 2020, and 2021 growing seasons across
four locations in Illinois (Ewing, Nashville, Yorkville, and Champaign). Research sites were
planted once at Ewing (38°05'54.4"N 88°50'50.4"W, 04 June 2019), twice at Nashville
(38°19'10.4"N 89°20'09.6"W, 07 June 2020, and 23 April 2021), and three times at both Yorkville
(41°36'25.0"N 88°22'47.9"W, 09 June 2019, 05 June 2020, and 07 May 2021) and Champaign
(40°02'28.4"N 88°13'23.9"W, 01 June 2019, 01 June 2020, and 26 April 2021). Soil data from
each site-year are displayed in Table 1.1.
Agronomic Management
All field experiments were conducted following a soybean crop [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]
the previous year and under conventional tillage (primary tillage in the fall with a chisel plow and
secondary tillage in the spring with a field cultivator). The corn hybrid DeKalb 64-34 SSRIB was
grown at every site at a plant population of 36,000 plants acre-1. This trial was planted using a
precision plot planter (SeedPro 360, ALMACO, Nevada, IA). Experimental units were plots four
rows wide spaced 30 inches apart and 37.5 feet in length. Planting dates for each location by year
are shown in Appendix A (Table A.1). At planting, Force 3G (AMVAC, Los Angeles, CA)
[Tefluthrin: (2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-4-methylphenyl)methyl-(1α,3α)-(Z)-(±)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-16 dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate; Syngenta Crop Protection,
Greensboro, NC] soil insecticide was applied in-furrow at a rate of 5 oz 1,000 ft-1 of row. All of
the experiments were maintained weed-free with pre-emergence and in-season herbicide
applications. The time of application, specific products used, product descriptions, and the rate of
each product applied at each individual location in this study can be found in Tables A.2-A.10.
7
Treatments
All treatment plots received a total of 180 lbs of N acre-1. A complete factorial design was
used for this experiment to compare three N sources, two nitrogen application timings, and two
fertilizer placements (Table 1.2). Nitrogen sources consisted of urea [CO(NH2)2; 46-0-0], ESN
[environmentally-smart nitrogen; 44-0-0; Nutrien Ltd. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan], or a mixture of
urea and ESN with a N ratio of 1:1 referred to as Blend. Nitrogen application timings included
supplying all of the N pre-plant, (i.e., Up-front), or splitting the nitrogen across two applications,
pre-plant and V6 side-dress, (i.e., Split). Pre-plant nitrogen was applied either broadcast on the soil
surface or sub-surface banded 6 inches directly below the future crop row using a Coulter toolbar
with a dry fertilizer applicator (6000 Series Universal Fertilizer Applicator, Dawn Equipment,
Sycamore, IL) and real time kinetic (RTK) guidance. For split applications, plots received 90 lbs
of N acre-1 using one of the three nitrogen sources at pre-plant, either broadcast or banded, with an
additional 90 lbs of N acre-1 supplied at the V6 growth stage using urea ammonium nitrate (UAN;
32-0-0) poured on the soil surface along the crop row (simulating a Y-drop method). All broadcast
treatments at planting were incorporated using a harrow while all side-dress applications were left
on the soil surface. All fertilizer treatments were compared to an unfertilized control.
Measured Parameters
Soil samples (0-12” deep) were obtained from plot areas prior to planting and assessed by
A & L Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc. (Fort Wayne, IN) for pH, organic matter, and fertility levels
(Table 1.1). In 2020, total aboveground biomass was obtained at Champaign by sampling six
random plants at the R6 growth stage. These samplings enabled determination of the quantity of
biomass and total N accumulated throughout the growing season. After sampling, the plants were
separated into grain versus stover (including husk) components, representing the partitioning of
8
nutrients to the different plant sinks. The stover was subjected to a series of weighing and
processing steps. After weighing to obtain the total fresh stover weight, the sample was processed
through a chipper (BC600XL, Vermeer Corporation, Pella, IA) to obtain representative stover
subsamples. The stover subsamples were immediately weighed to determine aliquot fresh weight,
and then weighed again after drying to 0% moisture in a forced air oven at 167 °F, to determine
subsample aliquot dry weight and to calculate total dry biomass accumulation. The weight of the
grain component was obtained by drying the ears and removing the grain with a corn sheller (AEC
Group, St Charles, IA) then using a moisture reader (Dickey John, GSF, Ankeny, IA) to determine
the moisture content of the grain sample. The grain sample was then weighed and added to the
grain weight of each plot obtained by a mechanical combine. The weight of the cob was obtained
by subtraction from the ear weight and then added to the dry stover weight to ascertain the overall
R6 stover biomass accumulated. Dry subsamples of the stover were ground using a Wiley Mill
(Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) to pass through a 2 mm mesh screen. A random 50 mg
subsample of this dry, ground stover tissue was quantified for N concentration using a combustion-
based analyzer (EA1112, CE Elantech, Lakewood, NJ). Using the N concentration in the stover
and total plant biomass weight, the overall nutrient accumulation in the plant was determined.
After counting the center two rows of each plot to determine final plant population, these rows
were mechanically harvested for determination of grain yield and harvest moisture, and the yield
subsequently standardized to bushels per acre at 15.5% moisture. Subsamples of the harvested
grain were evaluated for yield components (average kernel weight and kernel number per land
area) and also for grain quality (protein, oil, and starch concentrations) using near-infrared
transmittance (NIT) spectroscopy (Infratec 1241 Grain Analyzer; FOSS, Eden Prairie, MN).
Kernel weight and grain quality are presented at 0% moisture. Nitrogen concentration in the grain
9
was calculated by converting protein concentration in the grain to N concentration by dividing by
a factor of 6.25 (Jones, 1941). Total N in the grain was determined using total grain weight and
grain N concentration. Total N uptake was the sum of total N in the grain and total N uptake in the
stover. When plant sampling at the R6 growth stage was not conducted, total N uptake was
estimated using the N concentration in the grain from the NIT measurement, the weight of the
grain, and a relative nitrogen harvest index value of 0.58 from Bender et al. (2013). Stover N
uptake was calculated in these instances by subtracting grain nitrogen concentration from the
estimated total N uptake. Nutrient use efficiencies were calculated for each treatment from the
amount of fertilizer applied, total N uptake, and corn grain yield compared to the unfertilized check
plot. Yield efficiency was calculated by subtracting the check plot yield from each treatment yield
and dividing by the fertilizer N rate applied. Recovery efficiency was calculated by subtracting the
total N uptake of the check plot plants from the total N uptake resulting from each treatment and
dividing by the corresponding total N rate applied.
Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis
Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental design. In total,
13 unique treatments were replicated six times at each of three locations for a total of 702 plots
over the three years, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Because of significant abiotic (i.e., drought) stress on
pollination, yield and nutrient uptake data collected at the Champaign site in 2019 were dropped
from analysis and are not reported. Statistical analysis was conducted using PROC MIXED in SAS
(version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Based on the average yield across all treatments, the eight
site years of data were divided into three groups, and ranked according to the final yield, i.e., low
yielding, (<200 bushel acre-1), average yielding, (200-249 bushel acre-1), and high yielding, (>250
bushel acre-1). Yield groups were analyzed separately with N source (urea, ESN, or Blend),
10
fertilizer placement (broadcast or banded), and application timing (up-front or split) included as
fixed effects, while replication was considered a random effect. The unfertilized control was
included in the initial statistical analyses and was significantly different from all nitrogen
treatments. Therefore, the unfertilized control treatments were removed from the final analyses to
better identify differences between the fertilized treatments. Reported values for yield efficiency
and recovery efficiency include unfertilized control values for yield and total nitrogen uptake as
part of the calculation, however, all of the statistical analyses and results reported are with the
unfertilized control plots removed as unique treatments. Fixed effects and their interactions were
considered significant in all statistical calculations if P ≤ 0.10.
RESULTS
Yield Group Designations
The eight site-years of data from four locations in Illinois from 2019 to 2021 were divided
into yield groups based on the average yield level at each individual site, which ranged from 125
bushel acre-1 to 266 bushel acre-1. The grain yield, yield component, total nitrogen uptake, yield
efficiency, fertilizer recovery efficiency, and grain quality data for each individual site are reported
in Appendix A (Tables A1.11-A1.18). Initially, soil test values were considered to categorize the
multiple site years of data, however, sites with widely different soil fertility levels had similar final
yields in multiple years (Table 1.1). The Nashville and Champaign trials in 2020 and 2021 were
sorted together in the average and high yield groups, respectively, despite their dramatically
different soil test values. In 2020, there was only a 3 bushel acre-1 difference in yield between the
Nashville and Champaign trials (Table A.13 and A.14). The yield gap between the sites was again
minimal in 2021, at only 9 bushel acre-1 (Table A.16 and A.17). This yield consistency, despite
11
different locations and disparate soil test values, indicated that the soil data alone could not
adequately categorize these sites.
Weather data also did not directly indicate the yield groups, as precipitation and
temperature trends relative to the 30-year average was varied for each site (Table 1.3). There were
some precipitation and temperature similarities among locations when side-by-side comparisons
were made, but these did not result in clear trends that were clearly associated with final yield.
Next, the grain yield of the unfertilized control (UTC) plots for each year were evaluated as a
potential indicator of group designations (Table A.19), but this approach did not result in logical
groupings. For example, the UTC yields at Yorkville 2020 and Champaign 2021 were within 2
bushels acre-1 of each other but the trial average at Champaign in 2021 was 112 bushels acre-1
greater than at Yorkville in 2020. Soil test levels, weather data, or UTC yields did not accurately
describe the yield differences at these site years because the effect of nitrogen fertilizer
management on corn grain yield goes beyond these categories and includes a myriad of both biotic
and abiotic factors. The grouping factor that was more effective at describing the differences
between the site years was the average yield of the entire trial, i.e., including all of the N treatments
and the UTC plots. The trial yield average encapsulates season-long effects, including the inherent
soil characteristics, precipitation, temperature, pests, and diseases, which reflects what the typical
Illinois farm experiences during a growing season. A similar approach to grouping multiple site-
years of data after the conclusion of the growing season by final yield and not by weather or soil
type characteristics has been conducted in past research (Assefa et al., 2016; Assefa et al., 2017;
Hu & Buyanovsky, 2003). Therefore, the eight site years of data from the four locations in Illinois
from 2019 to 2021 were divided into three yield groups based on the final average yield level at
each individual site. The Ewing 2019 and Yorkville 2020 sites were sorted together into the low
12
yield group with trial yield averages below 200 bushel acre-1. Sites that resulted in a trial yield
average between 200-249 bushel acre-1, Nashville 2020, Champaign 2020, and Yorkville 2019,
were placed into the average yield group. The high yield group was defined as a trial yield average
above 250 bushel acre-1 and observed at Nashville, Champaign, and Yorkville in 2021. These
groupings, based on the trial yield averages, resulted in clear separations of these sites into three
unique yield groups, which also was reflected in differences in the average kernel numbers, kernel
weights and total plant nitrogen accumulations of the unfertilized control plots (Table 1.4).
Weather
Weather data from each location, precipitation (inches) and temperature (°F), are displayed
in Table 1.3 by the resulting yield groups. The Champaign site in 2019 experienced significant
drought conditions during pollination resulting in numerous barren plants and negatively affecting
yield and nutrient uptake. As a result, this site had to be dropped from the analysis and is not
reported. There is variability in precipitation and temperature data for each site-year making
comparisons across individual sites difficult, but conclusions about the general yield group can be
made when looking at these data relative to the 30-year averages. Sites in the high group received
less than expected rainfall in April and May compared to the 30-year average, while both the low
and average groups recorded above average precipitation in these months (Table 1.3). For the low
group, following the elevated precipitation in April and May, precipitation from June to September
was below the 30-year average in every month making the growing season and grain fill period
dryer than normal (Table 1.3). In the average group, precipitation was above the 30-year average
in every month, while the high yield group experienced below-average rainfall in both the early
season, April and May, and late season, August, and September (Table 1.3). Above-average
rainfall was observed in June and July which when combined with dry periods in early and late
13
stages of the growing season align with previous descriptions of high yield groups (Assefa et al.,
2016). While there was variation among individual site years, these average weather trends seem
to reflect the overall trial yields for each yield group. Low-yielding locations received above-
average rainfall, which likely negatively impacted nitrogen availability, while also experiencing
below-average temperatures that slowed corn growth and development. Average temperatures, but
still above-average precipitation, characterized sites in the average group. Finally, plants in the
high yield group received average precipitation and warmer than average temperatures, both of
which promote nitrogen availability and maximum crop growth.
Grain Yield, Yield Components, and Fertilizer Efficiency
In the low yield group, fertilizer placement, timing, and the interaction of N source and
placement significantly impacted yield, kernel number, and yield efficiency (Table 1.5). Kernel
weight was only impacted by the main effects of placement and timing, while the total nitrogen
accumulated by the plants and the fertilizer recovery efficiency were significantly impacted by the
fertilizer source, timing, the interaction of the fertilizer source and placement, placement and
timing, and source x placement x timing (Table 1.5). In the average group, only the source x
placement x timing interaction significantly influenced yield, while only fertilizer placement
altered kernel number. Source, placement, timing, and the interaction of source and placement had
a significant impact on kernel weight in the average yield group (Table 1.5). Additionally, in the
average group, the total nitrogen accumulated by the plant and the fertilizer recovery efficiency
were significantly influenced by fertilization timing, the interaction of the source and placement,
and the interaction of N source and timing, while the yield efficiency was only impacted by the
interaction of fertilization source x placement x timing. In the high group, the fertilizer source,
placement, the interaction of the source and placement, and the interaction of source x placement
14
x timing significantly impacted yield, total nitrogen, yield efficiency, and fertilizer recovery
efficiency. For high yield sites, no factors influenced kernel number changes, while the kernel
weight was influenced by the N source by placement and the fertilizer placement by application
timing (Table 1.5).
Since there was a significant interaction of fertilizer source x placement x timing on grain
yield in both the average and high yield groups, the data are presented to parse out the notable
treatments (Table 1.6). In the average group, when N was applied up-front pre-plant as the Blend
yield was increased by 7 bushel acre-1 compared to either urea or ESN. There was no difference in
yield in the average group between using the different sources when they were split-applied
following broadcast N applications pre-plant. Applying ESN in the average yielding group
increased yield compared to the Blend when banded up-front but the effect was similar to applying
urea. Overall, yields were unchanged by fertilizer source in the average group when split
applications of N were made with the pre-plant N placed in a band (Table 1.6). In the high yield
group, broadcast up-front N applications led to similar yields regardless of the N source. But, when
split-applying the N with broadcast placement in the high group, using the Blend increased yield
by 8 bushel acre-1 compared to ESN, while using ESN led to a similar 8 bushel acre-1 yield increase
compared to using urea. In the high group, when banding fertilizer up-front, supplying urea
increased yield by 6 bushel acre-1, and the Blend by 8 bushel acre-1, compared to using ESN.
Additionally, using a split application in the high group with pre-plant banded placement of any N
source led to similar yields. While yields depended upon the yield group, N source, placement,
and timing, the yield components of kernel number and average kernel weight were only affected
by the yield group (Table 1.6).
15
Total N uptake by the corn plants was dependent upon an interaction of the N fertilizer
source x placement x timing in both the low and high yield groups (Table 1.7). In the low group,
plants accumulated similar amounts of total N, regardless of the N source, when the N fertilizer
was supplied as broadcast up-front. With split applications under pre-plant broadcast conditions in
the low yield sites, fertilizing with the Blend led to 9 lbs N acre-1 more total N accumulated than
urea, but was similar to the levels from ESN. Banding ESN up-front in the low yield group resulted
in the highest N uptake, which was approximately 15 lbs N acre-1 more than that obtained by
supplying urea or the Blend in the same placement. In contrast, the corn plants accumulated similar
N levels, regardless of source, when fertilized with split applications and banded placement in the
low group (Table 1.7). The same treatment interaction pattern observed for total N accumulation
was also observed for N recovery efficiency in the low yield group, with ESN banded up-front
achieving the greatest recovery percentage of the applied N. In the average yield group, only the
yield efficiency was significantly impacted by the interaction of fertilizer source x placement x
timing (Table 1.5). When broadcast up-front, the Blend improved the yield efficiency compared
to when the average yield sites were supplied with urea or ESN. When N fertilizer was applied
pre-plant banded in the average group, ESN did not increase the yield efficiency compared to urea
up-front but did compared to the Blend. When banded placement was combined with split
applications in the average group, using urea or the Blend led to similar yield efficiencies, but urea
fostered greater yield efficiency compared to applying ESN. In the high yield group, plant total N
accumulation, yield efficiency, and N recovery efficiency were all impacted by the interaction of
fertilizer source x placement x timing (Table 1.5). No difference was observed between using the
different N sources with respect to total N accumulation, yield efficiency, or the N recovery
efficiency with broadcast placement up-front or with banded placement and split applications.
16
Providing the Blend in the high group significantly increased total N uptake, yield efficiency, and
the N recovery efficiency compared to using either urea or ESN when broadcast with split
applications. Furthermore, using the Blend in banded up-front applications in the high yield group
led to increases in all three fertilizer efficiency variables compared to using ESN, but these values
were similar to using urea (Table 1.7).
Overall, changing the fertilizer source led to a difference in yield only in the high group
(Table 1.8). When averaged across placement and timing combinations, providing the Blend in the
high yield group produced 5 bushel acre-1 more yield than urea and 4 bushel acre-1 more than ESN.
While there was no significant impact on kernel number or kernel weight in the high group, the
plant total N uptake and the yield efficiency were increased by using the Blend compared to both
urea and ESN. In the average group, kernel weight was increased by fertilizing with the Blend by
3 mg kernel-1 compared to urea fertilization and 4 mg kernel-1 compared to ESN (Table 1.8).
The placement of the fertilizers significantly influenced grain yield, kernel number, kernel
weight, total N uptake, yield efficiency, and the fertilizer recovery efficiency in the low yield group
(Table 1.9). Banding the fertilizer in the low group, rather than broadcasting it, increased yield by
13 bushel acre-1, kernel number by 154 kernel m-2, kernel weight by 9 mg kernel-1, total N
accumulation by 26 lbs N acre-1, yield efficiency by 0.08 lbs N acre-1, and the N recovery efficiency
by 15 percentage points (Table 1.9). In the average group, only kernel number and kernel weight
were significantly impacted by the fertilizer placement; broadcasting the fertilizer increased kernel
number by 96 kernels m-2, while banding increased kernel weight by 3 mg kernel-1. Banding the
fertilizer in the high yield group increased yield by 4 bushel acre-1, total N accumulation by 9 lbs
N acre-1, yield efficiency by 0.02 lbs N acre-1, and the N recovery efficiency by 6 percentage points.
17
In the low yield group, all grain yield and fertilizer efficiency variables were influenced by
the timing of the N application (Table 1.10). Split applications of N increased yield by 4 bushel
acre-1 compared to an up-front only application in the low yield sites, and this increase was
associated with a 160 kernel m-2 increase in kernel number and a 4 mg kernel-1 decrease in kernel
weight. The total plant N accumulation was increased by the split application timing in the low
yield group by 6 lbs N acre-1, the yield efficiency by 0.02 bushel lb-1 N applied, and the N recovery
efficiency by 4 percentage points (Table 1.10). In the average group, the kernel weight was
increased by 3 mg kernel-1, total N increased by 5 lbs N acre-1, and the N recovery efficiency
increased by 3 percentage points by split N applications compared to up-front. However, the timing
of the N applications did not influence any measured yield or fertilizer efficiency variable in the
high yield group.
The source by placement interaction significantly impacted every measured variable in the
low yield group except for kernel weight (Table 1.11). When broadcast in the low group, the Blend
increased yield over both urea and ESN by 5 and 6 bushel acre-1, respectively. Conversely for
banded applications in the low yield group, ESN significantly increased yield by 5 bushel acre-1
compared to the Blend but only nominally increased yield compared to urea by 4 bushel acre-1
(Table 1.11). Supplying any N source in the banded placement in the low group increased yield
over any source broadcast. A similar trend was observed for kernel weight, total N uptake, yield
efficiency, and the N recovery efficiency, as supplying the Blend led to greater values of these
measurements than when using urea or ESN when broadcast, although ESN increased these
parameters when supplied in a banded placement in the low group. Kernel weight, total N
accumulation, and N recovery efficiency were significantly influenced by the interaction of
fertilizer source and placement in the average yield group (Table 1.11). Although yield was not
18
influenced in the average group, banding urea or ESN increased kernel weight as compared to
broadcast placement. Additionally, kernel weight was similar with the Blend regardless of
placement, but when broadcast, supplying the Blend increased kernel weight compared to either
urea or ESN (Table 1.11). When applying urea, banding significantly increased plant N uptake
compared to broadcasting. The Blend exhibited significantly greater plant N uptake when
broadcast, but there was no effect of placement on total N uptake when using ESN in the average
yield group. Supplying fertilizer to the average sites as the broadcast Blend, banded urea, or banded
ESN increased plant N uptake compared to the broadcast urea treatment, while only the broadcast
Blend and banded urea increased plant total N accumulation compared to the Blend banded (Table
1.11). A similar trend was observed in the average yield group for N recovery efficiency where
supplying the fertilizer as broadcast Blend, banded urea, or banded ESN each increased the N
recovery efficiency by 4 percentage points compared to broadcast urea. In the high yield group,
all measured variables were affected by the interaction of fertilizer source and placement except
for kernel number (Table 1.11). When broadcast, the Blend produced the highest yield in the high
group, equaling 4 bushel acre-1 more than ESN and 9 bushel acre-1 more than urea. Broadcast ESN
in the high group also significantly increased yield compared to broadcast urea. Placement of both
the Blend and ESN affected grain yield, but banding urea increased yield by 10 bushel acre-1 over
broadcast placement in the high group. Broadcast Blend, banded urea, and banded ESN each
increased kernel weight compared to the broadcast urea treatment, with banded urea also
increasing kernel weight versus the Blend banded in the high yield group. Banding the urea
increased total plant N uptake compared to broadcast placement in the high yield group, but
placement of the Blend or ESN did not affect total N uptake. Supplying either the Blend or ESN
in the high group similarly increased plant total N uptake compared to urea when broadcast.
19
Banded urea in the high yield group increased the yield efficiency compared to broadcast urea by
0.02 bushel lb-1 of N applied, but there were no yield efficiency differences observed due to
fertilizer placement for either the Blend or ESN (Table 1.11). Supplying either the Blend or ESN
increased the yield efficiency compared to urea when broadcast in the high yield group, with the
Blend also fostering significantly greater yield efficiency than ESN. Banding, compared to
broadcasting urea increased N fertilizer recovery by 10 percentage points, but there was no
difference observed from fertilizer placement with either the Blend or ESN in the high group
(Table 1.11). When applying N broadcast pre-plant in the high yield group, urea had the least N
recovered of any source, but the Blend increased fertilizer recovery by 8 percentage points and
ESN by 5 percentage points.
The interaction of fertilizer source and timing as well as the interaction of placement and
timing had no significant effect on grain yield in any of the yield groups that resulted from this
research. Therefore, those treatment interactions were not presented in the main segment of this
chapter and the data are included in Appendix A (Tables A.18 and A.19). Similarly, grain quality
fell outside the scope of this research leading to those data also being placed in Appendix A for
reference. Table A.20 outlines the significant main effects and interactions for the grain quality
metrics and Tables A.21 through A.27 provide the results for each grain quality parameter and
fertilizer treatment interaction.
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated the effects of a number of both individual N management practices
and their combinations on corn grain yield in three distinct yield groups. These groups are
indicative of a productivity environment that includes inherent soil characteristics, weather
20
patterns, and a host of additional biotic and abiotic factors that influence final grain yield. This
yield group method cannot be used to prescribe N management practices, but instead helps to
identify the cause of the observed difference in yield in response to the various N management
treatments. Assefa et al. (2017) used a similar grouping system to identify whether changes in
yield are related to specific factors in an individual productivity environment or whether the
differences are robust across a variety of yield levels. In this way, the low, average, and high yield
groups in this research help determine if N management practices have applications to specific
productivity environments and if they are robust in their application. For individual N management
practices, only placement increased yield across multiple yield groups, the low and the high. Past
research observed similar yield benefits from banded placement and attributed greater yield
compared to broadcast applications to reduced volatilization (Garcia et al., 2020; Nash et al., 2013;
Howard & Tyler, 1989; Lehrsch et al., 2000; Nelson et al., 2008; Nkebiwe et al., 2016). No specific
emissions data were collected as a part of this research to determine the effect of placement on
volatilization. However, banding did result in greater total N uptake, yield efficiency, and fertilizer
recovery efficiency compared to broadcasting which suggests improved plant access to N fertilizer
and reduced N losses (Table 1.9). Nash et al. (2013) stated that the yield benefit of banded
placement may be due to better plant utilization of banded N fertilizer which supports the findings
in this research. We could find no specific research investigating variable responses to banded
placement by yield level making the finding that banding increased yield in both low and high
yield scenarios unique. The yield response to banding, however, varied based on the overall yield
level of the sites as banded placement of N fertilizer had a greater positive impact on yield in sites
with low yield (13 bushel acre-1) compared to the high yield (4 bushel acre-1). It may be that in the
low group there was an increased response to banded placement because N was a more limiting
21
factor when there is a lower degree of soil N mineralization. However, other nutrients besides N
may have become limiting in the high yield sites which could temper the maximum response to
banded placement at those locations. Though the magnitude of the response to banded placement
may vary across yield levels, it is the only individual management practice evaluated in this study
to increase yield in multiple yield groups (Table 1.8-1.10).
As an individual practice, N source only affected corn grain yield in the high yield group.
Specifically, the Blend, consisting of both urea and ESN, increased yield compared to either urea
or ESN when applied alone. This finding is supported by past research (Shapiro et al., 2016; Zheng
et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2017; Noellsch et al., 2009) and confirms one of the hypotheses for this
study, that utilizing a blend of urea and ESN would better supply N both early and late season to
the corn crop. The advantage of the Blend compared to urea or ESN, however, was only observed
in the high yield group, while in the low and average groups there was no impact on grain yield,
with the enhanced N sources. PCU fertilizers have been shown to have increased effectiveness
when environmental conditions increase nitrate leaching (Garcia et al., 2020) but not in droughty
conditions (Nelson et al., 2008). During June and July in the high yield group, the average
precipitation was 1.6” and 2.1” greater than the 30-year average while in the low or average yield
groups either one or both months had below average precipitation. The greater rainfall during key
corn growth stages for N uptake may have led to more nitrate loss and a greater yield benefit when
using enhanced N sources, similar to the findings outlined by Garcia et al. in 2020. Additionally,
past research into PCU fertilizer use indicated that yield increases are linked with increases in NUE
metrics such as total N uptake (Shapiro et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2008; Noellsch et al., 2009;
Halvorson & Bartolo, 2014; Zheng et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017; Hatfield & Parkin, 2014;
Halvorson et al., 2014). In the high yield group, using the Blend resulted in greater total N uptake
22
and yield efficiency while there was no impact on these metrics in the low or average yield groups.
Collectively, a number of research studies indicate that enhanced efficiency fertilizer sources do
not increase yield (Cahill et al., 2010; Halvorson et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2019; Farmaha & Sims,
2013; Sistani et al., 2014; Venterea et al., 2011). However, it seems from this research that a Blend
of conventional urea with an enhanced source can improve both grain yield and NUE metrics, but
that a positive response is dependent on environmental conditions that increase nitrate leaching or
limit soil N mineralization.
Across all three yield groups, split N applications had varied effects on grain yield and
other NUE metrics. Though some have reported that in-season applications reduce yield (Binder
et al., 2000; Walsh et al., 2012), mainly from a lack of readily available N at planting, in this
research none of the split applications reduced yield. However, using a split application of N for
in-season management only increased grain yield compared to applying all N fertilizer at planting
in the low yield group. Put another way, in two out of the three groups, split applications had no
effect on grain yield. This finding aligns with the study by Fernandez et al. (2020) who reported
that using split applications did not consistently increase yield. However, even not resulting in
increased yield, Mueller et al. (2017) observed consistent NUE improvements when with split
applications. That conclusion was reflected in the average yield group from this study where yield
was not impacted by in-season N applications but the total N uptake for the crop and fertilizer
recovery efficiency were increased. When environmental conditions induce leaching and reduce
pre-plant N availability, in-season N management with a side-dress is more likely to increase yield
((Nelson et al., 2008; Malhi et al., 2010). This same trend was observed in this research as the low
yield group received 2.5” more rainfall on average in April and May than the 30-year average and
split applications increased yield under these conditions. In the average group, early season
23
precipitation was still 1.3” on average above the 30-year average but the high yield group received
less precipitation than normal. This research highlights that early season precipitation trends best
indicate the potential for a yield response to in-season N management.
The interaction of enhanced efficiency N fertilizer with improved placement has been
thought to be key to increasing adoption of both practices. Nash et al. (2013) and McKenzie et al.
(2010) suggested that enhanced N fertilizer sources have a synergistic interaction with banded
placement to enhance the response to banding compared to traditional N fertilizer sources. Such a
yield synergy was not observed in this research as banded placement of the Blend or ESN did not
increase yield compared to banded urea in either the low or high yield groups. In fact, banding the
Blend or ESN did not increase yield compared to broadcast applications of the same fertilizer in
the high yield group, even though they increased yield compared to urea when broadcast. When
making a broadcast application of N fertilizer, these data do support previous research suggesting
the use of a combination of urea and PCU for optimum N availability and increased yield (Shapiro
et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2017; Noellsch et al., 2009). Enhanced N sources can
be used to reduce N losses and increase NUE metrics in broadcast applications but yield similarly
to conventional urea when used with banded placement.
CONCLUSIONS
Nitrogen management practices such as alternate timing and placement combinations
attempt to control for environmental variability and improve corn yield consistency through better
N management. Polymer-coated N fertilizer sources create new options for better N management
when applied alone or when used in combination with other management practices to enhance
grain yield and improve fertilizer efficiency. However, the introduction of these practices does not
24
improve fertilizer efficiency and grain yield in every scenario limiting the adoption of these
practices and their opportunity to increase yield and fertilizer use efficiency. This research helps
explain why some of the variation in the yield response to enhanced N management practices is
commonly observed. Sites with average yields are less likely to respond positively to using
enhanced N fertilizer sources, in-season application timing, or banded fertilizer placement than
low or high yielding sites. When the final yield level is low due to soil conditions, weather, or
other abiotic or biotic factors, N management with in-season applications and banded placement
are more likely to increase yield because the soil supply of N is lacking and/or the crops’ ability
to access soil N is limited. This makes full season N availability and improved fertilizer placement
more beneficial in low yield conditions. Banded placement is also likely to improve productivity
in high yield sites where the fast-growing corn crop requires better access to N than is provided
with broadcast applications. Using enhanced efficiency N fertilizer only increased yield in high
yield sites when combined with conventional urea. This blend of PCU and urea however was
especially effective compared to urea or PCU in both the low and high yield sites when broadcast.
It even tended to increase yield in average sites because the combination of fertilizer provided
readily available N with urea and reduces N loss with PCU for later N availability. The N
management practices that most consistently increased yield across multiple yield levels were
banded placement of any fertilizer and broadcast applications of a blend of urea with a PCU. Using
split applications of enhanced N fertilizer were much less likely to result in improved corn yield.
The fertilizer N management practices resulting in increased grain yield were always associated
with improved total N uptake, yield efficiency, and fertilizer recovery efficiency. While there were
environmental conditions that may have influenced the frequency of a yield response, the practices
that led to increased yield always improved the corn plant’s access to N and resulted in a more
25
efficient use of the fertilizer applied. This study shows the importance of a clearer understanding
of the impact that N management practices have on fertilizer efficiency in a wide range of yield
levels. This research highlighted the limitations of using only soil type or weather data to
categorize individual sites and instead evaluated management impacts on sites grouped by their
final yield. Additional research is needed to more accurately predict the impact of N management
practices for an individual site to be able to better deploy enhanced management strategies for
optimum corn productivity.
26
TABLES
Table 1.1. Soil classifications, properties, and soil test levels of the low, average, and high yield groups from 2019-2021.
Yield Group †
Low Average High
Ewing Yorkville Nashville Champaign Yorkville Nashville Champaign Yorkville
2019 2020 2020 2020 2019 2021 2021 2021
Drummer Drummer
Cisne Saybrook Hoyleton Elburn Silt Hoyleton Flanagan
Soil Type Silty Clay Silty Clay
Silt Loam Silt Loam Silt Loam Loam Silt Loam Silt Loam
Loam Loam
Organic
1.7 4.5 1.7 4.4 5.4 1.7 3.1 4.5
Matter, %
CEC,
10.5 20.4 9.0 26.5 32 8.9 15.6 21.5
meq/100g
pH 7.3 6.3 7.3 6.6 6.3 6.1 6.5 6.2
NO3, ppm ‡ 2.6 11.5 5.4 6.0 13.3 6.6 7.9 11.5
P, ppm § 32 168 29 23 63 13 17 67
K, ppm § 53 122 74 101 197 61 92 157
Ca, ppm 1938 2523 1637 3422 4177 1333 2082 2394
Mg, ppm 79 610 80 811 839 109 455 661
S, ppm 14.0 12.0 16.0 8.0 19.0 6.0 4.0 10.0
Zn, ppm 1.7 7.6 1.3 1.7 3.5 0.8 1.0 11.8
Mn, ppm 140 23 177 22 21 102 43 13
Fe, ppm 169 188 215 116 166 149 108 121
Cu,ppm 0.9 4.6 1.3 2.5 4.1 0.7 1.3 2.6
B, ppm 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.8
† Yield groups defined as follows: low, <200 bushels acre ; average, 200-249 bushels acre ; high, >250 bushels acre-1.
-1 -1
‡ Nitrate (NO3-1) was extracted using KCl.

§ Phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) values were obtained with Mehlich III extraction.
27
Table 1.2. Source, placement, and rate of nitrogen applied at-planting (AP) and
V6 with Y-drop, and the total N rate applied for each treatment. Nitrogen was
applied as 32% UAN for all V6 applications.
Source † AP Placement AP V6 Total
-1
----------------- lbs N acre -----------------
None (Control) - 0 0 0
Urea Broadcast 180 0 180
Urea Broadcast 90 90 180
Urea Band 180 0 180
Urea Band 90 90 180
Blend Broadcast 180 0 180
Blend Broadcast 90 90 180
Blend Band 180 0 180
Blend Band 90 90 180
ESN Broadcast 180 0 180
ESN Broadcast 90 90 180
ESN Band 180 0 180
ESN Band 90 90 180
† The Blend source was a 1:1 ratio of N of urea and ESN.
28
Table 1.3. Precipitation and temperature during the production seasons at Ewing, Nashville, Champaign, and Yorkville from 2019 through 2021.
Values in parentheses are the deviations from the 30-year averages (1989-2020). All data was obtained from the Illinois State Water Survey.
Month Total
Yield Group Site-year April May June July August September Deviation
-------------------------------------------------------------- Precipitation, inches --------------------------------------------------------------
Low Ewing 2019 9.1 (+4.7) 7.0 (+2.3) 3.5 (-0.5) 2.1 (-1.5) 2.2 (-0.9) 0.3 (-3.2) + 0.9
(<200 bu acre-1) Yorkville 2020 3.6 (+0.6) 6.1 (+2.3) 3.3 (-0.5) 4.4 (+1.2) 0.9 (-2.5) 5.1 (+2.1) + 3.2
Nashville 2020 4.7 (+0.3) 4.3 (-0.6) 4.0 (+0.1) 9.1 (+5.8) 7.5 (+4.2) 0.6 (-2.3) + 7.5
Average
Champaign 2020 5.3 (+1.6) 4.7 (-00) 5.8 (+1.4) 4.6 (+0.5) 1.3 (-2.0) 2.9 (-0.2) + 1.3
(200-249 bu acre-1)
Yorkville 2019 4.8 (+1.8) 8.4 (+4.8) 2.6 (-1.2) 2.8 (-0.4) 4.4 (+1.0) 12.0 (+9.3) + 15.3
Nashville 2021 4.5 (+0.1) 4.1 (-0.8) 2.8 (-1.1) 9.8 (+6.5) 3.1 (-0.2) 3.4 (+0.5) + 5.0
High
Champaign 2021 2.1 (-1.6) 3.4 (-1.3) 7.6 (+3.2) 4.3 (+0.2) 4.1 (+0.8) 3.0 (-0.1) + 1.2
(>250 bu acre-1)
Yorkville 2021 1.9 (-1.1) 3.4 (-0.4) 6.6 (+2.8) 2.7 (-0.5) 1.2 (-2.2) 1.3 (-1.7) - 3.1
Average
April May June July August September Deviation
------------------------------------------------------------------ Temperature, °F ------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Ewing 2019 58.0 (+1.8) 67.4 (+0.9) 72.8 (-2.2) 78.5 (+0.8) 76.0 (+0.1) 75.1 (+6.4) + 1.3
(<200 bu acre-1) Yorkville 2020 45.7 (-3.0) 57.9 (-2.0) 60.8 (-9.0) 74.5 (+2.5) 57.7 (-12.0) 61.2 (-1.5) - 4.3
Nashville 2020 54.0 (-2.2) 63.9 (-1.7) 76.8 (+2.9) 79.7 (+2.9) 74.8 (-0.0) 68.0 (+0.5) + 0.4
Average
Champaign 2020 49.5 (-3.3) 60.6 (-2.8) 74.1 (+1.6) 77.2 (+2.0) 73.2 (-0.3) 65.1 (-1.8) - 0.8
(200-249 bu acre-1)
Yorkville 2019 47.5 (-1.3) 57.5 (-3.1) 68.6 (-1.2) 75.3 (+3.4) 68.9 (-0.8) 66.9 (+4.3) + 0.2
Nashville 2021 56.5 (+0.3) 63.5 (-2.1) 76.6 (+2.7) 77.1 (+0.3) 77.9 (+3.1) 71.3 (+3.8) + 1.3
High
Champaign 2021 52.7 (-0.1) 61.0 (-2.4) 74.2 (+2.7) 74.3 (-0.9) 75.6 (+2.1) 69.8 (+2.9) + 0.7
(>250 bu acre-1)
Yorkville 2021 49.9 (+1.1) 58.7 (-1.8) 72.9 (+3.1) 71.4 (-0.6) 72.5 (+2.8) 66.6 (+3.9) + 1.4
29
Table 1.4. Unfertilized control grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), and
total nitrogen uptake for corn grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (a total of eight site-years). The data are
sorted by yield group, with grain yield presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and nutrient
accumulation presented at 0% moisture.
Yield Group Grain Yield Kernel Number Kernel Weight Total Nitrogen
bu acre-1 kernel m-2 mg kernel-1 lbs of N acre-1
Low
101 2682 194 95
(<200 bu acre-1)
Average
124 3302 203 124
(200-249 bu acre-1)
High
178 4561 210 159
(>250 bu acre-1)
30
Table 1.5. Effect of fertilizer source, timing, placement, and their interactions on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel
weight), total nitrogen uptake, yield efficiency, and recovery efficiency with the data sorted by yield group. The corn was grown in Illinois from
2019-2021 (a total of eight site-years). Significance is assessed at p <0.10 and these values are highlighted in bold for this table.
Source of Grain Kernel Kernel Total Yield Recovery
Yield Group
Variation Yield Number Weight Nitrogen Efficiency † Efficiency ‡
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- p-value ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source (S) 0.6631 0.1528 0.1443 0.2621 0.6655 0.2620
Placement (P) <0.0001 0.0009 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Timing (T) 0.0296 0.0005 0.0596 0.0004 0.0290 0.0004
Low
SxP 0.0310 0.0473 0.8953 0.0281 0.0320 0.0319
(<200 bu acre-1)
SxT 0.2073 0.4634 0.8164 0.1693 0.1857 0.1379
PxT 0.1813 0.5402 0.2677 <0.0001 0.1840 <0.0001
SxPxT 0.1577 0.5805 0.5114 0.0365 0.1494 0.0348
Source (S) 0.9115 0.3227 0.0603 0.9820 0.8925 0.9706

Placement (P) 0.3431 0.0156 0.0395 0.3481 0.3226 0.4000
Timing (T) 0.1756 0.7206 0.0105 0.0405 0.1740 0.0338
Average
SxP 0.1070 0.9605 0.0330 0.0250 0.1151 0.0283
(200-249 bu acre-1)
SxT 0.7079 0.3209 0.1889 0.0971 0.6937 0.0851
PxT 0.5837 0.5541 0.1903 0.2161 0.5993 0.2517
SxPxT 0.0978 0.1273 0.3143 0.1265 0.0996 0.1335
Source (S) 0.0070 0.1220 0.9993 0.0324 0.0080 0.0310

Placement (P) 0.0007 0.4215 0.1903 0.0002 0.0007 0.0003
Timing (T) 0.8219 0.3746 0.4840 0.3491 0.7970 0.2975
High
SxP 0.0058 0.2598 0.0226 0.0606 0.0069 0.0806
(>250 bu acre-1)
SxT 0.3621 0.2141 0.1764 0.7052 0.3321 0.7260
PxT 0.4213 0.1321 0.0320 0.1568 0.4492 0.1598
SxPxT 0.0120 0.4457 0.4849 0.0105 0.0089 0.0082
† Yield efficiency calculated as: (Yieldtreatment – Yieldunfertilized) / lbs N applied. All unfertilized yield data can be found in Appendix Table A.19.
‡ Recovery efficiency calculated as: (Total Nitrogentreatment – Total Nitrogenunfertilized) / lbs N applied. The unfertilized total N data by site can be found in Appendix Table A.19.
31
Table 1.6. Interaction of fertilizer source, timing, and placement effects on grain yield and yield
components (kernel number and kernel weight) of corn grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (a total
of eight site-years). The data are sorted by yield group, with grain yield presented at 15.5%
moisture and kernel weight presented at 0% moisture.
Grain Yield Kernel Number Kernel Weight
Yield Group
Source Timing Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded
------- bu acre-1 ------- -------- kernel m-2 -------- ------ mg kernel-1 ------
Up-Front 129 141 3171 3281 218 229
Urea
Split 135 150 3367 3539 217 226
Low Up-Front 134 143 3330 3382 217 225
Blend
(<200 bu acre-1) Split 140 146 3525 3518 212 221
Up-Front 128 153 3190 3571 214 228
ESN
Split 134 146 3364 3576 214 218
LSD (α = 0.10) 8 NS NS
Up-Front 206 208 4861 4687 225 236

Urea
Split 210 211 4790 4779 234 236
Average Up-Front 213 205 4864 4702 234 232
(200-249 bu acre-1)
Blend
Split 211 208 4690 4685 240 238
Up-Front 206 210 4795 4775 230 235
ESN
Split 212 207 4929 4728 230 234
LSD (α = 0.10) NS 5 NS
Up-Front 257 264 5655 5750 245 245

Urea
Split 250 265 5702 5681 236 250
High Up-Front 260 266 5678 5953 246 240
(>250 bu acre-1)
Blend
Split 266 263 5802 5786 247 244
Up-Front 261 258 5663 5611 246 247
ESN
Split 258 263 5822 5762 238 245
LSD (α = 0.10) 10 5 NS
32
Table 1.7. Interaction of fertilizer source, timing, and placement effects on total nitrogen uptake, yield
efficiency, and nitrogen recovery efficiency corn grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-
years). The data are sorted by yield group, with total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture and yield
efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture.
Total Nitrogen Yield Efficiency † Recovery Efficiency ‡
Yield Group
--- lbs of N acre-1 --- bu lb-1 of N applied ------------ % ------------
Up-Front 131 162 0.16 0.22 20 37
Urea
Split 143 167 0.19 0.27 27 40
Low Up-Front 135 161 0.19 0.24 22 37
(<200 bu acre-1)
Blend
Split 152 164 0.22 0.25 32 38
Up-Front 130 177 0.15 0.29 20 46
ESN
Split 148 164 0.19 0.25 29 38
LSD (α = 0.10) 8 NS 4
Up-Front 225 235 0.47 0.48 57 63

Urea
Split 235 241 0.49 0.50 63 66
Average Up-Front 240 231 0.51 0.46 66 61
-1
(200-249 bu acre )
Blend
Split 235 231 0.50 0.48 63 61
Up-Front 223 237 0.47 0.49 56 64
ESN
Split 241 237 0.50 0.47 66 64
LSD (α = 0.10) NS 0.03 NS
Up-Front 259 267 0.44 0.48 51 55

Urea
Split 244 272 0.40 0.48 42 58
High Up-Front 262 275 0.46 0.49 53 60
(>250 bu acre-1)
Blend
Split 269 268 0.49 0.47 57 56
Up-Front 268 264 0.46 0.45 55 53
ESN
Split 256 269 0.44 0.47 49 57
LSD (α = 0.10) 10 0.03 6
† Yield efficiency calculated as: (Yieldtreatment – Yieldunfertilized) / lbs N applied. All unfertilized yield data
can be found in Appendix Table A.19.
‡ Recovery efficiency calculated as: (Total Nitrogentreatment – Total Nitrogenunfertilized) / lbs N applied. All
unfertilized total N data can be found in Appendix Table A.19.
33
Table 1.8. The effect of fertilizer source on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total plant nitrogen uptake,
yield efficiency, and recovery efficiency. Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years). The data are sorted by yield group,
with grain yield and yield efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen uptake presented at 0% moisture.
Yield Grain Kernel Kernel Total Yield Recovery
Source
Group Yield Number Weight Nitrogen Efficiency † Efficiency ‡
bu acre-1 kernel m-2 mg kernel-1 lbs of N acre-1 bu lb-1 of N applied ------ % ------
Urea 139 3339 223 151 0.21 31
Low
Blend 141 3439 219 153 0.22 32
(<200 bu acre-1)
ESN 140 3425 218 155 0.22 33
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS NS NS NS NS
Urea 209 4779 233 234 0.48 62

Average
Blend 209 4735 236 234 0.49 63
(200-249 bu acre-1)
ESN 209 4807 232 234 0.48 62
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS 3 NS NS NS
Urea 259 5697 244 260 0.45 52

High
Blend 264 5805 244 269 0.48 56
(>250 bu acre-1)
ESN 260 5715 244 264 0.46 54
LSD (α = 0.10) 3 NS NS 5 0.2 2
‡ Recovery efficiency calculated as: (Total Nitrogentreatment – Total Nitrogenunfertilized) / lbs N applied. All unfertilized total N data can be found in
Appendix Table A.19.
34
Table 1.9. The effect of fertilizer placement on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total nitrogen, yield
efficiency, and recovery efficiency. Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years). The data are sorted by yield group, with
grain yield and yield efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture.
Placement
bu acre-1 kernel m-2 mg kernel-1 lbs of N acre bu lb-1 of N applied
-1
------ % ------
Low Broadcast 134 3324 215 140 0.18 25
(<200 bu acre-1) Banded 147 3478 224 166 0.26 40
LSD (α = 0.10) 3 75 3 3 0.02 2
Average Broadcast 210 4822 232 233 0.49 62

-1
(200-249 bu acre ) Banded 208 4726 235 235 0.48 63
LSD (α = 0.10) NS 65 2 NS NS NS
High Broadcast 259 5720 243 260 0.45 51

(>250 bu acre-1) Banded 263 5757 245 269 0.47 57
LSD (α = 0.10) 2 NS NS 4 0.01 2
35
Table 1.10. The main effect of fertilizer application timing on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total
nitrogen uptake, yield efficiency, and recovery efficiency. Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years). The data are
sorted by yield group, with grain yield and yield efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen uptake presented at
0% moisture.
Timing
bu acre-1 kernel m-2 mg kernel-1 lbs of N acre bu lb-1 of N applied
-1
------ % ------
Low Up-Front 138 3321 222 150 0.21 30
(<200 bu acre-1) Split 142 3481 218 156 0.23 34
LSD (α = 0.10) 3 75 3 3 0.02 2
Average Up-Front 208 4781 232 232 0.48 61

-1
(200-249 bu acre ) Split 210 4767 235 237 0.49 64
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS 2 4 NS 2
High Up-Front 261 5718 245 266 0.46 55

(>250 bu acre-1) Split 261 5759 244 263 0.46 53
36
Table 1.11. Interaction of fertilizer source and placement on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total nitrogen,
yield efficiency, and recovery efficiency. Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years). The data are sorted by yield group,
with grain yield and yield efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture.
Grain Kernel Kernel Total Yield Recovery
Yield Yield Number Weight Nitrogen Efficiency † Efficiency ‡
Group
Source Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded
------ bu acre-1 ------ ----- kernel m-2 ----- ---- mg kernel-1 ---- -- lbs of N acre-1 -- bu lb-1 of N applied ---------- % ----------
Urea 132 146 3269 3410 217 228 137 165 0.18 0.25 24 39
Low
Blend 137 145 3428 3450 215 223 144 163 0.20 0.24 27 38
(<200 bu acre-1)
ESN 131 150 3277 3573 214 223 139 171 0.17 0.27 25 42
LSD (α = 0.10) 5 129 NS 5 0.03 3
Urea 208 209 4826 4733 229 236 230 238 0.48 0.49 60 64
Average
Blend 212 207 4777 4693 237 235 238 231 0.50 0.47 64 61
(200-249 bu acre-1)
ESN 209 209 4862 4752 230 235 232 237 0.49 0.48 61 64
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS 4 7 NS 4
Urea 254 264 5678 5715 240 248 251 270 0.42 0.48 47 57
High
Blend 263 265 5740 5870 246 242 266 272 0.47 0.48 55 58
(>250 bu acre-1)
ESN 259 261 5743 5687 242 246 262 266 0.45 0.46 52 55
LSD (α = 0.10) 4 NS 5 7 0.02 4
37
REFERENCES
Adriaanse, F. G., & Human, J. J. (1993). Effect of Time of Application and Nitrate: Ammonium
Ratio on Maize Grain Yield, Grain N Concentration and Soil Mineral N Concentration in
a Semi-Arid Region. Field Crops Research, 34(1), 57-70.
Assefa, Y., Vara Prasad, P. V., Carter, P., Hinds, M., Bhalla, G., Schon, R., Jeschke, M.,
Paszkiewicz, S., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2016). Yield Responses to Planting Density for US
Modern Corn Hybrids: A Synthesis-Analysis. Crop Science, 56(5), 2802–2817.
Assefa, Y., Prasad, P. V. V., Carter, P., Hinds, M., Bhalla, G., Schon, R., Jeschke, M.,
Paszkiewicz, S., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2017). A New Insight into Corn Yield: Trends from
1987 through 2015. Crop Science, 57(5), 2799–2811.
Below, F. E. (2001). Nitrogen Metabolism and Crop Productivity. In Handbook of Plant and
Crop Physiology (pp. 407-428). CRC Press.
Bender, R. R., Haegele, J. W., Ruffo, M. L., & Below, F. E. (2013). Nutrient Uptake,
Partitioning, and Remobilization in Modern, Transgenic Insect‐Protected Maize
Hybrids. Agronomy Journal, 105(1), 161-170.
Binder, D. L., Sander, D. H., & Walters, D. T. (2000). Maize Response to Time of Nitrogen
Application as Affected by Level of Nitrogen Deficiency. Agronomy Journal, 92(6),
1228-1236.
Bøckman, O. C., & Olfs, H. W. (1998). Fertilizers, Agronomy and N2O. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 52(2), 165-170.
Boman, R. K., Westerman, R. L., Raun, W. R., & Jojola, M. E. (1995). Time of Nitrogen
Application: Effects on Winter Wheat and Residual Soil Nitrate. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 59(5), 1364-1369.
38
Bly, A. G., & Woodard, H. J. (2003). Foliar Nitrogen Application Timing Influence on Grain
Yield and Protein Concentration of Hard Red Winter and Spring Wheat. Agronomy
Journal, 95(2), 335-338.
Cahill, S., Osmond, D., Weisz, R., & Heiniger, R. (2010). Evaluation of Alternative Nitrogen
Fertilizers for Corn and Winter Wheat Production. Agronomy Journal, 102(4), 1226-
1236.
Cambardella, C. A., Moorman, T. B., Jaynes, D. B., Hatfield, J. L., Parkin, T. B., Simpkins, W.
W., & Karlen, D. L. (1999). Water Quality in Walnut Creek Watershed: Nitrate‐Nitrogen
in Soils, Subsurface Drainage Water, and Shallow Groundwater. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 28(1), 25-34.
Cancellier, E. L., Silva, D. R. G., Faquin, V., Gonçalves, B. D. A., Cancellier, L. L., & Spehar,
C. R. (2016). Ammonia Volatilization from Enhanced-Efficiency Urea on No-till Maize
in Brazilian Cerrado with Improved Soil Fertility. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 40, 133-
144.
Cassman, K. G., Bryant, D. C., Fulton, A. E., & Jackson, L. F. (1992). Nitrogen Supply Effects
on Partitioning of Dry Matter and Nitrogen to Grain of Irrigated Wheat. Crop
Science, 32(5), 1251-1258.
Ciampitti, I. A., & Vyn, T. J. (2012). Physiological Perspectives of Changes Over Time in Maize
Yield Dependency on Nitrogen Uptake and Associated Nitrogen Efficiencies: A
Review. Field Crops Research, 133, 48-67.
39
Dinnes, D. L., Karlen, D. L., Jaynes, D. B., Kaspar, T. C., Hatfield, J. L., Colvin, T. S., &
Cambardella, C. A. (2002). Review and Interpretation: Nitrogen Management Strategies
to Reduce Nitrate Leaching in Tile-Drained Midwestern Soils. Agronomy Journal. 94(1),
153-171.
Fan, M. X., & MacKenzie, A. F. (1995). The Toxicity of Banded Urea to Corn Growth and Yield
as Influenced by Triple Superphosphate. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 75(1), 117–
122.
Farmaha, B. S., & Sims, A. L. (2013). The Influence of Polymer‐Coated Urea and Urea Fertilizer
Mixtures on Spring Wheat Protein Concentrations and Economic Returns. Agronomy
Journal, 105(5), 1328-1334.
Fernandez, J. A., DeBruin, J., Messina, C. D., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2020). Late-Season Nitrogen
Fertilization on Maize Yield: A Meta-Analysis. Field Crops Research, 247, 107586.
Fox, R. H., Kern, J. M., & Piekielek, W. P. (1986). Nitrogen Fertilizer Source, and Method and
Time of Application Effects on No‐Till Corn Yields and Nitrogen Uptakes. Agronomy
Journal, 78(4), 741-746.
Garcia, P. L., González-Villalba, H. A., Sermarini, R. A., & Trivelin, P. C. O. (2018). Nitrogen
Use Efficiency and Nutrient Partitioning in Maize as Affected by Blends of Controlled-
Release and Conventional Urea. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 64(14), 1944-
1962.
Garcia, P. L., Sermarini, R. A., & Trivelin, P. C. O. (2019). Effect of Nitrogen Rates Applying
Controlled-Release and Conventional Urea Blend in Maize. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 42(18), 2199-2208.
40
Garcia, P. L., Sermarini, R. A., & Trivelin, P. C. O. (2019). Placement Effect of Controlled-
Release and Conventional Urea Blend in Maize. Communications in Soil Science and
Plant Analysis, 50(18), 2321-2329.
Garcia, P. L., Sermarini, R. A., Filho, C. R. de S. A., Bendassolli, J. A., Boschiero, B. N., &
Trivelin, P. C. O. (2020). 15N-Fertilizer Recovery in Maize as an Additional Strategy for
Understanding Nitrogen Fertilization Management with Blends of Controlled-Release
and Conventional Urea. Agronomy Journal, 10(12), 1932.
Grant, C.A., Wu, R., Selles, F., Harker, K.N., Clayton, G.W., Bittman, S., Zebarth, B.J. and
Lupwayi, N.Z., (2012). Crop Yield and Nitrogen Concentration with Controlled Release
Urea and Split Applications of Nitrogen as Compared to Non-Coated Urea Applied at
Seeding. Field Crops Research, 127, 170-180.
Guo, J., Wang, Y., Blaylock, A. D., & Chen, X. (2017). Mixture of Controlled Release and
Normal Urea to Optimize Nitrogen Management for High-Yielding (> 15 Mg ha-1)
Maize. Field Crops Research, 204, 23-30.
Haegele, J. W., Cook, K. A., Nichols, D. M., & Below, F. E. (2013). Changes in Nitrogen Use
Traits Associated with Genetic Improvement for Grain Yield of Maize Hybrids Released
in Different Decades. Crop Science, 53(4), 1256-1268.
Halvorson, A. D., Del Grosso, S. J., & Alluvione, F. (2010). Nitrogen Source Effects on Nitrous
Oxide Emissions from Irrigated No‐till Corn. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(5),
1554-1562.
Halvorson, A. D., Del Grosso, S. J., & Jantalia, C. P. (2011). Nitrogen Source Effects on Soil
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Strip‐till Corn. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(6),
1775-1786.
41
Halvorson, A. D., & Bartolo, M. E. (2014). Nitrogen Source and Rate Effects on Irrigated Corn
Yields and Nitrogen‐Use Efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 106(2), 681-693.
Halvorson, A. D., Snyder, C. S., Blaylock, A. D., & Del Grosso, S. J. (2014). Enhanced‐
Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers: Potential Role in Nitrous Oxide Emission
Mitigation. Agronomy Journal, 106(2), 715-722.
Hatfield, J. L., & Parkin, T. B. (2014). Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers: Effect on Agronomic
Performance of Corn in Iowa. Agronomy Journal, 106(2), 771-780.
Hauck, R. D. (1985). Slow‐Release and Bioinhibitor‐Amended Nitrogen Fertilizers. Fertilizer
Technology and Use, 293-322.
Howard, D. D., & Tyler, D. D. (1989). Nitrogen Source, Rate, and Application Method for No‐
Tillage Corn. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 53(5), 1573-1577.
Hu, Q., & Buyanovsky, G. (2003). Climate Effects on Corn Yield in Missouri. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 42(11), 1626–1635.
Jones, D.B. (1941). Factors for Converting Percentages of Nitrogen in Foods and Feeds Into
Percentages of Protein. Circular 183. USDA, Washington, DC.
Lehrsch, G. A., Sojka, R. E., & Westermann, D. T. (2000). Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing,
and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield. Agronomy
Journal, 92(6), 1266-1275.
Lü, P., Zhang, J. W., Jin, L. B., Liu, W., Dong, S. T., & Liu, P. (2012). Effects of Nitrogen
Application Stage on Grain Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of High-Yield Summer
Maize. Plant, Soil and Environment, 58(5), 211-216
42
Malhi, S. S., Grant, C. A., Johnston, A. M., & Gill, K. S. (2001). Nitrogen Fertilization
Management for No-Till Cereal Production in the Canadian Great Plains: A Review. Soil
and Tillage Research, 60(3-4), 101-122.
Malhi, S. S., Johnston, A. M., Schoenau, J. J., Wang, Z. L., & Vera, C. L. (2006). Seasonal
Biomass Accumulation and Nutrient Uptake of Wheat, Barley, and Oat on a Black
Chernozem Soil in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86(4), 1005-1014.
Malhi, S. S., Soon, Y. K., Grant, C. A., Lemke, R., & Lupwayi, N. (2010). Influence of
Controlled-Release Urea on Seed Yield and N Concentration, and N Use Efficiency of
Small Grain Crops Grown on Dark Gray Luvisols. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science, 90(2), 363-372.
McKenzie, R. H., Middleton, A. B., Pfiffner, P. G., & Bremer, E. (2010). Evaluation of Polymer‐
Coated Urea and Urease Inhibitor for Winter Wheat in Southern Alberta. Agronomy
Journal, 102(4), 1210-1216.
Motavalli, P. P., Goyne, K. W., & Udawatta, R. P. (2008). Environmental Impacts of Enhanced‐
Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers. Crop Management, 7(1), 1-15.
Mueller, S. M., & Vyn, T. J. (2016). Maize Plant Resilience to N Stress and Post-Silking N
Capacity Changes Over Time: A Review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 53.
Mueller, S. M., Camberato, J. J., Messina, C., Shanahan, J., Zhang, H., & Vyn, T. J. (2017).
Late-Split Nitrogen Applications Increased Maize Plant Nitrogen Recovery but not Yield
Under Moderate to High Nitrogen Rates. Agronomy Journal, 109(6), 2689–2699.
Nafziger, E. D., & Rapp, D. (2021). Corn Yield Response to Late‐Split Nitrogen
Fertilizer. Agronomy Journal, 113(1), 527-536.
43
Nash, P. R., Nelson, K. A., & Motavalli, P. P. (2013). Corn Yield Response to Polymer and Non-
Coated Urea Placement and Timings. International Journal of Plant Production, 7(3),
374-392.
Nelson, K. A., Scharf, P. C., Bundy, L. G., & Tracy, P. (2008). Agricultural Management of
Enhanced‐Efficiency Fertilizers in the North‐Central United States. Crop
Management, 7(1), 1-12.
Nielsen, R. L. (2006, February). Nitrogen Loss Mechanisms and Nitrogen Use Efficiency.
In Purdue Nitrogen Management Workshops (pp. 1-5). West Lafayette, IN, USA: Purdue
University.
Nkebiwe, P. M., Weinmann, M., Bar-Tal, A., & Müller, T. (2016). Fertilizer Placement to
Improve Crop Nutrient Acquisition and Yield: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Field Crops
Research, 196, 389-401.
Noellsch, A. J., Motavalli, P. P., Nelson, K. A., & Kitchen, N. R. (2009). Corn Response to
Conventional and Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers Across a Claypan Landscape.
Agronomy Journal, 101(3), 607–614.
Oertli, J. J. (1980). Controlled-Release Fertilizers. Fertilizer Research, 1(2), 103-123.
Owens, L. B., Edwards, W. M., & Van Keuren, R. W. (1999). Nitrate Leaching from Grassed
Lysimeters Treated with Ammonium Nitrate or Slow‐Release Nitrogen Fertilizer (Vol.
28, No. 6, pp. 1810-1816). American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, and Soil Science Society of America.
Pack, J. E., Hutchinson, C. M., & Simonne, E. H. (2006). Evaluation of Controlled-Release
Fertilizers for Northeast Florida Chip Potato Production. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 29(7), 1301-1313.
44
Panison, F., Sangoi, L., Durli, M. M., Leolato, L. S., Coelho, A. E., Kuneski, H. F., & Liz, V. O.
D. (2019). Timing and Splitting of Nitrogen Side-Dress Fertilization of Early Corn
Hybrids for High Grain Yield. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 43.
Payne, K. M., Hancock, D. W., Cabrera, M. L., Lacy, R. C., & Kissel, D. E. (2015). Blending
Polymer‐Coated Nitrogen Fertilizer Improved Bermudagrass Forage Production. Crop
Science, 55(6), 2918-2928.
Peoples, M. B., Gault, R. R., Lean, B., Sykes, J. D., & Brockwell, J. (1995). Nitrogen Fixation
by Soybean in Commercial Irrigated Crops of Central and Southern New South
Wales. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 27(4-5), 553-561.
Raun, W. R., Sander, D. H., & Olson, R. A. (1989). Nitrogen Fertilizer Carriers and their
Placement for Minimum Till Corn Under Sprinkler Irrigation. Agronomy Journal, 81(2),
280-285.
Rinaldi, L. F., Garcia, P. L., Sermarini, R. A., & Trivelin, P. C. O. (2019). 15N-Urea Efficiency
in Maize as Influenced by Humic Substances and Urease Inhibitors
Treatments. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 50(2), 198-208.
Russelle, M. P., Hauck, R. D., & Olson, R. A. (1983). Nitrogen Accumulation Rates of Irrigated
Maize. Agronomy Journal, 75(4), 593-598.
Scharf, P. C., Wiebold, W. J., & Lory, J. A. (2002). Corn Yield Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer
Timing and Deficiency Level. Agronomy Journal, 94(3), 435-441.
Shapiro, C., Attia, A., Ulloa, S., & Mainz, M. (2016). Use of Five Nitrogen Source and
Placement Systems for Improved Nitrogen Management of Irrigated Corn. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 80(6), 1663-1674.
45
Shaviv, A. (1993). Controlled Supply of Fertilizers for Increasing Use Efficiency and Reducing
Environmental Damage. In Optimization of Plant Nutrition (pp. 651-656). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Shaviv, A., & Mikkelsen, R. L. (1993). Controlled-Release Fertilizers to Increase Efficiency of
Nutrient Use and Minimize Environmental Degradation-A Review. Fertilizer
Research, 35(1), 1-12.
Shaviv, A. (1996). Plant Response and Environmental Aspects as Affected by Rate and Pattern
of Nitrogen Release from Controlled Release N Fertilizers. In Progress in Nitrogen
Cycling Studies (pp. 285-291). Springer, Dordrecht.
Shaviv, A. (1999). Preparation Methods and Release Mechanisms of Controlled Release
Fertilisers. [Paper Presentation]. International Fertiliser Society 1999: International
Fertiliser Society Meeting, Brussels, Belgium.
Shaviv, A. (2001). Advances in Controlled-Release Fertilizers. Advances in Agronomy, 71(1),
1-79
Shoji, S., Delgado, J., Mosier, A., & Miura, Y. (2001). Use of Controlled Release Fertilizers and
Nitrification Inhibitors to Increase Nitrogen Use Efficiency and to Conserve Air and
Water Quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7-8), 1051-1070.
Singh, R., & Nye, P. H. (1988). A Model of Ammonia Volatilization from Applied Urea. Effect
of Method of Urea Application. Journal of Soil Science, 39(1), 9-14.
Sistani, K. R., Jn-Baptiste, M., & Simmons, J. R. (2014). Corn Response to Enhanced‐Efficiency
Nitrogen Fertilizers and Poultry Litter. Agronomy Journal, 106(2), 761-770.
46
Spackman, J. A., Fernandez, F. G., Coulter, J. A., Kaiser, D. E., & Paiao, G. (2019). Soil Texture
and Precipitation Influence Optimal Time of Nitrogen Fertilization for Corn. Agronomy
Journal, 111(4), 2018–2030.
Stanford, G., & Smith, S. J. (1972). Nitrogen Mineralization Potentials of Soils. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 36(3), 465-472.
Stevens, W. B., Hoeft, R. G., & Mulvaney, R. L. (2005). Fate of Nitrogen‐15 in a Long‐Term
Nitrogen Rate Study: Nitrogen Uptake Efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 97(4), 1046-1053.
Tomar, J. S., & Soper, R. J. (1981). Fate of Tagged Urea N in the Field with Different Methods
of N and Organic Matter Placement. Agronomy Journal, 73(6), 991-995.
Venterea, R. T., Maharjan, B., & Dolan, M. S. (2011). Fertilizer Source and Tillage Effects on
Yield‐Scaled Nitrous Oxide Emissions in a Corn Cropping System. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 40(5), 1521-1531.
Walsh, O., Raun, W., Klatt, A., & Solie, J. (2012). Effect of Delayed Nitrogen Fertilization on
Maize (Zea mays L.) Grain Yields and Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 35(4), 538-555.
Wang, F. L., & Alva, A. K. (1996). Leaching of Nitrogen from Slow‐Release Urea Sources in
Sandy Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(5), 1454-1458.
Wilson, M. L., Rosen, C. J., & Moncrief, J. F. (2009). Potato Response to a Polymer‐Coated
Urea on an Irrigated, Coarse‐Textured Soil. Agronomy Journal, 101(4), 897-905.
Xie, Y., Tang, L., Han, Y., Yang, L., Xie, G., Peng, J., Tian, C., Zhou, X., Liu, Q., Rong, X. and
Zhang, Y. (2019). Reduction in Nitrogen Fertilizer Applications by the Use of Polymer‐
Coated Urea: Effect on Maize Yields and Environmental Impacts of Nitrogen
Losses. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(5), 2259-2266.
47
Zheng, W., Zhang, M., Liu, Z., Zhou, H., Lu, H., Zhang, W., Yang, Y., Li, C. and Chen, B.
(2016). Combining Controlled-Release Urea and Normal Urea to Improve the Nitrogen
Use Efficiency and Yield Under Wheat-Maize Double Cropping System. Field Crops
Research, 197, 52-62.
Zheng, W., Liu, Z., Zhang, M., Shi, Y., Zhu, Q., Sun, Y., Zhou, H., Li, C., Yang, Y. and Geng, J.
(2017). Improving Crop Yields, Nitrogen Use Efficiencies, and Profits by Using Mixtures
of Coated Controlled-Released and Uncoated Urea in a Wheat-Maize System. Field
Crops Research, 205, 106-115.
48
CHAPTER 2: FOLIAR PROTECTION TO INCREASE THE YIELD RESPONSE OF
SOYBEAN TO NITROGEN MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Improved soybean genetic yield potential over time has created challenges for supplying
adequate crop nutrition (Boerma, 1979; de Felipe et al., 2016; Specht & Williams, 1984; Wilson
et al. 2014; Voldeng et al., 1997). As yield increases, so too do the nutrient requirements for the
crop. Soybean requires substantial N for growth and development (Sinclair & de Wit, 1975; Roth
et al., 2014; Bellaloui et al., 2015) largely due to its elevated protein concentration in the grain
(Egli, 1998). Soybean seed protein concentrations, however, are inversely related to yield level
and as grain yield increases the seed protein concentration decreases (Rowntree et al., 2013; Sebern
& Lambert, 1984; Wehrmann et al., 1987; Hartwig & Hinson, 1972). Unlike cereal crops, which
rely solely on fertilizer applications and soil mineralization for their N, soybean utilizes biological
N fixation (BNF) and soil mineralization as its main N sources. In BNF, atmospheric N2 gas is
reduced to ammonia, and assimilated by the soybean plant into multiple essential organic N
compounds (Wright & Lenssen, 2013).
A biologically-driven process, BNF is impacted by a host of environmental conditions.
Temperatures between 68 °F and 86 °F allow for optimal BNF to occur (Lindemann & Ham, 1979)
while a lack of available phosphorus (Chalk, 2000) or water stress (Santachiara et al., 2019; Pasley
et al., 2020) can all negatively impact the rate of BNF. Biological N fixation, however, cannot
provide for the full soybean N requirement as soybean plants only obtain 50-60% of their N needs
from BNF (Johnson et al., 1975; Salvagiotti et al., 2008). This percentage was later confirmed by
Ciampitti and Salvagiotti in 2018 where they reported that 55% of the total soybean N
49
accumulation was from BNF. This amount, even though not fully sufficient for soybean growth,
has long been advantageous for soybean production by alleviating the need for fertilizer N
applications. However, nitrate assimilation is more energetically favorable than BNF by as much
as 36%, creating opportunities for more effective crop nutrition and better growth with fertilizer
applications (Pate & Layzelle, 1990). Additionally, there has been extensive research to identify
when BNF is maximized during the growing season and when the rate of N fixation declines. The
peak of BNF is between the R3 and R5 growth stage (Zapata et al., 1987), and quickly declines
during mid-pod fill (Harper, 1987). These reported peaks align with the peak soybean N demand,
occurring from the R3 to the R6 growth stages (Harper & Cooper, 1971). The peak of N uptake
and partitioning by soybean was identified as occurring at R4, full pod, at an approximate rate of
4 lbs N acre-1 day-1 by Bender et al. (2015). After the peak in BNF occurs, soybean remobilizes N
from other parts of the plant to satisfy the ongoing N demand by the developing seed (Harper,
1987). By remobilizing N from the vegetative tissue to the seed during grain fill, the overall
photosynthetic capacity declines (Sinclair & de Wit, 1975). Shibles et al. (1987) highlighted the
importance of a large photosynthetic capacity throughout reproduction to maximize yield and
hypothesized that this remobilization of N was potentially a major yield limiting factor. Nodule
metabolism and BNF have also been identified as competitive sinks for photosynthate with other
plant tissues, including the seeds and pods, which can limit photoassimilate supply for grain yield
(Herridge & Pate, 1977; Lawn & Brun, 1974). These findings have prompted numerous studies
evaluating the effect of N applications on BNF and soybean yield, leading to varied results.
Soybean yield increases in response to N fertilizer applications were found in about half of the
published studies in 2008, with a corresponding yield threshold, 67 bushel acre-1, above which a
positive yield response became more likely (Salvagiotti et al., 2008). Findings of yield
50
enhancement from N fertilizer applications have been reported in some cases (Wesley et al., 1998;
Wood et al., 1993; Salvagiotti et al., 2009; Ryle, 1979; Silsbury, 1977; Thies et al., 1991), while
in others there have been reported negative effects on BNF and yield (Bhangoo & Albritton, 1976;
Ham et al., 1975; Yoneyama et al., 1985; Yoshida, 1979, Hungria et al., 2006; Tamagno et al.,
2018) or no effects (Slater et al., 1991; Welch et al., 1973; Cooper & Jeffers, 1984; Weber, 1966;
Reese & Buss, 1992; Poole et al., 1983; Purcell & King, 1996; Beard & Hoober, 1971; Barker &
Sawyer, 2005; Freeborn et al., 2001; Gan et al., 2003; Wingeyer et al., 2014).
While yield responses of soybean to N applications have been variable, reducing BNF with
fertilizer N is not ideal. One negative aspect of fertilizer N on BNF is the reduction in the relative
abundance of ureides, the transportation molecule for N originating from BNF, in stems when any
N fertilizer was applied (de Borja Reis et al., 2021). It has been hypothesized that better placement
of N fertilizer may help to mitigate the negative effect of applied N on BNF (Harper & Cooper,
1971) and deep placement of early-season N applications have reduced the magnitude of BNF
inhibition, but also did not increase grain yield, potentially indicating the lack of plant access to
these types of N applications (Salvagiotti et al., 2009). Because of the high demand for N during
reproductive growth, late-season N applications may help to maintain leaf area duration and
photosynthesis when N is remobilized to the seed (Salvagiotti et al., 2009). By making two
applications of N during the growing season, leaf SPAD values were increased during both
flowering and pod fill (Bobrecka-Jamro et al., 2018). Late-season N applications made during seed
fill were found to not reduce BNF (Moreira et al., 2017), and in several instances have increased
yield (Wesley et al., 1998; Gutierrez-Boem et al., 2004). Nitrogen applications during reproductive
stages can be made at various times with differential effects as supplying N during early and full
bloom increased yield up to 33%, while N added during pod fill did not influence grain yield
51
(Brevedan et al., 1978). The yield increase from N applications during the bloom stage originated
from greater seed number, which was the result of more nodes per plant and reduced flower
abscission by up to 10% (Brevedan et al., 1978). This finding has been confirmed by other research
that also identifies seed number as the main driver of greater soybean yield (Rotundo et al., 2012).
Additionally, greater plant biomass is associated with both a greater seed number and heavier seed
weight (La Menza et al., 2017). Collectively, this provides a potential mechanism for increasing
soybean yield with N applications, using N applications early in the season and during the entire
growing season to increase whole plant biomass, and not only targeting reproductive growth for
N applications. Research conducted by Ortez et al. (2018) showed that season-long N applications
increased plant biomass by 18% and grain yield by 12%, while only applying N during the
reproductive stages did not increase yield. Similarly, applying N at the V4 growth stage increased
whole plant biomass more than R1 applications, though both resulted in greater growth and yield
compared to the unfertilized control (McCoy et al., 2018). Nitrogen applications applied at
planting to improve early-season plant health have also been shown to increase soybean yield
(Starling et al., 1998; Sorensen & Penas, 1978). Soybean biomass accumulation increased with
increasing rates of N fertilizer applied, resulting in lower BNF and relative ureide abundance, but
also increased soybean yield (Osborne & Riedell, 2006). Increasing plant biomass, however,
impacts BNF as larger soybean plants require a greater amount of N creating a greater gap between
the amount of N supplied by BNF and the total N requirement (Córdova et al., 2019; Ciampitti &
Salvagiotti, 2018). This gap increases the value of N fertilizer applications to the total soybean N
requirement, resulting in a potentially greater likelihood for a positive yield response when
soybean biomass is elevated.
52
Because management practices other than N availability can influence soybean yield
(Frederick et al., 1991; Heatherly & Elmore, 2004; Bastidas et al., 2008; Bradley & Sweets, 2008),
evaluating the soybean yield response to fertilizer N applications should also consider the
interaction of N fertilization with other common management practices. When reproductive-stage
N fertilizer applications were evaluated across multiple varieties, row spacings, and planting dates,
the N applications did not increase yield or interact with any of these management practices
(Freeborn et al., 2001). Because a water deficit is the most common abiotic stress in soybean
(Purcell & Specht, 2004), and water stress during grain fill has a significant influence on seed yield
(Ashley & Ethridge, 1978; Doss & Thurlow, 1974; Korte et al., 1983; Kadhem et al., 1985; Klocke
et al., 1989; Specht et al., 1989; Sionit & Kramer, 1977), managing irrigation is another important
practice to consider. Irrigation has increased yield compared to rainfed production in past research
(Specht et al., 1999; Heatherly, 1983; Irmak et al., 2014; Ray et al., 2006) with the main influence
on yield being greater seed number (Heatherly, 1993). As expected, the yield increase from
irrigation was most prevalent when rainfall was insufficient, leading to environmental limitations
on plant-available water (Irmak et al., 2014). Nitrogen applications have been shown to increase
yield under both rainfed and irrigated conditions, but greater yield responses to additional N have
been observed with rainfed conditions (Ray et al., 2006). This result may indicate that irrigation
limits the yield responses to N fertilizer by increasing nitrate leaching and reducing N availability.
More research is needed to evaluate the yield response of soybean to irrigation and the interaction
with additional N fertilizer applications.
Foliar protection has been widely researched, resulting in various yield outcomes. Foliar
applications of fungicide and/or insecticide have been identified as the farmer practice most
commonly associated with higher soybean yield, on average increasing yield by 3 bushel acre-1
53
(Villamil et al., 2012). An analysis of 60 site-years of data found a similar result, showing that an
R3 application of fungicide increased soybean yield by 3 bushel acre-1 (Orlowski et al., 2016).
Yield increases from foliar fungicide and insecticide was shown to result from greater seed weight
(Henry et al., 2011). These findings indicate that foliar protection applications are an important
tool for managing soybean for higher yield. There are many other research findings, however, that
report no yield increase from making prophylactic applications of fungicide and insecticide (Gregg
et al., 2015; Mourtzinis et al., 2016; Orlowski et al., 2016; Kyveryga et al., 2013; Kandel et al.,
2016; Ng et al., 2018; Bluck et al., 2015; Swoboda and Pederson, 2009). Without insect damage
above published thresholds, including an insecticide in a foliar protection application did not result
in increased yield (Gregg et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2018). Similarly, fungicide applications resulted
in greater yield increases as foliar disease pressure increased (Ng et al., 2018). The optimal growth
stage for a fungicide application is typically the R3 growth stage, while applications at R1 or R5
have been shown to reduce yields (Swoboda & Pederson, 2009). However, in some cases fungicide
applications have increased soybean yield even when the application of the fungicide did not
reduce the incidence of disease (Ng et al., 2018), indicating that fungicides may have additional
plant benefits beyond disease control. Swoboda and Pederson (2009) observed no yield increase
with the application of fungicide but recorded a 10% increase in plant biomass when a strobilurin
fungicide was applied. This increase in biomass, similar to that observed from nitrogen
applications, indicates potential opportunities to combine foliar fungicide with N fertilizer
applications to optimize soybean yield.
Soybean yield responses to additional N fertilizer applications have been inconsistent in
published research, even though BNF cannot fully supply soybean’s N requirement. The negative
impact of N fertilizer applications on soybean nodulation and BNF is commonly linked to the lack
54
of a positive yield response. More research is needed to determine how managing N fertilizer
applications with alternate placements and timings could reduce the negative impact of N on
nodulation and increase grain yield. Combining foliar protection with N fertilizer applications may
enhance the benefits of supplemental N by protecting the leaf area duration and improving the N-
induced maintenance of photosynthesis. However, there is a lack of research describing the
potential of this management combination to enhance soybean yield. Therefore, the objective of
this study was to examine the potential of foliar protection to enhance the yield response of soybean
to N fertilizer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field Characteristics and Agronomic Management
This experiment was conducted over the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons at Champaign,
Illinois (40°04'40.2"N 88°14'35.8"W). Pre-plant soil measurements for organic matter, pH, nitrate
(using KCL extraction) and mineral composition (using Melich-3 extraction) were obtained from
cores sampled to a depth of 12 inches. The primary soil type of the site was a Drummer silty clay
loam and soil test results from analysis by A & L Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc. (Ft. Wayne, IN)
for both years are shown in Table 2.1. Weather data from both years, including monthly
precipitation totals and average temperatures, is displayed in Table 2.2.
In both years corn was the previous crop and was grown with conventional tillage (primary
tillage in fall with chisel plow and secondary tillage in spring with a field cultivator). In 2020, the
Asgrow varieties AG36X6 and AG39X7 were planted on 13 May. In 2021, the Asgrow soybean
varieties AG36X6 and AG39XF1 were planted on 16 April. In both years, the seed was sown using
a precision plot planter (SeedPro 360, ALMACO, Nevada, IA) to target a final population of
55
160,000 plants acre-1. Experimental units were plots four rows wide and 36 feet in length with a
30-inch row spacing. All of the experiments were maintained weed-free with pre-emergence and
in-season herbicide applications. The time of application, specific products used, product
descriptions, and the rate of each product applied can be found in Appendix B (Tables B.1. and
B.2.).
Treatments
This experiment was designed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of placement and
timing combinations of nitrogen fertilizer on soybean yield across a variety of management
practices. A complete factorial design was used to compare four nitrogen applications across two
soybean varieties, two foliar protection treatments, and three irrigation methods (Table 2.3). All
nitrogen applications were made as 32% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN – 32%) at a total rate of
75 lbs N acre-1 at two separate timings, either prior to planting or side-dress, at the R3 growth
stage. Pre-plant nitrogen was applied either broadcast onto the soil surface or banded two inches
below and two inches beside the soybean seed. Side-dress applications were made at the R3 growth
stage and applied either by a simulated Y-drop method, i.e., poured on the soil surface along the
crop row, or banded between the crop row by using a coulter. All treatments were compared to an
unfertilized control treatment, which received no nitrogen applications. Foliar protection
applications, consisting of both an insecticide (Endigo ZC, 4.0 fl oz acre-1) and a fungicide (Miravis
Top, 13.7 fl oz acre-1), at the R3 growth stage in both years and compared to experimental units
that did not receive any foliar protection applications. All combinations of nitrogen applications,
foliar protection applications, and variety were replicated four times within the three irrigation
methods serving as whole-plot factors. The Rainfed blocks were only supplied by natural rainfall,
while the Irrigated and Fertigated blocks received supplemental irrigation through a sub-surface
56
drip system (Netafim USA, Fresno, CA) whenever necessary based on the current rainfall, the
soybean water use by growth stage, and the soil water holding capacity. No irrigation applications
were made during the vegetative growth stages in either year. During reproductive growth,
fertigation applications were made according to soybean growth stages while irrigation
applications were only made to balance the water applied during fertigation. A total of 2.5 inches
of water was applied during the 2020 growing season while a total of 2.25 inches of water was
applied during the 2021 growing season (Table B.3). While both the Irrigated and Fertigated
blocks were balanced for water, the Fertigated blocks received an additional 75 lbs N acre-1 during
the reproductive growth stages through the subsurface drip system. This fertigation was applied
using a Netaflex 3g open-tank mixing system (Netafim USA, Fresno, CA). The 75 lbs N acre-1
total fertigated amount was divided into six equal applications of 12.5 lbs N acre-1 corresponding
to each reproductive growth stage from R1-R5.5. Dripper lines for the subsurface-drip system were
30 inches apart and 14-16 inches deep and ran the length of the field.
Measured Parameters
In 2020 and 2021, canopy coverage of the soil surface comparing pre-plant nitrogen
applications to the unfertilized control were determined using pictures taken of each plot five feet
above the top of the crop canopy (Canopeo; Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA) at the V6 growth stage
on 25 June in 2020 and 22 June in 2021. Nodule development was quantified at the V6 and R3
growth stages in 2020 and at V6, R3, and R5 in 2021 (Table 2.5). To determine nodule
development, four plants were sampled from the outside rows of each plot by digging a
circumference of four inches around the base of the plant and 10 inches down into the soil to collect
the soybean root system. Roots were evaluated for nodule number by rating them on a 0-3 scale.
A score of 0 indicated that no nodules were present, a score of 1 indicated that nodules were only
57
present on the taproot of the soybean, a 2 indicated that nodules were present on both the taproot
and on 1 to 3 lateral roots, and a rating of 3 indicated that nodules were present on the taproot and
more than 3 lateral roots. All canopy coverage and nodule rating measurements were conducted
on plots within Rainfed blocks to make these conclusions more relevant to the majority of soybean
acres grown in Illinois. In 2021, all nodule rating timings were coupled with plant biomass
accumulation measurements. Four plants per plot were removed from the plot by digging a
circumference of four inches around the base of the plant and 10 inches down into the soil to collect
the soybean root system. The soil was removed from the sample by soaking the roots in water for
several hours. Then the plants were partitioned into aboveground and belowground segments by
cutting the stem at the observed soil line. These plant samples were used to determine the total
biomass accumulation through a series of weighing and processing steps. After weighing the
above- and below-ground samples at field moisture, these samples were dried to 0% moisture in a
forced-air oven at 167 °F, to determine the dry weight of both portions and calculate the total plant
biomass accumulated. The center two rows of each plot were mechanically harvested for
determination of grain yield and harvest moisture, and the yield subsequently standardized to
bushels per acre at 13% moisture. Subsamples of the harvested grain were evaluated for yield
components (average seed weight and seed number per land area) and for grain quality (protein
and oil concentrations) using near-infrared transmittance spectroscopy (Infratec 1241; FOSS,
Denmark). Seed weight and grain quality are presented at 13% moisture.
Statistical Analysis
Treatments were arranged in a split plot experimental design with irrigation method as a
whole-plot factor and sub-plot factors being a factorial arrangement of soybean variety, foliar
protection, and nitrogen treatment (Figure 2.1). All treatments were replicated four times for a total
58
of 480 plot evaluations across the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons. When the main effect of
irrigation method was analyzed, the Fertigated block had greater yield than either the Rainfed or
Irrigated blocks. However, because of the design of the sub-surface drip irrigation system and the
factorial arrangement of treatments, nitrogen rate was not balanced for all nitrogen treatments, as
most plots within the fertigation blocks received an additional 75 lbs N acre-1. The increased yield
in the Fertigation block reflects the effect of the additional N application and cannot be compared
to the Rainfed or Irrigated blocks. Therefore, the treatments with unbalanced amounts of nitrogen
were removed from the analysis to be able to identify the impact of the fertilizer placement and
timing and not the nitrogen rate on soybean growth and yield. This adjustment left the Rainfed and
Irrigated blocks which, when the main effect of irrigation method was analyzed, showed that there
was no significant difference between these irrigation methods and no significant interactions with
and of the other sub-plot factors. The Rainfed block was dropped from the final statistical analysis
so that there would not be an uneven number of replications for the N placement and timing
combinations. Additionally, the control treatment (no pre-plant or side-dress, non-fertigated N)
from the Fertigated block was included as a unique N treatment in the Irrigated block. Because
this treatment received an equal N rate as other treatments, 75 lbs N acre-1, and the same irrigation
applications during the growing season, it was included in the Irrigated block for statistical analysis
and referred to as Root Zone placement with a R1-R5.5 application timing. The treatments used in
the final statistical analyses are displayed in Table 2.4. Nodule rating, shoot biomass accumulation,
root biomass accumulation, grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed weight), and
seed quality (protein and oil concentrations) data were analyzed using PROC MIXED in SAS
(version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). For soybean growth evaluations (nodule rating, shoot and
root biomass accumulation), the crop years were analyzed separately, due to the unbalanced
59
number of treatments evaluated while the nitrogen application and variety were used as fixed
effects, plus replication was set as a random effect. Grain yield, yield components, and seed quality
were analyzed with year, nitrogen application, foliar treatment, and variety as fixed effects and
replication as a random effect. Least square means were separated using the PDIFF option of
LSMEANS in SAS PROC MIXED. Fixed effects were considered significant in all statistical
calculations if P ≤ 0.10.
RESULTS
Weather
In 2020, the soybean production year experienced slightly above-average precipitation and
below-average temperatures (Table 2.2). During August of 2020, two fewer inches of rainfall were
received than average, which may have impacted the grain filling period. Temperatures in 2020
were consistent with the 30-year average and only deviated by 0.8 oF. Precipitation trends in 2021
were different than the 2020 growing season, as April and May received 1.6 and 1.3 fewer inches
of rainfall, respectively. This lack of early-season rainfall was offset by the month of June, which
received three more inches of rainfall than the 30-year average. While 2020 recorded little rainfall
in August, August 2021 rainfall was above average, creating a better environment for the grain
filling period. In contrast with the above-average precipitation in August 2021, temperatures in
August 2021 were 2.1 oF higher than average (Table 2.2).
Nodule Rating
Nodulation at the V6 growth stage was greater in 2020 than in 2021 (Table 2.5). Even
though nodulation differed at the V6 growth stage from 2020 to 2021, the unfertilized control in
both years had the same rating at the R3 growth stage. In both 2020 and 2021, banded placement
60
of pre-plant N significantly reduced nodulation at the V6 growth stage. In contrast, broadcast
placement had no impact on nodulation compared to the unfertilized control at V6. However, any
pre-plant N application, regardless of placement, reduced nodulation compared to the unfertilized
control at the R3 growth stage and there was no difference between placement methods. In 2021,
nodulation was evaluated at growth stage R5 and the pre-plant broadcast application had no effect
on nodulation, but banded placement reduced nodulation. While the R3 applications of N did not
significantly affect nodulation compared to the control, the Y-drop placement reduced nodulation
compared to a mid-row placement, and numerically reduced nodulation compared to the control.
Soybean Canopy Coverage and Biomass Accumulation
Canopy coverage measurements were performed in both 2020 and 2021 at the V6 growth
stage to evaluate the effect of pre-plant N on vegetative growth. Pre-plant N, regardless of
placement, produced a larger soybean canopy at V6 (Figure 2.2). In addition to canopy coverage,
soybean shoot biomass accumulation was measured at three timings, V6, R3, and R5, and root
biomass accumulation at R3 and R5. The V6 shoot biomass was significantly increased with the
addition of pre-plant N, regardless of placement (Table 2.6). At R3, a similar trend was observed,
when compared to the unfertilized control plants, any addition of pre-plant N led to significantly
heavier plants. However, banded placement resulted in the heaviest plants at R3, which were
significantly greater than those that received broadcast N. The tendency for pre-plant banding to
increase the shoot biomass was also observed at R5 but was not statistically significant. A pre-
plant banded application of N resulted in greater above-ground growth at V6 and R3, while a
broadcast N application increased the shoot growth compared to the unfertilized control at both
V6 and R3. Root biomass accumulation followed a similar pattern as the shoot, with N applications
increasing the amount at R3, and banded placement generating the heaviest roots of all treatments
61
(Table 2.6). Banded placement also increased root biomass at R5, while all other N applications
did not increase root biomass compared to the unfertilized control. Side-dress applications of N at
R3 did not affect either shoot or root biomass accumulated by the R5 growth stage. Applying N
pre-plant increases both shoot and root biomass at V6 and R3 with banded placement resulting in
the largest shoots and roots. Side-dress applications of N did not affect either shoot or root growth,
while Y-drop applications tended to decrease the shoot biomass accumulated at R5 compared to
the unfertilized control.
Grain Yield, Yield Components, and Seed Quality
Rainfed and Irrigated blocks yielded the same when averaged across nitrogen applications,
foliar treatments, and varieties in both 2020 and 2021 (Table 2.7). Because there was no difference
in yield between the Rainfed and Irrigated treatments, and no significant interactions with other
factors, the data from the Rainfed blocks were removed from the analysis. Therefore, data from all
nitrogen applications, foliar treatments, varieties, and year interactions presented after Table 2.7
are derived from the Irrigated treatment blocks with the addition of the control treatment from the
Fertigated block. Because this fertigated treatment received the same N rate as other treatments,
75 lbs N acre-1, and the same irrigation applications during the growing season, it was included in
the Irrigated block for statistical analysis and referred to as Root Zone placement with a R1-R5.5
application timing. The average soybean grain yield in 2020 was 63 bushel acre-1 while in 2021
the average yield was 89 bushel acre-1 (Table 2.7). The difference in yield level was driven by seed
number, as 2021 averaged 1,072 more seeds m-2 than 2020. Lower seed number in 2020 resulted
in greater seed weight than in 2021, averaging 2 mg seed-1 heavier. Even as grain yield increased,
seed protein concentration was 0.7 percentage points higher and oil concentration increased by 0.2
percentage points from 2020 to 2021. The year, nitrogen application, foliar treatment, and the
62
interactions between the year and nitrogen application, the nitrogen application and foliar
treatment, and the year and variety affected soybean grain yield (Table 2.8). Because of the
distinctly different yield environments, the year that the trial was implemented significantly
influenced yield, yield components, and seed quality variables.
Overall, the soybean grain yield, seed weight, and both seed protein and oil concentrations
varied significantly, depending upon the time and method of nitrogen application (Table 2.9). Root
zone placement of N during the plant reproductive stages was the only nitrogen application that
increased yield, by 2 bushel acre-1, compared to the unfertilized control. This greater yield was due
to a 2 mg seed-1 increase in seed weight and also resulted in a 0.2 percentage point greater seed
protein concentration. Protein and oil concentrations in the seed were inversely related, as greater
seed protein in response to the root zone N placement decreased seed oil concentration. Nitrogen
supplied as a Pre-plant Band, R3 Mid-row, or R3 Y-drop reduced seed protein concentration and
resulted in greater seed oil concentration, while Pre-plant Broadcast fertilization had no effect on
seed protein or oil concentrations (Table 2.9).
Both foliar treatment and the interaction between foliar treatment and nitrogen application
significantly affected yield and yield components but not seed quality (Table 2.8). The addition of
foliar protection at the R3 growth stage increased yield by 3 bushel acre-1 when averaged across
the year, variety, and all nitrogen applications (Table 2.10). This yield increase from foliar
protection was the result of both greater seed number, 84 seeds m-2, and seed weight, 2 mg seed-1.
Without foliar protection, no nitrogen application increased yield compared to the unfertilized
control (Table 2.10). The addition of foliar protection did not increase yield when added to the
unfertilized control, but all N applications in combination with foliar protection numerically
increased yield compared to the control, except for R3 Y-drop. The pre-plant broadcast and R1-
63
R5.5 root zone placement increased yield over the unfertilized control with foliar protection by 4
and 6 bushel acre-1 respectively. Compared to the control with foliar protection, fertilizing with
pre-plant broadcast N increased seed number by 116 seeds m-2 and seed weight by 3 mg seed-1,
while the R1-R5.5 root zone placement resulted in 193 more seeds m-2 and 3 mg seed-1 heavier
seeds. The pre-plant band and R3 Mid-row fertilizer treatments led to significantly greater yield
when combined with foliar protection compared to without the foliar protection. However, when
the plants received the insecticide and fungicide foliar protection, those two fertilizer treatments
only numerically increased yield compared to the unfertilized control (Table 2.10).
Soybean grain yield responses to the different nitrogen applications varied by year,
indicating that the yield environment had an impact on the response to additional nitrogen. None
of the pre-plant or R3 nitrogen applications in either 2020 or 2021 changed grain yield compared
to the unfertilized control (Table 2.11). In contrast, supplying nitrogen during the reproductive
growth stages in the root zone increased yield in 2020 by 6 bushel acre-1, but there was no yield
increase in 2021 (Table 2.11). This higher yield was mainly the result of increased seed weight,
by 3 mg seed-1, though root zone placement also led to numerically greater seed number. In both
years, there was no significant impact on seed quality by any addition of nitrogen fertilizer. The
interaction of year, nitrogen application, and foliar protection did not have a significant impact on
yield, yield components, or seed quality (Table 2.8), indicating that the influence of foliar
protection on nitrogen application did not vary from year to year (Table 2.12).
DISCUSSION
This study showed that safe placement of N fertilizer can increase soybean grain yield, but
only when foliar protection was included in the management system. Though optimum N fertilizer
64
applications resulted in maximum grain yield, the soil supply of N through mineralization and the
N provided by BNF produced approximately 90% of that maximum yield (Table 2.10). In 2009,
similar results were described by Salvagiotti et al. with the soil providing almost all the soybean
N requirement but attributed the yield increase with N fertilizer to the overall yield level being
above 67 bushel acre-1. This threshold, outlined by Salvagiotti et al. (2008), suggests that above a
certain yield level soybean will respond to additional N fertilizer applications, but this assertion
was not true in this study. In 2020, the only response to N fertilizer occurred when yield was above
67 bushel acre-1, supporting the threshold response hypothesis, but in 2021 when the yield level
was much greater, there was no yield response to N fertilizer applications even though the
threshold would suggest an increased likelihood of an observed N response (Table 2.12). Rather,
the placement and timing of the N fertilizer application in combination with other management
practices determined the potential yield response to additional N fertilizer in soybean.
Nitrogen fertilizer applications reduced soybean nodulation and thereby negatively
impacted BNF (Table 2.5), as has been widely described in past research (Bhangoo & Albritton,
1976; Ham et al., 1975; Yoneyama et al., 1985; Yoshida, 1979, Hungria et al., 2006; Tamagno et
al., 2018). While soybean nodulation was impacted by N fertilization, the placement of N
application determined the magnitude or the impact, which agrees with other research suggesting
that better placement of N fertilizer may mitigate the inhibition of BNF (Harper & Cooper, 1971).
For pre-plant applications, better placement was a broadcast application of N on the soil surface,
which did not reduce nodulation at V6 in either year (Table 2.5). In contrast, banded placement of
the N fertilizer, 2” below and 2” beside the seed, reduced nodulation. These early season impacts
on soybean nodulation with N fertilizer placement were consistent across the two years which had
distinct soil conditions influencing nodulation. In 2021, total nodulation was less than in 2020
65
because of earlier planting which subjected the crop to cooler temperatures, which can limit nodule
growth and BNF (Lindemann & Ham, 1979). However, in both diverse years the banded N
placement reduced early season nodulation while the broadcast placement had no effect.
Regardless of placement, applying any N fertilizer, broadcast or banded, reduced soybean
nodulation at the R3 growth stage. While better fertilizer placement may mitigate the inhibition of
BNF, it could not prevent the reduction in nodulation with N fertilizer applications that has been
widely observed. Some late-season N applications have not reduced BNF (Moreira et al., 2017),
which was also observed in this research as both R3 applications of N, placed Mid-row or Y-drop,
had no impact on soybean nodulation at R5. The banded placement of N pre-plant was the only
treatment that affected nodulation at the R5 growth stage suggesting that early season impacts on
nodulation may carry through the season to affect late season growth.
The impact of N fertilization on soybean growth, specifically biomass, has been used in
the past to identify the best N fertilizer applications that can be safely used to increase grain yield.
This research attempted to quantify both above- and below-ground growth to fully understand how
N fertilizer applications are impacting the soybean crop. Pre-plant applications of N increased
shoot biomass compared to the unfertilized control, regardless of placement, at both the V6 and
R3 growth stages while R3 applications had no impact on shoot biomass at R5 (Table 2.6). McCoy
et al. (2018) reported similar results, as early season N fertilizer applications increased soybean
biomass more than applications made during reproduction. While plant biomass was not impacted
by reproductive-stage N applications in this study, these treatments may have had other impacts
on soybean growth that were not quantified. For example, Bobrecka-Jamro et al. (2018) reported
that late season N applications increased soybean leaf SPAD values during both flowering and pod
fill. Nitrogen applications that have increased soybean biomass may still result in both higher seed
66
number and seed weight (La Menza et al., 2017) with Rotundo et al. (2012) identifying seed
number as the main driver of greater soybean yield. Applying N fertilizer to soybean targets greater
yield by increasing plant biomass, and as a result seed number and weight. In this study, the
increases in soybean plant biomass with N applications were much less than reported in other
research linking biomass increases to higher yield (Ortez et al., 2018). The greatest increase in
plant biomass observed in this research was 9%, due to a pre-plant banded N fertilization compared
to the unfertilized control (Table 2.6), which is half of the observed increase in biomass reported
by Ortez et al. (2018). The limited growth response in this research compared to others may explain
why there were limited yield increases in response to some of the N applications. While most prior
research evaluated the above-ground biomass accumulation of the crop to determine the effect of
N applications on soybean growth, the research presented here is unique because the root biomass
of the crop was also evaluated. Greater root biomass resulting from pre-plant N applications (Table
2.6), potentially increases the plant’s access to soil nutrients and water throughout the growing
season, but these heavier roots came at the expense of BNF and a reduction in total nodulation
(Table 2.6). The tendency for N applications to increase shoot and root biomass and reduce
nodulation makes better fertilizer placement more important. Broadcast placement of pre-plant N
fertilizer is the safest for BNF, provides early season N, and also increases soybean growth both
above and below ground.
In this research, there were limited yield responses to the conventional N applications,
either pre-plant or R3 (Table 2.9), which agrees with a large number of other studies (Slater et al.,
1991; Welch et al., 1973; Cooper & Jeffers, 1984; Weber, 1966; Resse & Buss, 1992; Poole et al.,
1983; Purcell & King, 1996; Beard & Hoover, 1971; Barker & Sawyer, 2005; Freeborn et al.,
2001; Gan et al., 2003; Wingeyer et al., 2014). However, the Root Zone placement of N throughout
67
reproductive growth increased yield by producing heavier seed (Table 2.9). Past research of
reproductive-stage N applications by Brevedan et al. (1978) reported yield increases with both
singular and multiple N applications by reducing pod abortion and increasing seed number. The
grain yield response to N fertilizer was different between 2020 and 2021, as any N application
made in 2021 did not increase yield except for the Root Zone placement which increased yield by
6 bushel acre-1 in 2020 (Table 2.11). An optimum N application timing and placement
combination, R1-R5.5 in the Root Zone, increased yield the most in a lower-yield environment,
67 bushel acre-1, compared to a high-yield environment, 89 bushel acre-1. This finding contradicts
Salvagiotti et al. (2008) who supposed that N responses would be more likely when soybean yield
was greater than 67 bushel acre-1, but rather this study indicated that additional N applications were
most beneficial when the soil supply of N is low. Despite the variation across years, a novel result
from the Root Zone N application is the simultaneous increase in yield and protein concentration,
breaking the previously established inverse relationship between soybean yield and grain protein
(Rowntree et al., 2013; Sebern & Lambert, 1984; Wehrmann et al., 1987; Hartwig & Hinson,
1972), and potentially presenting a management strategy to simultaneously improve soybean grain
quality and yield. Nitrogen applications have been widely studied in combination with other
management practices, but Freeborn et al. (2001) reported no yield increase from N applications
and no positive interactions of N fertilization with soybean varieties, row spacings, or planting
dates. However, the interaction between N fertilizer and foliar protection has not been widely
evaluated as a management combination, likely because of the lack of a research consensus that
foliar protection consistently increases yield. In this research, foliar protection (fungicide and
insecticide) increased yield by 3 bushel acre-1 (Table 2.10), which aligns with the findings of
Villamil et al. (2012) that identified foliar protection applications as the farmer practice most
68
commonly associated with higher soybean yield. Orlowski et al. (2016) found a similar yield
increase of 3 bushel acre-1 but were only evaluating yield response to fungicide. In the data
presented here, foliar protection applications increased yield and interacted with N fertilizer
applications to maximize soybean yield (Table 2.10). Without a foliar protection application, there
was no yield increase in response to any N application, including the Root Zone placement, while
both of the pre-plant placement methods tended to reduce yield compared to the control (Table
2.10). This result may be because these N applications increased plant biomass, and thereby
increased the total N demand by the soybean plant (Córdova et al., 2019, Ciampitti & Salvagiotti,
2018). Without a foliar protection application to preserve reproduction-stage photosynthesis, these
pre-plant, R3, and R1-R5.5 N applications did not increase yield. But when foliar protection
applications were combined with N fertilizer, most N treatments tended to increase yield compared
to the control, with pre-plant broadcast and R1-R5.5 Root Zone placement increasing yield the
most. Both of these N applications increased seed number and seed weight, but the Root Zone
placement led to the greatest seed number, potentially supporting the Brevedan et al. (1978)
conclusion that reproductive N applications reduced pod abscission. Nitrogen applications with
foliar protection had no impact on seed quality, however Root Zone placement of N with foliar
protection increased yield by 7 bushel acre-1 and had no reduction in seed protein (Table 2.10).
This finding further confirms that N applications directly in the root zone throughout reproductive
growth may be a management practice that overcomes the inverse relationship between soybean
yield and seed protein level. This interaction between N fertilizer and foliar protection applications
did not interact with year for grain yield, yield components, or grain quality, which indicates that
the synergy between N fertilizer and foliar protection is robust across both of these yield groups
and is not specific to either a low- or high-yielding conditions.
69
CONCLUSIONS
Nitrogen fertilizer applications can increase soybean yield, but the placement and timing
of the application impacted the potential for a grain yield response. When multiple small amounts
of N fertilizer were applied during the soybean reproductive stages and placed in the root zone
with sub-drip irrigation, grain yield was consistently increased by improving plant nutrition during
pod fill, resulting in heavier seed. Pre-plant applications of N increased soybean biomass
regardless of placement, however broadcast applications were safer for soybean nodulation and
limiting the inhibition of BNF than banded placement. However, these early season biomass
increases did not always translate into increased grain yield, potentially because of the increased
plant nutrient demand associated with greater biomass. Side-dress applications of N at R3 did not
influence either biomass accumulation or nodulation, and overall had little impact on grain yield.
As an individual management practice, foliar protection applications of fungicide and insecticide
at the R3 growth stage increased soybean yield in both 2020 and 2021 by 3 bushel acre-1. Foliar
protection applications optimized the benefits of N applications by protecting the photosynthetic
potential of the crop throughout the grain fill growth stages, allowing it to fully maximize its yield
potential. Even without N applications, this research indicates that applications of both fungicide
and insecticide can increase soybean yield regardless of the yield group. In this study however, a
novel synergy was observed between N fertilizer and foliar protection applications. A broadcast
application of N pre-plant, which had no impact on yield without foliar protection, increased
soybean yield by 4 bushel acre-1 when followed with a foliar protection application at R3. This
yield response is greater than the banded treatment because the broadcast application had a lesser
negative impact on soybean nodulation which, when combined with a foliar protection application
70
during pod fill facilitated heavier seed weight. These results highlight the importance of making
N applications that do not inhibit soybean nodulation because early season impacts on nodulation
carried through to the end of the season, potentially impacting the ability of the soybean crop to
maximize its seed weight and grain yield. Because banded placement reduces the potential for N
loss to volatilization, or physical runoff, it is a more sustainable application than broadcast
fertilization. Further research is needed to identify the proper N rate that minimizes the negative
impact on soybean nodulation and BNF while still increasing plant growth. Additionally, more
research combining traditional soybean management factors such as planting date, row spacing,
and sulfur application with foliar protection applications may help to understand the ability of
fungicide and insecticide, applied individually and in combination, to synergistically increase
soybean yield.
71
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2.1. Soil classifications, properties, and soil test levels of trial areas at Champaign,
Illinois in 2020 and 2021.
Year
Soil Property † 2020 2021
Drummer Drummer
Soil Type
Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam
Organic Matter, % 3.4 3.6

CEC, meq 100 g -1 21.5 18.0
pH 6.0 6.5
NO3, ppm 14.8 9.2
P, ppm 91 26
K, ppm 276 121
Ca, ppm 2570 3465
Mg, ppm 522 502
S, ppm 13.0 7.0
Zn, ppm 1.9 1.2
Mn, ppm 28 30
Fe, ppm 142 116
Cu,ppm 2.3 1.8
B, ppm 0.7 0.9
† Nitrate (NO3 ) was extracted using KCl but all other nutrient values were obtained with
-1
Mehlich III extraction.
Table 2.2. Precipitation and temperature during the production seasons at Champaign, Illinois
from 2020 through 2021. Values in parentheses are the deviations from the 30-year averages
(1989-2020). All data were obtained from the Illinois State Water Survey.
Month
Total
Year April May June July August September
Deviation
-------------------------------------------------- Precipitation, inches --------------------------------------------------
2020 5.3 (+1.6) 4.7 (-00) 5.8 (+1.4) 4.6 (+0.5) 1.3 (-2.0) 2.9 (-0.2) + 1.3
2021 2.1 (-1.6) 3.4 (-1.3) 7.6 (+3.2) 4.3 (+0.2) 4.1 (+0.8) 3.0 (-0.1) + 1.2
Average
April May June July August September
Deviation
----------------------------------------------------- Temperature, °F -----------------------------------------------------
2020 49.5 (-3.3) 60.6 (-2.8) 74.1 (+1.6) 77.2 (+2.0) 73.2 (-0.3) 65.1 (-1.8) - 0.8
2021 52.7 (-0.1) 61.0 (-2.4) 74.2 (+2.7) 74.3 (-0.9) 75.6 (+2.1) 69.8 (+2.9) + 0.7
72
Table 2.3. Sub-treatments of nitrogen application, irrigation method, and foliar treatment applied
over one or two varieties at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Experimental units were
arranged in a split-block design with irrigation method as the whole plot and soybean variety,
foliar treatment, and nitrogen application as a factorial were randomized as sub-plots.
Nitrogen Application † Irrigation Method Foliar Treatment
Time Placement
Control (UTC) None Rainfed None

Pre-plant Broadcast Irrigated Foliar Protection §
Pre-plant Band Fertigated‡
R3 Mid-row
R3 Y-drop
All treatments were replicated across two varieties in 2020 (AG36X6 and AG39X7) and 2021
(AG36X6 and AG39XF1).
† 32%-UAN used for all applications at a rate of 75 lbs N acre-1.
‡ Six applications of 12.5 lbs N acre-1 as 32%-UAN made from R1-R5.5.
§ Foliar protection was applied as Miravis Top (fungicide) and Endigo (insecticide) at the R3
growth stage.
73
Fertigated Irrigated Rainfed Fertigated Irrigated Rainfed
1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG36X6
fung fung none none fung fung none fung none fung none fung
Mid-row Broad Y-drop Broad Mid-row Y-drop Y-drop Y-drop Broad Mid-row Y-drop Broad
1048 1047 1046 1045 1044 1043 1042 1041 1040 1039 1038 1037
AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1
none none fung fung none fung fung fung none none fung fung
UTC Mid-row Band Y-drop Band Mid-row Band UTC Band Broad Band Mid-row
1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036
AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6
none fung none fung fung fung none none fung none fung fung
Mid-row UTC Band Band Band UTC UTC Mid-row Broad Mid-row UTC Y-drop
1024 1023 1022 1021 1020 1019 1018 1017 1016 1015 1014 1013
AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG39XF1
fung fung fung none none none none none fung fung none fung
Broad UTC Mid-row Broad Band Broad Y-drop UTC UTC Y-drop Y-drop Band
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012
AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG36X6 AG39XF1 AG39XF1
none none fung none none fung none fung none none none none
Y-drop UTC Y-drop Band Broad Broad Mid-row Broad UTC Mid-row Band UTC
Irrigated Rainfed Fertigated Irrigated Rainfed Fertigated
Figure 2.1. Treatments outlined in the first replication to show the randomization and treatment interactions. Irrigation method is
the whole-plot factor and is represented by the colored blocks on the map (Blue represents Irrigation, Orange represents Rainfed,
and Green represents Fertigation). All treatment combinations were completely randomized as sub-plot factors within each
replication by block.
74
Table 2.4. Sub-treatments used in the final analyses to evaluate the soybean response to
nitrogen management at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. All treatments received the
same amount of water through irrigation and all nitrogen applications were made using the
same nitrogen rate, 75 lbs N acre-1.
Nitrogen Application † Irrigation Method Foliar Treatment
Time Placement
Control (UTC) None Irrigated None

Pre-plant Broadcast Foliar Protection §
Pre-plant Band
R3 Mid-row
R3 Y-drop
R1-R5.5 Root Zone‡
All treatments were replicated across two varieties in 2020 (AG36X6 and AG39X7) and 2021
(AG36X6 and AG39XF1).
§ Foliar Protection was applied as Miravis Top (fungicide) and Endigo (insecticide) at the R3
growth stage.
75
Table 2.5. Effect of nitrogen applications on soybean nodulation at multiple growth stages of
soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021.
Year Nitrogen Application † Nodule Rating ‡
Time Placement V6 R3 R5
---------------------- Rating (0-3) ----------------------
Control (UTC) --- 2.3 2.7 --
2020 Pre-plant Broadcast 2.4 2.2 --
Band 1.5 2.1 --
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.3 0.4 --
Control (UTC) --- 1.8 2.7 2.6

Pre-plant Broadcast 1.7 2.5 2.6
2021 Band 1.2 2.4 2.3
R3 Mid-row -- -- 2.7
Y-drop -- -- 2.5
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.3 0.2 0.2
† Only plots in the rainfed blocks that did not receive foliar protection were sampled for nodule
ratings.
‡ Four plants were sampled from each plot and the nodules were visually evaluated on a 0-3
scale; 0 = No Nodules, 1 = Nodules on taproot, 2 = Nodules on taproot & partially on lateral
roots, 3 = Nodules on taproot and all lateral roots.
76
A B
C D
Figure 2. 2. Soybean growth response to no nitrogen (A) and pre-plant banded nitrogen (B)
at the V6 growth stage on 25 June 2020. Canopeo analysis of pre-plant banded nitrogen
treatment (D) shows significantly higher canopy coverage, 40% coverage, compared to
soybean without added nitrogen, 34% coverage (C).
77
Table 2.6. Effect of nitrogen applications on shoot and root biomass accumulations of soybean
grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2021.
Year Nitrogen Application † Shoot Biomass ‡ Root Biomass ‡
Time Placement V6 R3 R5 R3 R5
-1
-------------------------------- Tons acre --------------------------------
Control (UTC) --- 0.33 2.08 4.83 0.35 0.41
Pre-plant Broadcast 0.40 2.35 5.06 0.39 0.43
2021 Band 0.44 2.69 5.26 0.45 0.45
R3 Mid-row -- -- 4.82 -- 0.40
Y-drop -- -- 4.78 -- 0.40
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.05 0.21 NS 0.04 0.04
† Only plots in the rainfed blocks that did not receive foliar protection were sampled for nodule
ratings.
‡ Shoot and root biomass were estimated at a target planting stand of 140,000 plants per acre.
78
Table 2.7. Interaction of year (Y) and irrigation method (IM) on grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed weight), and
seed quality (protein and oil concentrations) of soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Grain yield and seed qualities
are presented at 13.0% moisture and seed weight is presented at 0% moisture.
Irrigation Method Grain Yield Seed Number Seed Weight Protein Oil
2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021
---- bu acre-1 ---- ----- seeds m-2 ----- ----- mg seed-1 ----- ----------------------------- % -----------------------------
Rainfed 63 88 2467 3533 150 147 33.8 34.4 19.3 19.6
Irrigated 63 89 2447 3542 150 148 33.7 34.6 19.3 19.4
Average 63 89 2470 3542 150 148 33.8 34.5 19.3 19.5
IM LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS NS 0.1 0.1
Y LSD (α = 0.10) 1 4 1 0.1 0.1
Data are averaged across foliar treatments, nitrogen applications, and variety.
79
Table 2.8. Effect of year, nitrogen application, foliar treatment, variety, and their interactions on grain yield, yield components (seed
number and seed weight), and seed quality (protein and oil concentrations). Soybean was grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020-2021.
Significance is assessed at p <0.10 and these values are highlighted in bold for this table.
Grain Yield Seed Number Seed Weight Protein Oil
Source of Variation -------------------------------------------------------------------- p-value --------------------------------------------------------------------
Year (Y) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0724
Nitrogen Application (N) 0.0739 0.1364 0.0165 <0.0001 0.0002
Foliar Treatment (F) <0.0001 0.0014 <0.0001 0.2540 0.8674
YxN 0.0798 0.1812 0.0818 0.1266 0.3873
YxF 0.3141 0.0131 0.0147 0.8794 0.6874
NxF 0.0083 0.0110 0.0625 0.2845 0.4605
Y x Variety (V) 0.0685 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
YxNxF 0.6962 0.8120 0.1996 0.4981 0.5835
YxNxV 0.9065 0.8345 0.2188 0.4525 0.5848
YxFxV 0.4181 0.3279 0.8128 0.7854 0.9349
YxNxFxV 0.5736 0.2687 0.8005 0.8281 0.8173
80
Table 2.9. Main effect of nitrogen application on grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed weight), and seed quality
(protein and oil concentration) of soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Grain yield and seed qualities are presented
at 13.0% moisture and seed weight is presented at 0% moisture.
Nitrogen Application †
Time Placement
bu acre-1 seeds m-2 mg seed-1 ----------------------- % -----------------------
Control (UTC) --- 76 2995 149 34.3 19.3
Pre-plant Broadcast 77 3024 149 34.3 19.3
Band 76 3012 147 34.1 19.4
R3 Mid-row 76 3008 149 34.1 19.5
Y-drop 75 2938 150 34.1 19.5
R1-R5.5 Root Zone ‡ 78 3060 151 34.5 19.2
LSD (α = 0.10) 2 NS 2 0.2 0.1
† Nitrogen applications shown received the same amount of water as irrigation and have balanced rates of nitrogen, 75 lbs N acre-1.
Data are averaged across year, foliar protection, and variety.
81
Table 2.10. Main effect of foliar protection treatment and the interaction of nitrogen application (N) and foliar treatment (F) on grain
yield, yield components (seed number and seed weight), and seed quality (protein and oil concentrations) of soybean grown at
Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Grain yield and seed qualities are presented at 13.0% moisture and seed weight is presented at
0% moisture.
Nitrogen Application † Foliar Protection ‡
Time Placement None With None With None With None With None With
-1 -2 -1 ----------------------------- % -----------------------------
---- bu acre ---- ---- seeds m ---- ---- mg seed ----
Control (UTC) --- 76 76 3008 2981 148 149 34.4 34.2 19.2 19.3
Pre-plant Broadcast 74 80 2950 3097 147 152 34.2 34.3 19.3 19.2
Band 74 78 2963 3062 146 149 34.1 34.0 19.4 19.4
R3 Mid-row 75 78 2952 3064 149 149 34.2 34.0 19.4 19.5
Y-drop 75 75 2966 2911 148 151 34.1 34.1 19.4 19.5
R1-R5.5 Root Zone § 75 82 2946 3174 150 152 34.5 34.5 19.3 19.2
Foliar Treatment Average 75 78 2964 3048 148 150 34.3 34.2 19.3 19.3
F LSD (α = 0.10) 1 43 1 NS NS
N x F LSD (α = 0.10) 3 104 2 NS NS
† Nitrogen applications shown received the same amount of water as irrigation and have balanced rates of nitrogen, 75 lbs N acre-1
‡ Foliar Protection was applied as Miravis Top (fungicide) and Endigo (insecticide) at the R3 growth stage.
§ Six applications of 12.5 lbs N acre-1 as 32%-UAN made from R1-R5.5.
Data are averaged across year and variety.
82
Table 2.11. Interaction of year and nitrogen application on grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed weight), and seed
quality (protein and oil concentrations) of soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Grain yield and seed qualities are
presented at 13.0% moisture and seed weight is presented at 0% moisture.
Year Nitrogen Application † Grain Yield Seed Number Seed Weight Protein Oil
Time Placement
bu acre-1 seeds m-2 mg seed-1 ------------------- % -------------------
Control (UTC) --- 62 2430 150 34.0 19.2
Band 62 2431 148 33.5 19.4
2020
R3 Mid-row 63 2469 149 33.6 19.5
Y-drop 63 2438 151 33.7 19.4
R1-R5.5 Root Zone ‡ 68 2581 153 34.1 19.1
Control (UTC) --- 89 3559 147 34.6 19.3

Band 90 3593 146 34.6 19.4
2021
R3 Mid-row 90 3548 148 34.6 19.4
Y-drop 87 3439 149 34.5 19.5
R1-R5.5 Root Zone ‡ 89 3539 148 34.9 19.3
LSD (α = 0.10) 3 NS 2 NS NS
Data are averaged across foliar treatment and variety.
83
Table 2.12. Interaction of year, nitrogen application, and foliar treatment on grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed
weight), and seed quality (protein and oil concentrations) of soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Grain yield and
seed qualities are presented at 13.0% moisture and seed weight is presented at 0% moisture.
Year Grain Yield Seed Number Seed Weight Protein Oil
Nitrogen Application † Foliar Protection ‡
-1 -2 -1
---- bu acre ---- ---- seeds m ---- ---- mg seed ---- ---------------------- % ----------------------
Control (UTC) --- 63 62 2408 2452 152 148 34.2 33.9 19.1 19.3
Band 59 64 2355 2507 147 150 33.6 33.5 19.5 19.4
2020
R3 Mid-row 60 66 2360 2577 149 149 33.8 33.5 19.4 19.5
Y-drop 62 64 2407 2468 151 152 33.7 33.6 19.3 19.5
R1-R5.5 Root Zone § 64 71 2453 2709 152 154 34.0 34.2 19.2 19.0
Control (UTC) --- 89 89 3609 3509 145 149 34.6 34.5 19.3 19.4
Band 88 91 3570 3617 145 148 34.6 34.6 19.4 19.4
2021
R3 Mid-row 90 90 3544 3552 148 148 34.7 34.5 19.4 19.5
Y-drop 88 87 3525 3353 146 151 34.4 34.6 19.5 19.5
R1-R5.5 Root Zone § 86 93 3440 3638 147 150 34.9 34.8 19.3 19.3
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS NS NS NS
§ Six applications of 12.5 lbs N acre-1 as 32%-UAN made from R1-R5.5.
Data are averaged across variety.
84
REFERENCES
Allen, R. G., Jensen, M. E., Wright, J. L., & Burman, R. D. (1989). Operational Estimates of
Reference Evapotranspiration. Agronomy Journal, 81(4), 650-662.
Ashley, D. A., & Ethridge, W. J. (1978). Irrigation Effects on Vegetative and Reproductive
Development of Three Soybean Cultivars. Agronomy Journal, 70(3), 467-471.
Barker, D. W., & Sawyer, J. E. (2005). Nitrogen Application to Soybean at Early Reproductive
Development. Agronomy Journal, 97(2), 615-619.
Bastidas, A. M., Setiyono, T. D., Dobermann, A., Cassman, K. G., Elmore, R. W., Graef, G. L.,
& Specht, J. E. (2008). Soybean Sowing Date: The Vegetative, Reproductive, and
Agronomic Impacts. Crop Science, 48(2), 727-740.
Beard, B. H., & Hoover, R. M. (1971). Effect of Nitrogen on Nodulation and Yield of Irrigated
Soybeans. Agronomy Journal, 63(5), 815-816.
Bellaloui, N., Bruns, H. A., Abbas, H. K., Mengistu, A., Fisher, D. K., & Reddy, K. N. (2015).
Effects of Row-Type, Row-Spacing, Seeding Rate, Soil-Type, and Cultivar Differences
on Soybean Seed Nutrition under U.S. Mississippi Delta Conditions. Public Library of
Science One, 10(6), e0129913.
Bender, R. R., Haegele, J. W., & Below, F. E. (2015). Nutrient Uptake, Partitioning, and
Remobilization in Modern Soybean Varieties. Agronomy Journal, 107(2), 563-573.
Bhangoo, M. S., & Albritton, D. J. (1976). Nodulating and Non‐Nodulating Soybean
Isolines Response to Applied Nitrogen. Agronomy Journal, 68(4), 642-645.
Bluck, G. M., Lindsey, L. E., Dorrance, A. E., & Metzger, J. D. (2015). Soybean Yield
Response to Rhizobia Inoculant, Gypsum, Manganese Fertilizer, Insecticide, and
Fungicide. Agronomy Journal, 107(5), 1757-1765.
85
Bobrecka-Jamro, D., Jarecki, W., & Buczek, J. (2018). Response of Soya Bean to Different
Nitrogen Fertilization Levels. Journal of Elementology, 23(2), 559–568.
Boerma, H. R. (1979). Comparison of Past and Recently Developed Soybean Cultivars in
Maturity Groups VI, VII, and VIII. Crop Science, 19(5), 611-613.
Bradley, K. W., & Sweets, L. E. (2008). Influence of Glyphosate and Fungicide Coapplications
on Weed Control, Spray Penetration, Soybean Response, and Yield in Glyphosate‐
Resistant Soybean. Agronomy Journal, 100(5), 1360-1365.
Brevedan, R. E., Egli, D. B., & Leggett, J. E. (1978). Influence of N Nutrition on Flower and
Pod Abortion and Yield of Soybeans. Agronomy Journal, 70(1), 81–84.
Chalk, P. M. (2000). Integrated Effects of Mineral Nutrition on Legume Performance. Soil
Biology & Biochemistry, 32(4), 577-579.
Ciampitti, I. A., & Salvagiotti, F. (2018). New Insights into Soybean Biological Nitrogen
Fixation. American Society of Agronomy. 110(4), 1185-1196
Cooper, R. L., & Jeffers, D. L. (1984). Use of Nitrogen Stress to Demonstrate the Effect of
Yield Limiting Factors on the Yield Response of Soybean to Narrow Row
Systems. Agronomy Journal, 76(2), 257-259.
Córdova, S. C., Castellano, M. J., Dietzel, R., Licht, M. A., Togliatti, K., Martinez-Feria, R., &
Archontoulis, S. V. (2019). Soybean Nitrogen Fixation Dynamics in Iowa, USA. Field
Crops Research, 236, 165-176.
de Borja Reis, A.F., Moro Rosso, L., Purcell, L.C., Naeve, S., Casteel, S.N., Kovács, P.,
Archontoulis, S., Davidson, D. and Ciampitti, I.A. (2021). Environmental Factors
Associated with Nitrogen Fixation Prediction in Soybean. Frontiers in Plant
Science, 12, 1013.
86
de Felipe, M., Gerde, J. A., & Rotundo, J. L. (2016). Soybean Genetic Gain in Maturity Groups
III to V in Argentina from 1980 to 2015. Crop Science, 56(6), 3066-3077.
Doss, B. D., & Thurlow, D. L. (1974). Irrigation, Row Width, and Plant Population in Relation
to Growth Characteristics of two Soybean Varieties. Agronomy Journal, 66(5), 620-623.
Egli, D. B. (1998). Seed Biology and the Yield of Grain Crops. CAB International. Wallingford,
UK.
Frederick, J. R., Woolley, J. T., Hesketh, J. D., & Peters, D. B. (1991). Seed Yield and
Agronomic Traits of Old and Modern Soybean Cultivars Under Irrigation and Soil
Water-Deficit. Field Crops Research, 27(1-2), 71-82.
Freeborn, J. R., Holshouser, D. L., Alley, M. M., Powell, N. L., & Orcutt, D. M. (2001).
Soybean Yield Response to Reproductive Stage Soil‐Applied Nitrogen and Foliar‐
Applied Boron. Agronomy Journal, 93(6), 1200-1209.
Gan, Y., Stulen, I., van Keulen, H., & Kuiper, P. J. (2003). Effect of N Fertilizer Top-Dressing
at Various Reproductive Stages on Growth, N2 Fixation and Yield of Three Soybean
(Glycine max (L.) Merr.) Genotypes. Field Crops Research, 80(2), 147-155.
Gregg, G. L., Orlowski, J. M., & Lee, C. D. (2015). Input‐Based Stress Management Fails to
Increase Soybean Yield in Kentucky. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 1(1), 1-7.
Gutiérrez-Boem, F. H., Scheiner, J. D., Rimski-Korsakov, H., & Lavado, R. S. (2004). Late
Season Nitrogen Fertilization of Soybeans: Effects on Leaf Senescence, Yield, and
Environment. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 68(2), 109-115.
Ham, G. E., Liener, I. E., Evans, S. D., Frazier, R. D., & Nelson, W. W. (1975). Yield and
Composition of Soybean Seed as Affected by N and S Fertilization. Agronomy
Journal, 67(3), 293-297.
87
Harper, J. E., & Cooper, R. L. (1971). Nodulation Response of Soybeans (Glycine max L.
Merr.) to Application Rate and Placement of Combined Nitrogen. Crop Science, 11(3),
438-440.
Harper, J. E. (1987). Nitrogen Metabolism in Soybeans, Soybean: Improvement, Production,
and Uses, Agronomy Monograph, 16. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Madison, Wisconsin.
Hartwig, E. E., & Hinson, K. (1972). Association Between Chemical Composition of Seed and
Seed Yield of Soybeans. Crop Science, 12(6), 829-830.
Heatherly, L. G. (1983). Response of Soybean Cultivars to Irrigation of a Clay Soil. Agronomy
Journal, 75(6), 859-864.
Heatherly, L. G. (1993). Drought Stress and Irrigation Effects on Germination of Harvested
Soybean See. Crop Science, 33(4), 777-781.
Heatherly, L. G., & Elmore, R. W. (2004). Managing Inputs for Peak Production. Soybeans:
Improvement, Production, and Uses, 16, 451-536.
Henry, R. S., Johnson, W. G., & Wise, K. A. (2011). The Impact of a Fungicide and an
Insecticide on Soybean Growth, Yield, and Profitability. Crop Protection, 30(12), 1629-
1634.
Herridge, D. F., & Pate, J. S. (1977). Utilization of Net Photosynthate for Nitrogen Fixation and
Protein Production in an Annual Legume. Plant Physiology, 60(5), 759-764.
Hungria, M., Franchini, J.C., Campo, R.J., Crispino, C.C., Moraes, J.Z., Sibaldelli, R.N.,
Mendes, I.C. and Arihara, J. (2006). Nitrogen Nutrition of Soybean in Brazil:
Contributions of Biological N2 Fixation and N Fertilizer to Grain Yield. Canadian
Journal of Plant Science, 86(4), 927-939.
88
Irmak, S., Specht, J. E., Odhiambo, L. O., Rees, J. M., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Soybean
Yield, Evapotranspiration, Water Productivity, and Soil Water Extraction Response to
Subsurface Drip Irrigation and Fertigation. Transactions of the ASABE, 57(3), 729-748.
Johnson, J.W., Welch, L.F., Kurtz, L.T., (1975). Environmental Implications of N Fixation by
Soybeans. Journal of Environmental Quality, 4(3), 303–306.
Kadhem, F. A., Specht, J. E., & Williams, J. H. (1985). Soybean Irrigation Serially Timed
During Stages R1 to R6. II. Yield Component Responses 1. Agronomy Journal, 77(2),
299-304.
Kandel, Y.R., Mueller, D.S., Hart, C.E., Bestor, N.R., Bradley, C.A., Ames, K.A., Giesler, L.J.
and Wise, K.A. (2016). Analyses of Yield and Economic Response from Foliar
Fungicide and Insecticide Applications to Soybean in the North Central United
States. Plant Health Progress, 17(4), 232-238.
Klocke, N. L., Eisenhauer, D. E., Specht, J. E., Elmore, R. W., & Hergert, G. W. (1989).
Irrigation Soybeans by Growth Stages in Nebraska. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture, 5(3), 361-366.
Korte, L. L., Specht, J. E., Williams, J. H., & Sorensen, R. C. (1983). Irrigation of Soybean
Genotypes During Reproductive Ontogeny Yield Component Responses. Crop
Science, 23(3), 528-533.
Kyveryga, P. M., Blackmer, T. M., & Mueller, D. S. (2013). When do Foliar Pyraclostrobin
Fungicide Applications Produce Profitable Soybean Yield Responses? Plant Health
Progress, 14(1), 6.
La Menza, N. C., Monzon, J. P., Specht, J. E., & Grassini, P. (2017). Is Soybean Yield Limited
by Nitrogen Supply?. Field Crops Research, 213, 204-212.
89
Lawn, R. J., & Brun, W. A. (1974). Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Soybeans. Effect of
Photosynthetic Source‐Sink Manipulations. Crop Science, 14(1), 11-16.
Lindemann, W. C., & Ham, G. E. (1979). Soybean Plant Growth, Nodulation, and Nitrogen
Fixation as Affected by Root Temperature. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 43(6), 1134-1137.
McCoy, J. M., Kaur, G., Golden, B. R., Orlowski, J. M., Cook, D., Bond, J. A., & Cox, M. S.
(2018). Nitrogen Fertilization of Soybean in Mississippi Increases Seed Yield but not
Profitability. Agronomy Journal, 110(4), 1505-1512.
Moreira, A., Moraes, L. A. C., Schroth, G., Becker, F. J., & Mandarino, J. M. G. (2017).
Soybean Yield and Nutritional Status Response to Nitrogen Sources and Rates of Foliar
Fertilization. Agronomy Journal, 109(2), 629–635.
Mourtzinis, S., Marburger, D. A., Gaska, J. M., & Conley, S. P. (2016). Characterizing Soybean
Yield and Quality Response to Multiple Prophylactic Inputs and Synergies. Agronomy
Journal, 108(4), 1337-1345.
Ng, S. J., Lindsey, L. E., Michel, A. P., & Dorrance, A. E. (2018). Effect of Mid‐Season Foliar
Fungicide and Foliar Insecticide Applied Alone and in Combination on Soybean
Yield. Crops & Soils, 51(4), 52-58.
Orlowski, J.M., Haverkamp, B.J., Laurenz, R.G., Marburger, D.A., Wilson, E.W., Casteel, S.N.,
Conley, S.P., Naeve, S.L., Nafziger, E.D., Roozeboom, K.L., Ross, W.J., & Lee, C.
(2016). High-Input Management Systems Effect on Soybean Seed Yield, Yield
Components, and Economic Break-Even Probabilities. Crop Sciences, 56(4), 1988.
90
Ortez, O. A., Salvagiotti, F., Enrico, J. M., Prasad, P. V., Armstrong, P., & Ciampitti, I. A.
(2018). Exploring Nitrogen Limitation for Historical and Modern Soybean
Genotypes. Agronomy Journal, 110(5), 2080-2090.
Osborne, S. L., & Riedell, W. E. (2006). Starter Nitrogen Fertilizer Impact on Soybean Yield
and Quality in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal, 98(6), 1569-1574.
Pasley, H. R., Huber, I., Castellano, M. J., & Archontoulis, S. V. (2020). Modeling Flood-
Induced Stress in Soybeans. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 62.
Pate, J. S., & Layzell, D. B. (1990). Energetics and Biological Costs of Nitrogen
Assimilation. The Biochemistry of Plants, 16, 1-42.
Poole, W. D., Randall, G. W., & Ham, G. E. (1983). Foliar Fertilization of Soybeans Effect of
Fertilizer Sources, Rates, and Frequency of Application. Agronomy Journal, 75(2), 195-
200.
Purcell, L. C., & King, C. A. (1996). Drought and Nitrogen Source Effects on Nitrogen
Nutrition, Seed Growth, and Yield in Soybean. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 19(6), 969-
993.
Purcell, L. C., & Specht, J. E. (2004). Physiological Traits for Ameliorating Drought
Stress. Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses, 16, 569-620.
Ray, J. D., Heatherly, L. G., & Fritschi, F. B. (2006). Influence of Large Amounts of Nitrogen
on Nonirrigated and Irrigated Soybean. Crop Science, 46(1), 52-60.
Reese Jr, P. F., & Buss, G. R. (1992). Response of Dryland Soybeans to Nitrogen in Full‐
Season and Doublecrop Systems. Journal of Production Agriculture, 5(4), 528-531.
Roth, A. C., Conley, S. P., & Gaska, J. M. (2014). Wisconsin Soybean Variety Test
Results. Cooperative Extension Service. A-3654. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
91
Rotundo, J. L., Borrás, L., De Bruin, J., & Pedersen, P. (2012). Physiological Strategies for
Seed Number Determination in Soybean: Biomass Accumulation, Partitioning and Seed
Set Efficiency. Field Crops Research, 135, 58-66.
Rowntree, S.C., Suhre, J.J., Weidenbenner, N.H., Wilson, E.W., Davis, V.M., Naeve, S.L.,
Casteel, S.N., Diers, B.W., Esker, P.D., Specht, J.E. and Conley, S.P. (2013). Genetic
Gain × Management Interactions in Soybean: I. Planting Date. Crop Science, 53(3),
1128-1138.
Ryle, G. J. A. (1979). The Respiratory Costs of Nitrogen Fixation in Soybean, Cowpea, and
White Clover. Journal of Experimental Botany, 30(1), 135-144.
Salvagiotti, F., Cassman, K. G., Specht, J. E., Walters, D. T., Weiss, A., & Dobermann, A.
(2008). Nitrogen Uptake, Fixation, and Response to Fertilizer N in Soybeans: A
Review. Field Crops Research, 108(1), 1-13.
Salvagiotti, F., Specht, J. E., Cassman, K. G., Walters, D. T., Weiss, A., & Dobermann, A.
(2009). Growth and Nitrogen Fixation in High‐Yielding Soybean: Impact of Nitrogen
Fertilization. Agronomy Journal, 101(4), 958-970.
Santachiara, G., Salvagiotti, F., & Rotundo, J. L. (2019). Nutritional and Environmental Effects
on Biological Nitrogen Fixation in Soybean: A Meta-Analysis. Field Crops
Research, 240, 106-115.
Sebern, N. A., & Lambert, J. W. (1984). Effect of Stratification for Percent Protein in Two
Soybean Populations. Crop Science, 24(2), 225-228.
Shibles, R., J. Secor, and D.M. Ford. (1987). Carbon Assimilation and Metabolism. p. 535–588.
In R.J. Wilcox (ed.) Soybeans: Improvement, Production and Uses. ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA, Madison, WI.
92
Silsbury, J. H. (1977). Energy Requirement for Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. Nature,
267(5607), 149-150.
Sionit, N., & Kramer, P. J. (1977). Effect of Water Stress During Different Stages of Growth of
Soybean. Agronomy Journal, 69(2), 274-278.
Sinclair, T. R. & de Wit, C. T. (1975). Photosynthate and Nitrogen Requirements for Seed
Production by Various Crops. Crop Science, 189, 565-567.
Slater, G. P., Elmore, R. W., Doupnik Jr, B. L., & Ferguson, R. B. (1991). Soybean Cultivar
Yield Response to Benomyl, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Irrigation Levels. Agronomy
Journal, 83(5), 804-809.
Sorensen, R. C., & Penas, E. J. (1978). Nitrogen Fertilization of Soybeans. Agronomy
Journal, 70(2), 213-216.
Specht, J. E., & Williams, J. H. (1984). Contribution of Genetic Technology to Soybean
Productivity—Retrospect and Prospect. Genetic Contributions to Yield Gains of Five
Major Crop Plants, 7, 49-74.
Specht, J. E., Elmore, R. W., Eisenhauer, D. E., & Klocke, N. W. (1989). Growth Stage
Scheduling Criteria for Sprinkler-Irrigated Soybeans. Irrigation Science, 10(2), 99-111.
Specht, J. E., Hume, D. J., & Kumudini, S. V. (1999). Soybean Yield Potential—a Genetic and
Physiological Perspective. Crop Science, 39(6), 1560-1570.
Starling, M. E., Wood, C. W., & Weaver, D. B. (1998). Starter Nitrogen and Growth Habit
Effects on Late‐Planted Soybean. Agronomy Journal, 90(5), 658-662.
Swoboda, C., & Pedersen, P. (2009). Effect of Fungicide on Soybean Growth and
Yield. Agronomy Journal, 101(2), 352-356.
93
Tamagno, S., Sadras, V. O., Haegele, J. W., Armstrong, P. R., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2018).
Interplay Between Nitrogen Fertilizer and Biological Nitrogen Fixation in Soybean:
Implications on Seed Yield and Biomass Allocation. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-11.
Thies, J. E., Singleton, P. W., & Bohlool, B. B. (1991). Influence of the Size of Indigenous
Rhizobial Populations on Establishment and Symbiotic Performance of Introduced
Rhizobia on Field-Grown Legumes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 57(1),
19-28.
Villamil, M. B., Davis, V. M., & Nafziger, E. D. (2012). Estimating Factor Contributions to
Soybean Yield from Farm Field Data. Agronomy Journal, 104(4), 881-887.
Voldeng, H. D., Cober, E. R., Hume, D. J., Gillard, C., & Morrison, M. J. (1997). Fifty‐Eight
Years of Genetic Improvement of Short‐Season Soybean Cultivars in Canada. Crop
Science, 37(2), 428-431.
Weber, C. R. (1966). Nodulating and Nonnodulating Soybean Isolines: Response to Applied
Nitrogen and Modified Soil Conditions. Agronomy Journal, 58(1), 46-49.
Wehrmann, V. K., Fehr, W. R., Cianzio, S. R., & Cavins, J. F. (1987). Transfer of High Seed
Protein to High-Yielding Soybean Cultivars. Crop Science, 27(5), 927-931.
Welch, L. F., Boone, L. V., Chambliss, C. G., Christiansen, A. T., Mulvaney, D. L., Oldham,
M. G., & Pendleton, J. W. (1973). Soybean Yields with Direct and Residual Nitrogen
Fertilization. Agronomy Journal, 65(4), 547-550.
Wesley, T. L., Lamond, R. E., Martin, V. L., & Duncan, S. R. (1998). Effects of Late‐Season
Nitrogen Fertilizer on Irrigated Soybean Yield and Composition. Journal of Production
Agriculture, 11(3), 331-336.
94
Wilson, E. W., Rowntree, S. C., Suhre, J. J., Weidenbenner, N. H., Conley, S. P., Davis, V. M.,
Diers, B. W., Esker, P. D., Naeve, S. L., Specht, J. E., & Casteel, S. N. (2014). Genetic
Gain × Management Interactions in Soybean: II. Nitrogen Utilization. Crop Science,
54(1), 340–348.
Wingeyer, A. B., Echeverría, H., & Rozas, H. S. (2014). Growth and Yield of Irrigated and
Rainfed Soybean with Late Nitrogen Fertilization. Agronomy Journal, 106(2), 567-576.
Wood, C. W., Torbert, H. A., & Weaver, D. B. (1993). Nitrogen Fertilizer Effects on Soybean
Growth, Yield, and Seed Composition. Journal of Production Agriculture, 6(3), 354-
360.
Wright, D., and A.W. Lenssen. (2013). Inoculant Use on Soybean Seed. Agricultural
Environmental Extension Publication. 191. Iowa State University Extension and
Outreach, Ames, IA.
Yoneyama, T., Karasuyama, M., Kouchi, H., & Ishizuka, J. (1985). Occurrence of Ureide
Accumulation in Soybean Plants: Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization and N2 Fixation. Soil
Science and Plant Nutrition, 31(1), 133-140.
Yoshida, T. (1979). Soil Management and Nitrogen Fertilization for Increasing Soybean
Yield. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 13, 163-168.
Zapata, F., Danso, S. K. A., Hardarson, G., & Fried, M. (1987). Time Course of Nitrogen
Fixation in Field‐Grown Soybean Using Nitrogen‐15 Methodology. Agronomy
Journal, 79(1), 172-176.
95
APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES: CHAPTER 1
Table A.1. Trial planting date for each location from 2019 – 2021.
Year Location Day Month
Yorkville 09 June
2019 Champaign 01 June
Ewing 04 June
Yorkville 05 June
2020 Champaign 01 June
Nashville 07 June
Yorkville 07 May
2021 Champaign 26 April
Nashville 23 April
96
Table A.2. Herbicide application information for Yorkville, IL in 2019.
Application
Herbicide Active Ingredient Rate
Timing
s-metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-
methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)
acetamide] + atrazine (1-chloro-3-ethylamino-5-
isopropylamino-2,4,6-triazine) + mesotrione (2-
Pre-plant Breakfree ATZ [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] 2 qt acre-1
cyclohexane-1,3-dione) + bicyclopyrone
(Bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one), 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-
[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-
3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]
acetamide] + mesotrione (2-[4-(methylsulfonyl)-
2-nitrobenzoyl] cyclohexane-1,3-dione) +
Halex GT 3.6 pt acre-1
bicyclopyrone (Bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one), 4-
hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl] +
Glyphosate,N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin
Sodium salt of diflufenzopyr: 2-(1-[([3,5-
V5 Post- difluorophenylamino]carbonyl)-
Emergence Status hydrazono]ethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4 oz acre-1
sodium salt + sodium salt of dicamba: 3,6-
dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid, sodium salt
Atrazine 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-
Infantry 4L 1 qt acre-1
isopropylamino-s-triazine
Roundup Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin 32 oz acre-1
FS Alkyl polyethoxy ethers, ethoxylated and
12.8 oz acre-1
AquaSupreme soybean oil derivatives
Ammonium sulfate and substituted fatty
Max Supreme alkylammonium alkylcarboxylatenis and 1,2,3- 25.6 oz acre-1
propanetriol + dimethylpolysiloxane
97
Table A.3. Herbicide application information for Champaign, IL in 2019.
Application
Timing
Pre-plant Acuron [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] 3 qt acre-1
Topramezone: [3-(4,5-dihydro-isoxazolyl)-2-
Armezon methyl-4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl](5-hydroxy-1- 0.75 oz acre-1
methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanone
Sodium salt of diflufenzopyr: 2-(1-[([3,5-
difluorophenylamino]carbonyl)-
Status hydrazono]ethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4 oz acre-1
V5 Post- sodium salt + sodium salt of dicamba: 3,6-
Emergence dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid, sodium salt
Infantry 4L 1 qt acre-1
Table A.4. Herbicide application information for Ewing, IL in 2019.

Application
Timing
Pre-plant Acuron [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] 2 qt acre-1
(Bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one), 4-hydroxy-3-
[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]
Tembotrione: 2-[2-chloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)-3-
Laudis [(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)methyl]benzoyl]-1,3- 3 oz acre-1
cyclohexanedione
V5 Post- Infantry 4L 1 qt acre-1
Emergence 32 oz acre-1
Roundup Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin
98
Application
Timing
Acuron [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] 3 qt acre-1
Pre-plant cyclohexane-1,3-dione) + bicyclopyrone
Infantry 4L 20 oz acre-1
Diflexx Diglycolamine salt of 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid 16 oz acre-1
cyclohexanedione
V5 Post- isopropylamino-s-triazine
Emergence Roundup Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin 32 oz acre-1
12.8 oz acre-1
99
Application
Timing
Acetochlor: 2-chloro-N-ethozymethyl-N-(2-
ethyl6-methylphenyl)acetamide + Mesotrione: 2-
[4-methylsulfonyl)-1,3-cyclohexanedione +
Resicore 8 oz acre-1
Clopyralid MEA salt: 3,6-
Pre-plant dichloropyridinecarboxylic acid,
monoethanolamine salt
cyclohexanedione
12.8 oz acre-1
100
Table A.7. Herbicide application information for Nashville, IL in 2020.
Application
Timing
isopropylamino-2,4,6-triazine) + mesotrione (2-[4-
Acuron (methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] cyclohexane- 2.5 qt acre-1
Pre-plant 1,3-dione) + bicyclopyrone (Bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-
en-2-one), 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-
methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-
pyridinyl]carbonyl]
cyclohexanedione
FS Alkyl polyethoxy ethers, ethoxylated and soybean
12.8 oz acre-1
AquaSupreme oil derivatives
101
Application
Timing
Acuron [4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] 3 qt acre-1
Pre-plant (Bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one), 4-hydroxy-3-
[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]
Liberty Glufosinate-ammonium 25 oz acre-1
cyclohexanedione
V5 Post- Roundup Glyphosate,N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin 32 oz acre-1
Emergence
Class Act Ammonium sulfate, corn syrup, alkyl
19.2 oz acre-1
Ridion polyglucoside
Max Supreme alkylammonium alkylcarboxylatenis and 1,2,3- 74 oz acre-1
Sentris Potassium Carbonate 8 oz acre-1
102
Application
Timing
Acetochlor + Atrazine 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-
Harness Xtra 2 qt acre-1
Atrazine 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-
s-triazine
Thiencarbazone-methyl: (Methyl 4-[[[(4, 5-
Pre-plant
dihydro-3-methoyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1, 2, 4-
triazol-1-yl)carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-
Corvus 4 oz acre-1
thiophenecarboxylate)
Isoxaflutole: [5-cyclopropyl-4-(2-methylsulfonyl-
4-trifluoromethylbenzoyl) isoxazole]
Dual II
V2 Post- S-metolachlor 16 oz acre-1
Magnum
Emergence
cyclohexanedione
s-triazine
V5 Post- Roundup Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin 32 oz acre-1
Emergence
Class Act Ammonium sulfate, corn syrup, alkyl
19.2 oz acre-1
Ridion polyglucoside
Sentris Potassium Carbonate 8 oz acre-1
103
Table A.10. Herbicide application information for Nashville IL in 2021.
Application
Timing
isopropylamino-2,4,6-triazine) + mesotrione (2-[4-
Acuron 2.5 qt acre-1
(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl] cyclohexane-1,3-
Pre-plant dione) + bicyclopyrone (Bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-
one), 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-
6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]
s-triazine
Thiencarbazone-methyl: (Methyl 4-[[[(4, 5-dihydro-
3-methoyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1, 2, 4-triazol-1-
yl)carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-
Capreno thiophenecarboxylate) 3 oz acre-1
Tembotrione: 1,3-cyclohexanedione, 2-[2-chloro-4-
(methylsulfonyl)-3-[(2,2,2-
V5 Post- trifluoroethoxy)methyl]benzoyl]
Emergence Atrazine 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-
s-triazine
FS Alkyl polyethoxy ethers, ethoxylated and soybean
6.4 oz acre-1
AquaSupreme oil derivatives
104
Table A.11. Interaction of fertilizer source, timing, and placement effects on grain yield, yield
components (kernel number and kernel weight), total nitrogen uptake, yield efficiency,
fertilizer recovery efficiency, and grain quality (protein, oil, and starch concentrations) of corn
grown at Yorkville, Illinois in 2019. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at
15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture.
-1 -2
-------- bu acre ------- ----- kernel m ------ ---- mg kernel-1 ----
Up-Front 220 221 5617 5515 208 213
Urea
Split 221 223 5778 5754 203 207
Up-Front 232 218 6013 5380 205 207
Blend
Split 223 228 5630 5686 211 213
Up-Front 219 227 5784 5729 201 210
ESN
Split 224 222 5888 5769 202 211
Unfertilized Control 145 4412 174
-1
--- lbs of N acre --- bu lb-1 of N applied ----------- % -----------
Up-Front 221 237 0.42 0.42 47 56
Urea
Split 230 233 0.42 0.43 52 54
Up-Front 239 230 0.48 0.40 57 52
Blend
Split 229 236 0.43 0.46 52 56
Up-Front 223 244 0.41 0.45 49 60
ESN
Split 232 235 0.43 0.43 54 55
Unfertilized Control 136 ---------- ----------
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 7.7 8.2 4.3 4.5 71.6 71.0
Urea
Split 8.0 8.0 4.3 4.5 71.3 71.1
Up-Front 7.9 8.1 4.3 4.4 71.2 71.1
Blend
Split 7.9 8.0 4.2 4.3 71.3 71.2
Up-Front 7.8 8.2 4.6 4.2 71.7 71.0
ESN
Split 8.0 8.1 4.1 4.4 71.9 71.6
Unfertilized Control 7.2 5.3 71.8
† Yield efficiency calculated as: (Yieldtreatment – Yieldunfertilized) / lbs N applied. All unfertilized
yield data can be found in Appendix Table A.19.
‡ Recovery efficiency calculated as: (Total Nitrogentreatment – Total Nitrogenunfertilized) / lbs N
applied. The unfertilized total N data for each site can be found in Appendix Table A.19.
105
grown at Ewing, Illinois in 2019. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at
-1 -2
Up-Front 109 125 3220 3043 180 220
Urea
Split 129 144 3673 3668 187 208
Up-Front 117 127 3553 3237 177 209
Blend
Split 128 133 3571 3541 190 199
Up-Front 113 135 3291 3404 181 211
ESN
Split 123 132 3528 3626 184 192
-1
Up-Front 94 145 0.23 0.28 19 47
Urea
Split 127 151 0.34 0.42 41 51
Up-Front 100 140 0.27 0.32 23 44
Blend
Split 136 138 0.33 0.36 43 45
Up-Front 100 155 0.25 0.37 25 53
ESN
Split 128 142 0.30 0.35 38 46
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 6.6 8.9 4.2 4.6 73.2 72.1
Urea
Split 7.6 8.1 4.2 4.3 73.5 72.8
Up-Front 6.5 8.4 4.2 4.4 73.8 72.6
Blend
Split 7.8 8.2 4.3 4.2 73.4 73.0
Up-Front 6.8 8.8 4.2 4.3 73.7 72.5
ESN
Split 8.1 8.4 4.2 4.1 73.3 72.5
106
components (kernel number and kernel weight), total N uptake, yield efficiency, fertilizer
recovery efficiency, and grain quality (protein, oil, and starch concentrations) of corn grown at
Nashville, Illinois in 2020. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at 15.5%
moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture.
-1 -2
Up-Front 190 202 4447 4250 228 253
Urea
Split 206 199 4482 4182 244 253
Up-Front 198 208 4284 4346 248 254
Blend
Split 209 208 4284 4381 260 253
Up-Front 197 203 4322 4292 242 251
ESN
Split 211 202 4689 4124 239 260
-1
Up-Front 162 184 0.47 0.54 46 58
Urea
Split 180 179 0.56 0.52 56 55
Up-Front 167 187 0.51 0.57 48 59
Blend
Split 186 189 0.57 0.57 59 61
Up-Front 168 183 0.51 0.54 49 57
ESN
Split 181 179 0.59 0.53 56 55
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 7.9 8.4 4.5 4.9 73.7 73.5
Urea
Split 8.1 8.3 4.6 4.6 73.8 73.3
Up-Front 7.8 8.3 4.3 4.4 73.8 72.9
Blend
Split 8.2 8.4 4.3 4.7 73.3 73.2
Up-Front 7.9 8.3 4.4 4.5 73.7 73.1
ESN
Split 7.7 8.2 4.3 4.3 73.3 73.1
107
Champaign, Illinois in 2020. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at 15.5%
-1 -2
Up-Front 211 207 4741 4643 231 231
Urea
Split 213 209 4654 4370 238 247
Up-Front 204 192 4248 4277 249 233
Blend
Split 202 204 4352 4322 242 245
Up-Front 211 198 4473 4279 244 240
ESN
Split 210 203 4425 4395 247 239
-1
Up-Front 265 246 0.49 0.45 66 53
Urea
Split 259 276 0.48 0.48 60 72
Up-Front 289 251 0.45 0.38 79 58
Blend
Split 249 227 0.43 0.44 55 43
Up-Front 255 234 0.48 0.41 59 78
ESN
Split 287 272 0.48 0.43 47 68
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 7.0 6.7 4.0 3.9 71.2 71.5
Urea
Split 7.2 7.0 4.0 4.0 71.1 71.2
Up-Front 7.0 6.6 4.0 4.2 71.0 71.3
Blend
Split 7.1 6.9 4.0 4.0 71.4 71.2
Up-Front 6.8 7.2 4.0 4.1 71.3 70.7
ESN
Split 7.2 6.8 4.0 3.9 71.2 71.6
108
Yorkville, Illinois in 2020. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at 15.5%
-1 -2
Up-Front 150 157 3122 3516 2555 239
Urea
Split 141 157 3062 3410 247 245
Up-Front 151 160 3127 3526 256 241
Blend
Split 153 159 3479 3495 235 242
Up-Front 142 172 3089 3737 246 244
ESN
Split 146 161 3199 3526 244 243
-1
Up-Front 169 181 0.09 0.14 21 28
Urea
Split 160 183 0.09 0.13 17 29
Up-Front 170 185 0.10 0.15 22 30
Blend
Split 174 187 0.11 0.14 24 32
Up-Front 161 200 0.02 0.21 18 39
ESN
Split 167 186 0.07 0.15 21 31
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 8.6 8.9 4.4 4.4 72.3 72.4
Urea
Split 8.7 9.0 4.5 4.5 72.2 72.3
Up-Front 8.6 8.9 4.4 4.4 72.3 72.6
Blend
Split 8.7 9.0 4.3 4.2 72.7 73.0
Up-Front 8.7 9.0 4.6 4.2 72.3 72.3
ESN
Split 8.8 8.9 4.4 4.4 72.5 72.8
109
Table A.16. Interaction of fertilizer source, timing, and placement effects on grain yield,
yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total N uptake, yield efficiency,
grown at Nashville, Illinois in 2021. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at
-1 -2
Up-Front 256 260 5455 5452 249 254
Urea
Split 248 266 5369 5479 246 259
Up-Front 258 264 5467 5740 251 245
Blend
Split 261 259 5465 5388 254 255
Up-Front 258 261 5487 5430 250 255
ESN
Split 242 259 5219 5345 246 258
-1
Up-Front 247 251 0.43 0.45 42 45
Urea
Split 227 262 0.36 0.48 31 51
Up-Front 241 265 0.44 0.47 39 52
Blend
Split 249 252 0.46 0.44 43 45
Up-Front 262 252 0.44 0.45 51 45
ESN
Split 246 240 0.35 0.44 42 38
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 7.7 7.4 3.9 3.7 72.4 73.0
Urea
Split 7.4 7.8 4.3 3.9 72.2 72.7
Up-Front 7.1 7.7 3.9 3.9 73.0 72.9
Blend
Split 7.1 7.5 3.9 3.7 72.6 73.1
Up-Front 7.8 7.4 3.8 3.8 72.5 73.2
ESN
Split 7.8 7.3 4.0 3.8 72.3 72.9
110
grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2021. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented
at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture.
-1 -2
Up-Front 256 274 4940 5478 275 266
Urea
Split 259 265 5232 5176 263 272
Up-Front 266 276 5195 5452 272 269
Blend
Split 269 269 5204 5332 275 268
Up-Front 260 265 5192 5274 266 268
ESN
Split 266 266 5461 5445 259 260
-1
Up-Front 256 270 0.69 0.79 87 95
Urea
Split 250 263 0.70 0.74 83 90
Up-Front 272 279 0.75 0.80 96 100
Blend
Split 278 272 0.77 0.76 99 96
Up-Front 260 271 0.72 0.74 89 95
ESN
Split 256 268 0.75 0.75 98 94
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 7.7 7.5 4.2 4.4 72.4 72.2
Urea
Split 7.4 7.6 4.2 4.2 72.7 72.5
Up-Front 7.9 7.8 4.3 4.1 72.3 72.7
Blend
Split 7.9 7.8 4.4 4.2 72.0 72.3
Up-Front 7.7 7.8 4.3 4.4 72.4 72.2
ESN
Split 7.3 7.7 4.1 4.1 72.8 72.7
111
Table A.18. Interaction of fertilizer source, timing, and placement effects on grain yield,
yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total nitrogen uptake, yield efficiency, N
Yorkville, Illinois in 2021. The grain yield and yield efficiency data are presented at 15.5%
-1 -2
Up-Front 259 257 6573 6328 210 216
Urea
Split 249 263 6590 6396 201 219
Up-Front 257 259 6382 6659 214 206
Blend
Split 267 261 6737 6636 211 210
Up-Front 263 249 6311 6130 222 217
ESN
Split 265 264 6794 6495 210 217
-1
Up-Front 274 280 0.20 0.19 23 226
Urea
Split 255 292 0.14 0.22 13 33
Up-Front 272 283 0.19 0.20 23 28
Blend
Split 282 281 0.25 0.21 27 26
Up-Front 281 268 0.22 0.14 26 20
ESN
Split 268 300 0.23 0.23 20 38
Protein Oil Starch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 8.1 8.3 4.1 4.2 73.1 72.7
Urea
Split 7.9 8.5 4.1 4.2 73.1 72.6
Up-Front 8.1 8.4 4.2 4.0 72.7 73.2
Blend
Split 8.1 8.2 4.1 4.0 73.4 73.1
Up-Front 8.2 8.2 4.2 4.1 72.9 72.8
ESN
Split 7.7 8.7 4.1 4.1 73.6 72.7
112
Table A.19. Unfertilized control plots average grain yield, yield components (kernel number
and kernel weight), and total plant nitrogen uptake grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of
eight site-years). The data are sorted by yield group, with grain yield presented at 15.5%
moisture and kernel weight and nutrient accumulation presented at 0% moisture.
Yield Grain Kernel Kernel Total
Site-year
Group Yield Number Weight Nitrogen
bu acre-1
kernel m -2
mg kernel lbs of N acre-1
-1
Low Ewing 2019 68 2252 160 59

(<200 bu acre ) -1
Yorkville 2020 133 3112 227 130
Nashville 2020 106 2702 208 96

Average
Champaign 2020 122 2792 227 141
(200-249 bu acre-1)
Yorkville 2019 145 4412 174 136
Nashville 2021 179 4330 220 171

High
Champaign 2021 131 3233 215 99
(>250 bu acre-1)
Yorkville 2021 223 6120 195 207
113
Table A.20. Interaction of fertilizer source and timing on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total nitrogen
uptake, yield efficiency, and N recovery efficiency. Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years). The data are sorted by
yield group, with grain yield and yield efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0% moisture.
Yield Group Yield Number Weight Nitrogen Efficiency † Efficiency ‡
Source Up-Front Split Up-Front Split Up-Front Split Up-Front Split Up-Front Split Up-Front Split
------ bu acre-1 ------ ------ kernel m-2 ------ ------ mg kernel-1 ------ ------ lbs of N acre-1 ------ bu lb-1 of N applied ------------ % ------------
Urea 135 143 3226 3453 224 222 147 155 0.19 0.23 29 34
Low
Blend 139 143 3356 3521 221 217 148 158 0.21 0.24 30 35
(<200 bu acre-1)
ESN 141 140 3380 3470 221 216 154 156 0.22 0.22 33 34
Urea 207 210 4774 4784 230 235 230 238 0.47 0.49 60 65
Average
Blend 209 210 4783 4687 233 239 236 233 0.48 0.49 63 62
(200-249 bu acre-1)
ESN 208 210 4785 4829 232 232 230 239 0.48 0.49 60 65
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS NS 7 NS 4
Urea 261 258 5702 5691 245 243 263 258 0.46 0.44 53 50
High
Blend 263 264 5815 5794 243 246 268 269 0.47 0.48 56 56
(>250 bu acre-1)
ESN 259 260 5637 5792 246 242 266 263 0.45 0.46 54 53
114
Table A.21. Interaction of fertilizer timing and placement on corn grain yield, yield components (kernel number and kernel weight), total nitrogen
uptake, yield efficiency, and fertilizer recovery efficiency. Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years). The data are
sorted by yield group, with grain yield and yield efficiency presented at 15.5% moisture and kernel weight and total nitrogen presented at 0%
moisture.
Yield Group Yield Number Weight Nitrogen Efficiency † Efficiency ‡
Timing Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded
------ bu acre-1 ------ ------ kernel m-2 ------ ------ mg kernel-1 ------ ------ lbs of N acre-1 ------ bu lb-1 of N applied ------------ % ------------
Low Up-Front 130 146 3230 3411 216 227 132 148 0.17 0.25 21 40
(<200 bu acre-1) Split 137 146 3419 3544 214 222 167 165 0.20 0.26 30 39
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS NS 5 NS 3
Average Up-Front 208 208 4840 4721 229 234 229 237 0.48 0.48 60 62
(200-249 bu acre-1) Split 211 209 4803 4731 235 236 234 236 0.50 0.48 64 64
High Up-Front 259 263 5665 5772 245 244 263 269 0.45 0.47 53 56
(>250 bu acre-1) Split 258 264 5775 5743 241 246 257 270 0.44 0.48 49 57
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS 4 NS NS NS
115
Table A.22. Effects of fertilizer source, timing, placement, and their interactions on corn grain
quality (protein, oil, and starch concentrations) with the data sorted by yield group. Corn was
grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years).
Yield Group Source of Variation Protein Oil Starch
----------------------------- p-value ----------------------------
Source (S) 0.4172 0.0917 0.0033
Placement (P) <0.0001 0.8877 <0.0001
Timing (T) 0.0005 0.2086 0.0157
Low
SxP 0.1782 0.2813 0.6524
(<200 bu acre-1)
SxT 0.0806 0.2939 0.9719
PxT <0.0001 0.1650 0.0329
SxPxT 0.9143 0.2522 0.7111
Source (S) 0.9746 0.2102 0.4097

Placement (P) <0.0001 0.0152 0.0106
Timing (T) 0.1351 0.1408 0.5565
Average
SxP 0.0884 0.2656 0.5918
(200-249 bu acre-1)
SxT 0.1982 0.3979 0.2683
PxT 0.0061 0.7130 0.2161
SxPxT 0.2564 0.3468 0.3515
Source (S) 0.8528 0.1081 0.2552

Placement (P) 0.0010 0.0654 0.4986
Timing (T) 0.3479 0.8150 0.5628
High
SxP 0.8433 0.3076 0.5105
(>250 bu acre-1)
SxT 0.8936 0.1416 0.5192
PxT 0.0272 0.2704 0.4285
SxPxT 0.0623 0.7819 0.9176
116
Table A.23. Interaction of fertilizer source, timing, and placement on corn grain quality (protein, oil, and
starch concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years) and the data
is sorted by yield group.
Protein Oil Starch
Yield Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front 7.6 8.9 4.3 4.5 72.7 72.2
Urea
Split 8.2 8.5 4.4 4.4 72.8 72.5
Low Up-Front 7.6 8.7 4.3 4.4 73.1 72.5
Blend
(<200 bu acre-1) Split 8.3 8.6 4.3 4.2 73.0 73.0
Up-Front 7.7 8.9 4.4 4.3 73.0 72.4
ESN
Split 8.3 8.5 4.3 4.3 73.1 72.8
LSD (α = 0.10) NS NS NS
Up-Front 7.5 7.8 4.2 4.4 72.1 72.0

Urea
Split 7.7 7.7 4.3 4.3 72.0 71.9
Average Up-Front 7.6 7.7 4.2 4.3 72.0 71.8
Blend
(200-249 bu acre-1) Split 7.7 7.8 4.2 4.3 72.0 71.9
Up-Front 7.5 7.9 4.3 4.3 72.2 71.6
ESN
Split 7.6 7.7 4.1 4.2 72.1 72.1
Up-Front 7.8 7.8 4.1 4.1 72.6 72.6

Urea
Split 7.6 8.0 4.2 4.1 72.6 72.6
High Up-Front 7.7 7.9 4.1 4.0 72.7 72.9
Blend
(>250 bu acre-1) Split 7.7 7.8 4.1 4.0 72.7 72.8
Up-Front 7.9 7.8 4.1 4.1 72.6 72.7
ESN
Split 7.6 7.9 4.1 4.0 72.9 72.8
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.2 NS NS
117
Table A.24. The main effect of fertilizer source on corn grain quality (protein, oil, and starch
concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years) and the
data is sorted by yield group.
Yield Group Source Protein Oil Starch
-------------------------------------------------------------- % --------------------------------------------------------------
Urea 8.3 4.4 72.6
Low
Blend 8.3 4.3 72.9
(<200 bu acre-1)
ESN 8.3 4.3 72.8
LSD (α = 0.10) NS 0.1 0.2
Urea 7.7 4.3 72.0

Average
Blend 7.7 4.3 71.9
(200-249 bu acre-1)
ESN 7.7 4.2 72.0
Urea 7.8 4.1 72.6

High
Blend 7.8 4.0 72.8
(>250 bu acre-1)
ESN 7.8 4.0 72.7
LSD (α = 0.10) NS 0.1 NS
118
Table A.25. The main effect of fertilizer placement on corn grain quality (protein, oil, and starch
concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years) and the data
is sorted by yield group.
Yield Group Placement Protein Oil Starch
-------------------------------------------------------------- % --------------------------------------------------------------
Low Broadcast 7.9 4.3 73.0
-1
(<200 bu acre ) Banded 8.7 4.3 72.6
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 NS 0.1
Average Broadcast 7.6 4.2 72.1

(200-249 bu acre-1) Banded 7.8 4.3 71.9
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 0.1 0.1
High Broadcast 7.7 4.1 72.7

(>250 bu acre-1) Banded 7.9 4.0 72.7
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 0.1 NS
119
Table A.26. The main effect of fertilizer timing on corn grain quality (protein, oil, and starch
concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years) and the
data is sorted by yield group.
Yield Group Timing Protein Oil Starch
-------------------------------------------------------------- % --------------------------------------------------------------
Low Up-Front 8.2 4.4 72.7
-1
(<200 bu acre ) Split 8.4 4.3 72.9
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 NS 0.1
Average Up-Front 7.7 4.3 71.9

(200-249 bu acre-1) Split 7.7 4.2 72.0
High Up-Front 7.8 4.1 72.7

(>250 bu acre-1) Split 7.8 4.1 72.7
120
Table A.27. The interaction of fertilizer source and placement on grain quality (protein, oil, and
starch concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years) and
the data is sorted by yield group.
Protein Oil Starch
Yield Group
Source Broadcast Banded Broadcast Broadcast Broadcast Banded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urea 7.9 8.7 4.4 4.5 72.8 72.4
Low
Blend 7.9 8.7 4.3 4.3 73.1 72.8
(<200 bu acre-1)
ESN 8.0 8.7 4.4 4.3 73.1 72.6
LSD (α = 0.10) 5 NS 0.1
Urea 7.6 7.8 4.3 4.4 72.1 72.0

Average
Blend 7.7 7.7 4.2 4.3 72.0 71.8
(200-249 bu acre-1)
ESN 7.6 7.8 4.2 4.2 72.2 71.8
LSD (α = 0.10) 4 0.1 NS
Urea 7.7 7.9 4.1 4.1 72.6 72.6

High
Blend 7.7 7.9 4.1 4.0 72.7 72.9
(>250 bu acre-1)
ESN 7.7 7.9 4.1 4.0 72.7 72.7
LSD (α = 0.10) 4 NS NS
121
Table A.28. The interaction of fertilizer source and timing on grain quality (protein, oil, and
starch concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years) and
the data is sorted by yield group.
Protein Oil Starch
Yield Group
Source Up-Front Split Up-Front Split Up-Front Split
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urea 8.3 8.3 4.4 4.4 72.5 72.7
Low
Blend 8.1 8.4 4.4 4.2 72.8 73.0
(<200 bu acre-1)
ESN 8.3 8.4 4.3 4.3 72.7 72.8
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 NS NS
Urea 7.6 7.7 4.3 4.3 72.1 72.0

Average
Blend 7.6 7.7 4.3 4.3 71.9 71.9
(200-249 bu acre-1)
ESN 7.7 7.7 4.3 4.2 71.9 72.1
Urea 7.8 7.8 4.1 4.2 72.6 72.6

High
Blend 7.8 7.8 4.1 4.0 72.8 72.8
(>250 bu acre-1)
ESN 7.8 7.8 4.1 4.0 72.6 72.8
122
Table A.29. The interaction of fertilizer timing and placement on corn grain quality (protein, oil,
and starch concentrations). Corn was grown in Illinois from 2019-2021 (total of eight site-years)
and the data is sorted by yield group.
Protein Oil Starch
Yield Group
Timing Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded Broadcast Banded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Up-Front 7.6 8.8 4.3 4.4 72.9 72.4
-1
(<200 bu acre ) Split 8.2 8.5 4.3 4.3 73.0 72.8
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 NS 0.2
Average Up-Front 7.5 7.8 4.3 4.3 72.1 71.9

(200-249 bu acre-1) Split 7.7 7.7 4.2 4.3 72.1 71.8
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 NS NS
High Up-Front 7.8 7.8 4.1 4.1 72.6 72.7

(>250 bu acre-1) Split 7.6 7.9 4.1 4.0 72.7 72.7
LSD (α = 0.10) 0.1 NS NS
123
APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES: CHAPTER 2
Table B.1. Herbicide application information for Champaign, IL in 2020.

Application
Timing
Saflufenacil: N’-[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(3-
methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-
dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)benzoyl]-N-
isopropyl-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide
+ imazethapyr: ()-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-
methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-
Pre-plant Zidua Pro 6 oz acre-1
imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-
pyridinecarboxylic acid + pyroxasulfone:
3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethylisoxazole
Metribuzin: 4-AMineo-6-(1,1-
Glory 4L dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4- 12 oz acre-1
triazin-5(4H)-one
Diglycolamine salt of dicamba (3,6-
Xtendimaxx 22 oz acre-1
dichloro-o-anisic acid)
S-Metolachlor: 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-
Dual 2
methylphenyl)-N-[(1S)-2-methoxy-1- 16 oz acre-1
Magnum
methylethyl]-Acetamide
V3 Post- Roundup Glyphosate,N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin 32 oz acre-1
Emergence FS Intention Proprietary blend of drift reduction
0.5%v v-1
Advanced polymers and water conditioning salts
1, 2, 3-Propanetricarboxyllic acid, 2-
Class Act hydroxy-, trisodium salt, dihydrate, High
19.2 oz acre-1
Ridion fructose corn syrup, Alkyl polyglycoside,
Monocarbamide Dihydrogen Sulfate
124
Table B.2 Herbicide application information for Champaign, IL in 2021.
Application
Timing
Saflufenacil: N’-[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-(3-
methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-
dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)benzoyl]-N-
isopropyl-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide
+ imazethapyr: ()-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-
methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-
Pre-plant Zidua Pro 6 oz acre-1
imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-
pyridinecarboxylic acid + pyroxasulfone:
3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethylisoxazole
Metribuzin: 4-AMineo-6-(1,1-
Glory 4L dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4- 12 oz acre-1
triazin-5(4H)-one
Fluazifol-P-butyl
Fusilade DX Butyl (R)-2-[4-[[5-trifluoromethyl)-2- 8 oz acre-1
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate
V3 Post- Warrant Ultra Acetochlor + Fomesafen, sodium salt 55 oz acre-1
Emergence Roundup Glyphosate,N-(phosphonomethyl)glycin 32 oz acre-1
Max Supreme alkylammonium alkylcarboxylatenis and 51 oz acre-1
1,2,3-propanetriol + dimethylpolysiloxane
125
Table B.3. Amount of water supplied (inches) using a subsurface drip irrigation system at
Champaign, Illinois in 2020 and 2021. Timing of water supplied, and fertigation application is
expressed by calendar date and soybean growth stage.
2020 2021
Date Growth Stage Water (inches) Date Growth Stage Water (inches)
June 29 R1 0.25 June 23 R1 0.25
July 5 R2 0.25 July 6 R2 0.50
July 28 R3 0.50 July 23 R3 0.50
August 6 R4 0.25 August 3 R4 0.50
August 17 R5 0.25 August 16 R5 0.25
August 28 R5.5 1.00 August 24 R5.5 0.25
Total Irrigation 2.50 Total Irrigation 2.25
126
Table B.4. Interaction of irrigation method, nitrogen application, and foliar treatment on grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed
weight), and seed quality (protein and oil concentrations) of soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2020. Grain yield and seed qualities are
Irrigation Nitrogen Grain Yield Seed Number Seed Weight Protein Oil
Method Application † Foliar Protection ‡
-1 -2 -1
------ bu acre ------ ------ seeds m ------- ----- mg seed ------ ------------------------------ % -----------------------------
Control (UTC) --- 60 65 2357 2519 148 152 34.0 34.0 19.3 19.2
Rainfed Band 61 67 2390 2498 147 150 33.7 33.9 19.4 19.4
R3 Mid-row 64 66 2527 2570 148 151 33.9 33.7 19.3 19.4
Y-drop 60 65 2401 2473 147 153 33.5 33.6 19.5 19.4
Control (UTC) --- 62 62 2406 2452 152 148 34.2 33.9 19.1 19.3
Irrigated Band 60 64 2355 2503 147 150 33.6 33.5 19.5 19.4
R3 Mid-row 60 66 2360 2575 149 149 33.8 33.5 19.3 19.5
Y-drop 62 64 2407 2468 151 152 33.7 33.6 19.3 19.5
Control (UTC) --- 64 71 2453 2709 152 154 34.0 34.2 19.2 19.0
Fertigated § Band 67 67 2558 2547 153 155 33.9 33.8 19.3 19.3
R3 Mid-row 68 69 2608 2647 153 154 34.3 33.8 19.2 19.4
Y-drop 69 70 2625 2677 153 154 33.9 33.8 19.3 19.3
§ Six applications of 12.5 lbs N acre-1 as UAN-32% made from R1-R5.5. All treatments under fertigation received an additional 75 lbs N acre-1
making all nitrogen applications under fertigation receive a total of 150 lbs N acre-1 while nitrogen applications under rainfed and irrigated
management received a total of 75 lbs N acre-1.
127
Table B.5. Interaction of irrigation method, nitrogen application, and foliar treatment on grain yield, yield components (seed number and seed
weight), and seed quality (protein and oil concentrations) of soybean grown at Champaign, Illinois in 2021. Grain yield and seed qualities are
Irrigation Nitrogen Grain Yield Seed Number Seed Weight Protein Oil
Method Application † Foliar Protection ‡
-1 -2 -1
------ bu acre ------ ------ seeds m ------- ----- mg seed ------ ------------------------------ % -----------------------------
Control (UTC) --- 88 87 3536 3460 146 148 34.5 34.6 19.5 19.5
Rainfed Band 86 91 3492 3610 145 148 34.4 34.4 19.5 19.5
R3 Mid-row 87 88 3528 3507 145 147 34.5 34.2 19.6 19.5
Y-drop 85 93 3432 3653 144 149 34.4 34.2 19.7 19.6
Control (UTC) --- 89 89 3609 3507 145 149 34.6 34.5 19.3 19.4
Irrigated Band 88 91 3571 3612 145 148 34.6 34.6 19.4 19.4
R3 Mid-row 90 90 3546 3552 148 148 34.7 34.5 19.4 19.5
Y-drop 88 87 3525 3348 146 151 34.4 34.5 19.5 19.5
Control (UTC) --- 86 93 3440 3638 147 150 34.9 34.8 19.3 19.3
Fertigated § Band 89 94 3585 3607 146 153 34.8 35.0 19.5 19.2
R3 Mid-row 90 92 3545 3554 149 152 34.8 34.7 19.5 19.5
Y-drop 89 92 3525 3549 147 152 34.7 34.8 19.5 19.3
§ Six applications of 12.5 lbs N acre-1 as UAN-32% made from R1-R5.5. All treatments under fertigation received an additional 75 lbs N acre-1
making all nitrogen applications under fertigation receive a total of 150 lbs N acre-1 while nitrogen applications under rainfed and irrigated
management received a total of 75 lbs N acre-1.
128

Schwartz Thesis 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schwartz Thesis 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANAGING NITROGEN AVAILABILITY FOR INCREASED YIELD OF CORN AND

STEPHEN ARNOLD SCHWARTZ

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

Professor Frederick Below, Chair

improve the productivity of both corn and soybean.

polymer-coated N fertilizer offers a different approach to season-long N availability and creates

Foliar Protection to Increase the Yield Response of Soybean to Nitrogen Management

may be needed to supplement biological N2 fixation. Historically, however, soybean yield

responses to added N have been inconsistent, suggesting that environmental or management

response of soybean to N fertilization. Two soybean varieties were fertilized at Champaign, IL in

treatment, which received no nitrogen. Foliar protection applications, consisting of both an

broadcast placement had no negative impact on nodulation. All pre-plant N applications,

nodulation and required additional foliar protection for increased yields.

appreciate the guidance, materials, and funding they have provided.

CHAPTER 1: YIELD LEVEL DETERMINES CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO ENHANCED

NITROGEN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ..........................................................1

CHAPTER 2: FOLIAR PROTECTION TO INCREASE THE YIELD RESPONSE OF

SOYBEAN TO NITROGEN MANAGEMENT ....................................................49

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES: CHAPTER 1 .......................................................96

APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES: CHAPTER 2 .....................................................124

ENHANCED NITROGEN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

role in photosynthesis and reproductive development (Below, 2001). Through genetic

reduce environmental losses by better matching N availability with corn N uptake.

availability to fully supply corn N uptake needs.

season N availability through prolonged release, split applications of N use mechanical

pre-plant (Spackman et al., 2019).

N fertilizer (Garcia et al., 2020).

Traditionally, N management practices utilize alternate N application timing and placement

corn grain yield in a variety of environmental conditions.

planted once at Ewing (38°05'54.4"N 88°50'50.4"W, 04 June 2019), twice at Nashville

each site-year are displayed in Table 1.1.

trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-16 dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate; Syngenta Crop Protection,

[environmentally-smart nitrogen; 44-0-0; Nutrien Ltd. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan], or a mixture of

(Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) to pass through a 2 mm mesh screen. A random 50 mg

dividing by the corresponding total N rate applied.

Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis

Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental design. In total,

considered significant in all statistical calculations if P ≤ 0.10.

Yield Group Designations

adequately categorize these sites.

which promote nitrogen availability and maximum crop growth.

Grain Yield, Yield Components, and Fertilizer Efficiency

timing (Table 1.5).

by the yield group (Table 1.6).

were similar to using urea (Table 1.7).

high yield group.

accumulation, and N recovery efficiency were significantly influenced by the interaction of

ESN by 5 percentage points.

fertilizer treatment interaction.

indicative of a productivity environment that includes inherent soil characteristics, weather

to increase yield in multiple yield groups (Table 1.8-1.10).

limit soil N mineralization.

indicate the potential for a yield response to in-season N management.

to conventional urea when used with banded placement.

Nitrogen management practices such as alternate timing and placement combinations

optimum corn productivity.

‡ Nitrate (NO3-1) was extracted using KCl.

Source (S) 0.9115 0.3227 0.0603 0.9820 0.8925 0.9706

Source (S) 0.0070 0.1220 0.9993 0.0324 0.0080 0.0310

Up-Front 206 208 4861 4687 225 236

Up-Front 257 264 5655 5750 245 245

Up-Front 225 235 0.47 0.48 57 63

Up-Front 259 267 0.44 0.48 51 55