Karamanos, R. E. and Puurveen, D. 2011. Evaluation of a polymer treatment as enhancer of phosphorus fertilizer efficiency in wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 123–125. The effectiveness of Avail® was assessed in two 3-yr trials that included an unfertilized control and three rates of seed-placed P (6.5, 13 and 19.5 kg P ha−1) applied as monoammonium phosphate (MAP) with or without Avail®, and arranged in a randomized complete block design with six replications. Neither a significant effect of treating MAP with Avail® nor a significant interaction between Avail® treatment and rate of P on the yield of wheat and P uptake was observed.
Karamanos, R. E., Harapiak, J. T. and Flore N. A. 2013. Sulphur application does not improve wheat yield and protein concentration. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 223–228. Grain protein plays an important role in the milling and baking quality of wheat (Triticum aestivum). The question is whether application of sulphur, an important constituent of proteins and amino acids, impacts wheat grain protein concentration. A 3-yr 10-site experiment was set up to determine if of sulphur (S) fertilization (0 and 25 kg S ha−1) affects Canada west red spring (CWRS) and Durum grain yield and protein levels, when combined with various rates of nitrogen (N) fertilizer (0, 40, 60, 80 and 100 kg N ha−1). Soils at the 10 sites varied from S deficient to S sufficient, based on criteria in western Canada. Application of 25 kg S ha−1 resulted in no yield or grain protein concentration increases, regardless of the level of N fertilizer applied or the level of soil “available” S (0–30 cm). However, high N fertilizer rates (80 and 100 kg N ha−1) plus S fertilization improved yield and protein concentration when growing season (May, June, July) precipitation was favourable for CWRS and Durum wheat. In conclusion, we suggest that indiscriminate application of S fertilizer will not increase protein concentration for CWRS and Durum wheat grain.
Karamanos, R., Hanson, K. and Stevenson, F. C. 2014. Nitrogen form, time and rate of application, and nitrification inhibitor effects on crop production. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 425–432. Nitrogen management options for anhydrous ammonia (NH3) and urea were compared in a barley–wheat–canola–wheat cropping sequence (2007–2010) at Watrous and Lake Lenore, SK. The treatment design included a factorial arrangement of N fertilizer form (NH3 versus urea), nitrification inhibitor application, time of N application (mid-September, mid- to late October, and spring) and four N fertilizer rates (0, 40, 80 and 120 kg ha−1). Anhydrous ammonia applications at 40 kg N ha−1 in 2008 (fall) and in 2010 (all times of application) resulted in wheat yield reductions relative to the same applications for urea. For wheat years, yield was reduced for both fall versus spring N fertilizer applications, when no nitrification inhibitor was applied and the inclusion of nitrification inhibitor maintained wheat yield at similar levels across all times of N fertilizer applications, regardless of form. Protein concentration was approximately 2 g kg−1 greater with urea compared with NH3 at both sites in 2008 and only at Watrous in 2010. Also, early versus late fall N fertilizer applications consistently increased N concentration of grain only for the 40 and/or 80 kg N ha−1 rates. Effects of nitrification inhibitor on N concentration were not frequent and appeared to be minimal. Urea had greater agronomic efficiency (AE) than NH3 at the lower N fertilizer rates. The nitrification inhibitor had a positive effect on wheat AE only for early fall N fertilizer applications. It can be concluded that for maximum yields NH3 or urea will be suitable if applied at rates of 80 kg N ha−1 and greater. If N fertilizer is applied at 40 kg N ha−1, especially in fall without inhibitor, urea is better. In terms of protein concentration for wheat, urea seemed to better than NH3 and fall was better than spring application.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.