Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Nitrogen and Water Use Efficiency in Wheat Cropping Systems Through Integrated Application of Biochar and Bokashi Under Different Irrigation Regimes
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Spring Oat Nitrogen Supply Based on Plant Sap Nitrate Concentration and SPAD Values
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impacts of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Timing and Rate on Sweet Corn Production Under Subtropical Environmental Conditions

by
Jessica Paranhos
1,
Wheeler Foshee
1,
Timothy Coolong
2,
Emmanuel Torres-Quezada
3 and
Andre Luiz Biscaia Ribeiro da Silva
1,*
1
Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, 101 Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
2
Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, 1111 Miller Plant Sciences, Athens, GA 30602, USA
3
Department of Horticulture, North Carolina State University, 2721 Founders Dr, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nitrogen 2025, 6(2), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen6020020
Submission received: 2 February 2025 / Revised: 9 March 2025 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 / Published: 25 March 2025

Abstract

:
Sweet corn (Zea mays convar. saccharata var. rugosa) is an important crop in the United States (US), particularly in the southeastern region. While effective nitrogen (N) management is essential for optimizing yields, the sandy soils and variable precipitation in this region impact N uptake. This study evaluates the effects of several N rates (ranging from 224 to 336 kg ha−1) and N fertilizer application timing (N fertilizer applied at emergence and side-dress stages) on sweet corn growth and yield under the subtropical environmental conditions of the southeastern US. Field experiments were conducted over three years in the states of Georgia (2020) and Alabama (2021 and 2022). In general, the weather conditions of each season had a direct impact on sweet corn growth, development, and yield parameters. Among all locations, the season in Alabama (2022) allowed for the highest yields (17,380 kg ha−1), which could be attributed to favorable weather conditions that required moderate nitrogen application rates (224–280 kg ha⁻1). Contrarily, the weather conditions of Alabama in 2021 and Georgia in 2020 impacted soil N availability, consequently leading to negative effects on sweet corn growth. Overall, N fertilizer management strategies are indicated to be region- and season-specific in order to enhance sweet corn production while protecting the environment from excessive N losses. Further research is still required to refine these strategies and improve predictive models for diverse climatic conditions.

1. Introduction

Sweet corn (Zea mays convar. saccharata var. rugosa) is one of the most important vegetable crops in the United States (US), with annual production exceeding 3 million tons [1]. The southeastern US accounts for 44% of the nation’s total sweet corn production [1]. However, significant precipitation and sandy soils, which are prevalent in the region, can adversely affect nitrogen (N) fertilizer uptake and utilization, leading to reduced crop yields [2,3].
Nitrogen is a critical nutrient for crop productivity, playing an essential role in plant growth and development, which in turn enhances yield and food quality [2,4]. In sweet corn, effective N fertilizer management is particularly important during both vegetative and reproductive stages to optimize growth and kernel structure [5]. Adequate N fertilization prevents deficiencies such as chlorosis, poor ear structure, and yield reductions [2,6,7]. Conversely, excessive N fertilizer applications increase production costs, reduce efficiency, and negatively impact the environment through groundwater pollution and risks to human and animal health [8].
Nevertheless, the total N rate applied is not the only important aspect of N fertilizer management. The timing of N fertilizer application is critical for maximizing the efficiency of N application [9]. This is mostly important in subtropical environmental conditions, where frequent rainfall events and coarse-textured soils allow for soil N leaching [5,9]. At planting date or early growth stages, N fertilizer application supports root development and plant establishment and promotes leaf and stem growth [10,11]. During side-dress or mid-vegetative stages, N fertilizer applications are essential for ear and kernel development, which ultimately determines the final yield [12]. Khan et al. [5] reported significant yield increases with N rates reaching up to 120 kg N ha⁻1, while Gao et al. [13] achieved the highest yields with 250 kg N ha⁻1. Similarly, Oktem et al. [9] suggested an optimal N rate of 320 kg N ha⁻1 to balance yield and structure in sweet corn.
Despite these findings, growers often overapply N fertilizer rates in an effort to maximize yields, leading to increased input costs and environmental degradation [2,14]. However, balancing nutrient management practices is essential to benefit both growers and the environment. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that a reduction in N fertilizer rates can reduce soil N loss while increasing sweet corn nitrogen use efficacy and maximizing yield and kernel structure compared to the current growers’ standard practices. Consequently, the study objectives are to evaluate the effects of N fertilizer rates and application timing on sweet corn growth and yield under the subtropical environmental conditions of the southeastern US, emphasizing the need for balanced nutrient management to improve yield and kernel structure, minimize risks, and protect the environment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Experimental Design

Field experiments were conducted at the Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center, University of Georgia (32.01814° N, 82.22138° W) in southeast Georgia in 2020 and the E.V. Smith Research Center, Auburn University (32.50053° N, 85.89281° W) in central Alabama during 2021 and 2022. The soil at all locations was classified as loamy sand (Table 1). According to the Koppen–Geiger climate classification, all locations experience a humid subtropical or warm temperate climate (Cfa) characterized by hot summers with heavy rainfall and dry winters [15,16].
A two-factorial experimental design evaluating N fertilizer application timing and N fertilizer rate was arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replicates per treatment (r = 3). Individual plots consisted of four rows spaced 91.4 cm apart, with plants spaced 17.7 cm apart within rows (61,813 plants ha−1). Planting occurred on 26 August 2020, 16 August 2021, and 17 August 2022. The sweet corn cultivar Remedy (Syngenta Seeds, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was used, and harvests took place in early November each year (Table 1).
Crop management practices, including soil preparation, irrigation, and the management of pests, weeds, and diseases, were conducted in accordance with established protocols for sweet corn production in the southeastern United States [17]. The integrated pest management strategy employed varied field to field but included the use of biological control agents and selective pesticides to minimize pest populations. Weed control was achieved through a combination of mechanical cultivation and herbicide application. Disease management included regular monitoring of the crop and the application of fungicides as needed. The weekly scouting performed ensured that fields remained free of weeds, insects, and diseases.
N fertilizer was applied in three stages: pre-planting (Npl), at emergence (Neme), and at side-dress (Nsd). The fertilizer source at Npl was 10-10-10 (N-P-K), while at Neme and Nsd, the source was 34-0-0 (N-P-K). At Npl, a rate of 34 kg N ha⁻1 was applied across all treatments. At Neme, either 56 or 112 kg N ha⁻1 was applied, followed by Nsd applications of 134, 162, or 190 kg N ha⁻1, resulting in six treatment combinations (T1–T6), as detailed in Table 2.
Ammoniacal N (10% of N) was used as the N source for Npl, while ammonium nitrate (24% of N) and urea N (10% of N) were used for Neme and Nsd, contributing to a total of 34% N. The Npl application was performed at 0 days after planting (DAP). The Neme application occurred at 19, 25, and 16 DAP in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively, while Nsd was applied at 40, 44, and 41 DAP in corresponding years. Phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) were applied only at planting using the same 10-10-10 fertilizer source, following regional recommendations [17].

2.2. Weather Conditions

Daily maximum and minimum air temperatures and rainfall events were recorded using the Georgia Automated Weather Network (2020) and the Auburn University Mesonet (2021 and 2022). Accumulated growing degree days (GDD) were determined using Equation (1) [18].
G D D = T m a x + T m i n 2 T b a s e
where Tmax and Tmin are the average daily maximum and minimum temperatures, respectively, and Tbase is the sweet corn base temperature (10 °C) [19].

2.3. Soil Total Nitrogen

Soil samples were collected from 0.30–0.60 m depths to evaluate nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4+) levels. Five subsamples were collected per plot at specific growth stages: 0, 19, and 40 DAP in Georgia (2020); 0, 25, and 44 DAP in Alabama (2021); and 0, 28, and 40 DAP in Alabama (2022). Additional samples were collected at the silk and maturity (harvest) stages, as presented in Table 3. Dried samples were analyzed for NO3 and NH4+ contents at Waters Agricultural Laboratories Inc. (Camilla, GA, USA).

2.4. Biomass Accumulation and Total Nitrogen

Plant tissue samples (leaf and stem) were collected at emergence (EME), side-dress (SD), silk, and maturity (harvest) growth stages during each growing season (Table 3). The leaf area index (LAI) was measured using an optical–electronic area meter (LI-3100, LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) on two representative plants from each plot. Sampled plants were oven-dried at 65.5 °C until reaching a constant weight to determine biomass.
Subsequently, dried samples were sent to Waters Agricultural Laboratories Inc. (Camilla, GA, USA) for total Kjeldahl N (TKN) content analysis. Plant N uptake accumulation (total N) was calculated by multiplying the total dry biomass by the TKN content.
Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) was determined using Equation (2) [20].
N U E % = N   u p t a k e   a c c u m u l a t i o n N   f e r t i l i z e r   a p p l i e d r e s i d u a l N f e r t i l i z e r i n t h e s o i l

2.5. Yield and Ear Structure

Sweet corn ears were hand-harvested at maturity (68–82 DAP) at all locations (Table 1). For each row, the total ear weight and number of ears were recorded. Five randomly selected ears from each plot were measured for ear length (EL), ear diameter (ED), number of kernels per row (KR), number of kernels in an ear row (KIR), and total number of kernels per ear (KTG).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using a linear mixed model approach via the PROC GLIMMIX procedure in SAS 9.4 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). This method was employed to evaluate the effects of location, N application rates, N application timing, and their interactions on sweet corn growth, yield, and nitrogen-related parameters across different growth stages (sampling events).
The experimental design was treated as a randomized complete block design with fixed effects for location, N application rates, N application timing, and growth stages. Block was included as a random effect to account for variability among replications. Each response variable, including LAI, biomass accumulation, total N, soil total N, NUE, sweet corn yield, and ear structure parameters, was analyzed separately. When significant main effects or interactions were measured (p ≤ 0.05), least-square means comparisons were performed using Tukey’s test, and means were portioned using the slice command in SAS. Statistical significance levels were reported as non-significant (ns), significant at p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), or p ≤ 0.001 (***). To further explore relationships among response variables, a correlation-based network analysis was conducted using Pearson’s method in R Studio Version 4.3 (R Studio Team 2020, Boston, MA, USA) [21].

3. Results

3.1. Weather Data and Growing Degree Days

Rainfall events and daily minimum and maximum temperatures for all locations are presented in Figure 1. Total accumulated GDD was 928 for Georgia (2020), 921 in Alabama (2021), and 980 in Alabama (2022).
In Georgia (2020), the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures were 18 and 28 °C, respectively, with a total rainfall accumulation of 175 mm during the growing season. In Alabama (2021), the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures were 17 and 29 °C, with a total rainfall accumulation of 271 mm. Similarly, in Alabama (2022), the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures were 14 and 29 °C, with total rainfall accumulating to 245 mm.

3.2. Leaf Area Index, Biomass Accumulation, Total Nitrogen, and Soil Total Nitrogen

Results indicate that Alabama (2022) outperformed Georgia (2020) and Alabama (2021) in terms of LAI, biomass accumulation, total N, and soil total N across all growth stages (Figure 2). Statistical analysis revealed a significant main effect of location on LAI at the EME, SD, and silk stages. In Georgia (2020), LAI increased from 323 cm2 at the EME stage to 1858 cm2 at the silk stage, followed by a decline to 1416 cm2 at harvest (Figure 2a). Alabama (2021) showed an increase from 852 cm2 at EME to 1818 cm2 at the SD stage before declining to 1424 cm2 at the silk stage and stabilizing at 1364 cm2 at harvest. Notably, Alabama (2022) displayed the highest LAI values among all locations, increasing from 1357 cm2 at the EME stage to a pronounced peak of 2282 cm2 at the SD stage, followed by a decline to 2251 cm2 at the silk stage and 1181 cm2 at harvest.
Biomass accumulation (Figure 2b) varied significantly at the SD, silk, and harvest stages, with consistent increases from EME to silk stages and a decline at harvest across all locations. Georgia (2020) had the lowest biomass values, starting at 167 kg ha−1 at the EME stage, increasing to 1409 kg ha−1 at SD and 2288 kg ha−1 at silk, before decreasing to 2108 kg ha−1 at harvest. Alabama (2021) recorded 446 kg ha−1 at EME, increasing to 2014 kg ha−1 at SD and 2748 kg ha−1 at silk, with a subsequent decrease to 1857 kg ha−1 at harvest. Alabama (2022) achieved the maximum biomass values, starting at 830 kg ha−1 at EME, rising to 3012 kg ha−1 at SD and 3066 kg ha−1 at silk, before declining to 2695 kg ha−1 at harvest.
Total N uptake (Figure 2c) varied significantly at the EME, SD, silk, and harvest stages. In Georgia (2020), total N uptake increased from 48.7 kg ha−1 at SD to 58.9 kg ha−1 at the silk stage, but data for EME and harvest stages were unavailable. Alabama (2021) showed 15.2 kg ha−1 at EME, increasing to 53.5 kg ha−1 at SD and peaking at 68.5 kg ha−1 at the silk stage, followed by a slight decrease to 40.6 kg ha−1 at harvest. Alabama (2022) demonstrated a sharp increase in total N uptake, starting at 36.5 kg ha−1 at EME, rising to 94.1 kg ha−1 at SD and 162.2 kg ha−1 at silk, with the highest value of 166.2 kg ha−1 recorded at harvest.
Soil total N (Figure 2d) was significantly influenced by location at the EME, SD, and silk stages, with Alabama (2022) generally showing the highest values, except at the silk stage, where Alabama (2021) demonstrated superior levels. In Georgia (2020), soil total N increased from 9.9 kg ha−1 at EME to 53.9 kg ha−1 at SD, followed by a decline to 49.7 kg ha−1 at silk and 9.3 kg ha−1 at harvest. Alabama (2021) showed 5.8 kg ha−1 at EME, 3.4 kg ha−1 at SD, and 194.5 kg ha−1 at silk before decreasing to 98.8 kg ha−1 at harvest. Alabama (2022) recorded 31.8 kg ha−1 at EME, increasing to 60.2 kg ha−1 at SD, 69.2 kg ha−1 at silk, and 93.6 kg ha−1 at harvest.

3.3. Effect of Neme on Biomass Accumulation, Total Nitrogen, and Soil Total Nitrogen Across Growth Stages

The effect of Neme application rates (56 and 112 kg ha⁻1) on biomass accumulation, total N uptake, and soil total N across different growth stages is shown in Table 4. Results indicated significant differences in these variable responses for the interaction between application rate and growth stage.
Biomass increased across growth stages from SD to silk for both Neme. At the SD stage, the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 resulted in significantly higher biomass (2298 kg ha⁻1) compared to the Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 (1992 kg ha⁻1). However, at the silk stage, biomass differences between the two application rates were not statistically significant, with values of 2604 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 and 2797 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 112 kg ha⁻1.
Total N uptake followed a similar trend, increasing across growth stages. At the SD stage, the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 resulted in higher total N (69.5 kg ha⁻1) compared to the Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 (61.4 kg ha⁻1). At the harvest stage, total N uptake differences were not statistically significant, with values of 98.0 kg ha⁻1 and 108.8 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 and Neme 112 kg ha⁻1, respectively.
Soil total N levels also increased across growth stages from EME to SD for both Neme. At the EME stage, no significant differences were measured between application rates, with soil total N values of 12.4 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 and 19.3 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 112 kg ha⁻1. However, at the SD stage, the Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 resulted in significantly higher soil total N (50.9 kg ha⁻1) compared to the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 (27.3 kg ha⁻1).

3.4. Effect of Nsd on Leaf Area Index and Soil Total Nitrogen Across Growth Stages

The LAI values did not show significant differences among the Nsd at the SD stage (Table 5). In contrast, soil total N at the silk stage showed significant differences among application rates. The Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1 resulted in the highest soil total N (138.9 kg ha⁻1), significantly greater than the Nsd 162 kg ha⁻1 (93.1 kg ha⁻1) and Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 (81.4 kg ha⁻1).

3.5. Effect of the Interaction Between Location and Neme on Total Nitrogen and Soil Total Nitrogen Across Growth Stages

A significant interaction between location and Neme was measured for total N uptake at the harvest stage and soil total N at the SD stage (Table 6).
At the harvest stage, in Alabama (2022), Neme application significantly affected total N uptake with the application of 112 kg ha⁻1 resulting in higher total N uptake (177.77 kg ha⁻1) compared to the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 (154.59 kg ha⁻1). These values were significantly greater than those recorded in Alabama (2021), where total N uptake was similar for both application rates (41.40 kg ha⁻1 for 56 kg ha⁻1 and 39.78 kg ha⁻1 for 112 kg ha⁻1). In Georgia (2020), total N uptake at harvest was not statistically analyzed due to missing data.
At the SD stage, in Georgia (2020), the Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 resulted in significantly higher soil total N (83.54 kg ha⁻1) compared to the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 (24.36 kg ha⁻1). In Alabama (2022), there were no significant differences in soil total N results between the Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 (66.41 kg ha⁻1) and the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 (53.93 kg ha⁻1). In Alabama (2021), soil total N levels were lower than those measured in Georgia (2020) and Alabama (2022), with no significant differences between application rates (3.78 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 and 2.99 kg ha⁻1 for Neme 112 kg ha⁻1).

3.6. Effect of the Interaction Between Location and Nsd on Leaf Area Index, Biomass Accumulation, and Total Nitrogen Across Growth Stages

The interaction between location and Nsd significantly impacted LAI at the EME stage, biomass accumulation at the SD stage, and total N uptake at the EME and SD stages (Table 7).
At the EME stage, LAI increased with higher Nsd rates in Georgia (2020) and Alabama (2021) but increased with lower Nsd rates in Alabama (2022). In Georgia (2020), LAI ranged from 303 cm2 for Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 to 344 cm2 for Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1, with no significant differences among application rates. These values were significantly lower than those recorded in Alabama (2021 and 2022). In Alabama (2021), LAI increased with higher Nsd applications, with 965 cm2 recorded for the 190 kg ha⁻1, significantly higher than the 777 cm2 recorded for the Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1. In contrast, in Alabama (2022), the highest LAI value was measured at Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 (1467 cm2), while the lowest LAI was recorded at Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1 (1268 cm2).
Total N uptake at the EME and SD stages was significantly affected by location and Nsd. At the EME stage, in Alabama (2022), Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 recorded the highest total N uptake (67.58 kg ha⁻1). In Alabama (2021), total N uptake ranged from 13.00 kg ha⁻1 for Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 to 17.71 kg ha⁻1 for Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1. Total N uptake for Georgia (2020) was not analyzed due to missing data. At the SD stage, in Alabama (2022), no significant differences were measured between Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 (96.44 kg ha⁻1) and Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1 (102.61 kg ha⁻1). In contrast, Alabama (2021) and Georgia (2020) showed lower total N uptake, with no significant differences among Nsd.
Biomass accumulation was also significantly influenced by the interaction between location and Nsd. Alabama (2022) exhibited the highest biomass values across all locations, with 3217 kg ha⁻1 for Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1, followed by 3095 kg ha⁻1 for Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1, and 2724 kg ha⁻1 for Nsd 162 kg ha⁻1. Lower biomass values were recorded in Alabama (2021), where the highest value, 2116 kg ha⁻1, was measured for Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1, with no significant differences compared to other application rates. Georgia (2020) showed the lowest biomass values across all locations, with the highest biomass recorded for Nsd 162 kg ha⁻1 (1573 kg ha⁻1). However, no significant differences were measured between Nsd 162 kg ha⁻1, Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1 (1475 kg ha⁻1), and Nsd 134 kg ha⁻1 (1179 kg ha⁻1).

3.7. Effect of Location on Sweet Corn Yield and Ear Structure Parameters

Location had a significant effect on sweet corn yield, ears per plant, ED, EL, KIR, and KTG, with significant differences measured among all locations (Table 8).
Sweet corn yield was highest in Alabama (2022), with a recorded value of 17,380 kg ha⁻1, which was significantly greater than Georgia (2020) (15,951 kg ha⁻1) and Alabama (2021) (14,470 kg ha⁻1). The number of ears per plant was also significantly higher in Alabama (2022) (1.13 ears per plant) compared to Alabama (2021) and Georgia (2020) (both recorded 1 ear per plant). For ED, Alabama (2021) produced the largest ear diameter (4.77 cm), significantly greater than both Alabama (2022) (4.49 cm) and Georgia (2020) (4.17 cm). The longest ears were measured in Alabama (2022) (19 cm), which were significantly longer than those in Alabama (2021) (18 cm) and Georgia (2020) (17 cm).
Kernel characteristics, including KIR and KTG, also showed significant variations across locations. Alabama (2021) and Georgia (2020) had the highest KIR (36 and 33, respectively), while Alabama (2022) recorded the lowest value (30). For KTG, Alabama (2021) achieved the highest value (503 grains), though not significantly different from Georgia (2020) (472 grains). Alabama (2022) recorded the lowest KTG (437 grains).

3.8. Nitrogen Use Efficiency

The NUE was analyzed across various growth stages, and the results are summarized in Table 9. There were no significant interactions between location, Neme, and Nsd on NUE at the emergence stage (NUEeme), side-dress stage (NUEsd), silk stage (NUEsilk), or harvest stage (NUEharv). However, location had a significant effect on NUEeme, NUEsd, NUEsilk, and NUEharv.
The highest NUEeme was recorded in Alabama (2022) (28.9%), followed by Alabama (2021) (23.0%). No data were reported for Georgia (2020). For NUEsd, Alabama (2022) also achieved the highest value (60.6%), followed by Georgia (2020) (43.0%) and Alabama (2021) (37.5%). Similarly, NUEsilk was highest in Alabama (2022) (51.0%), which was significantly greater than Alabama (2021) (22.1%) and Georgia (2020) (15.5%). At the harvest stage, the highest NUEharv was measured in Alabama (2022) (51.6%), followed by Georgia (2020) (21.0%) and Alabama (2021) (13.2%).
The Neme and Nsd significantly influenced NUE at specific stages (Table 9). For NUEsd, the Neme 56 kg ha−1 recorded a significantly higher value (58.8%) compared to the Neme 112 kg ha−1 (35.2%). Similarly, for NUEsilk, the Neme 56 kg ha−1 was significantly greater (31.7%) than Neme 112 kg ha−1 (27.3%).
For Nsd, NUEsilk was significantly higher at an application rate of 134 kg ha⁻1 (33.7%), compared to 162 kg ha⁻1 (27.6%) and 190 kg ha⁻1 (27.2%). At the harvest stage, NUEharv was highest for Nsd 162 kg ha−1 (30.5%), followed by Nsd 134 kg ha−1 (29.8%) and Nsd 190 kg ha−1 (25.4%).

3.9. Correlation Analysis

The Pearson correlation analysis (Figure 3) revealed that sweet corn yield was positively correlated with the number of ears per plant, ear weight (EW), biomass (BD), total N (TKN), NUE, and EL. In contrast, yield was negatively correlated with KIR and KTG.
The NUE showed positive correlations with the number of ears per plant, BD, TKN, and EL but was negatively correlated with KIR and KTG. Similarly, LAI was positively correlated with EW and BD. Biomass exhibited positive correlations with the number of ears per plant, EW, EL, and TKN but negatively correlated with KIR and KTG. TKN was positively correlated with the number of ears per plant, EL, and soil total N (SN) but was negatively correlated with KIR and KTG. SN was positively correlated with ED. KIR was positively correlated only with KTG, while KTG was also positively correlated with KR.

4. Discussion

This study evaluates the effects of N fertilizer rates and application timings on sweet corn growth and yield in the southeastern US, focusing on balancing agronomic productivity and environmental sustainability. The findings provide valuable insights into N management strategies for sweet corn cultivation under the unique climatic and soil conditions prevalent in the region.
The N fertilizer application rate and timing were critical for achieving high productivity and profitability in sweet corn production [7]. Sweet corn responded differently to N rates depending on environmental conditions, as evidenced by previous studies [7,22]. Proper selection of N rates and application timing is essential for improving yield and ear structure traits, such as ear diameter, ear length, number of ears per plant, and ear weight [4,22,23]. Conversely, excessive N applications can reduce plant growth, impair ear structure, and increase environmental risks [2,14].
Environmental factors, including temperature, rainfall, and drought, significantly influenced N uptake and sweet corn performance [24]. While warm temperatures enhance metabolic activity and N uptake, excessive heat can induce plant stress, thereby reducing nutrient uptake efficiency [25,26]. Adequate moisture supports N uptake, but heavy rainfall may lead to N leaching, while drought reduces N availability and uptake, ultimately lowering yields [2,27]. The sandy to loamy sandy soils prevalent in the southeastern US intensify leaching during heavy rainfall due to their low water-holding capacity [27,28,29].
Rainfall patterns in this study significantly influenced N availability and sweet corn performance. In Georgia (2020), heavy rainfall on the day of Neme fertilization (19 DAP) likely caused N leaching, as evidenced by low soil total N levels at the EME stage. Following Nsd fertilization, limited rainfall (14.5 mm over 18 days) reduced soil moisture, thereby limiting N uptake, biomass accumulation, and yield [30]. In Alabama (2021), substantial rainfall after Neme (70 mm) and Nsd (71 mm) fertilization caused N leaching, leading to reduced soil total N, lower biomass accumulation, and lower total N uptake compared to Alabama (2022). In contrast, Alabama (2022) experienced well-distributed rainfall, achieving a balance between adequate soil moisture and manageable N leaching, resulting in higher soil total N and improved N uptake at critical growth stages, including EME, SD, and silk.
Accumulated GDD also influenced sweet corn performance [31,32]. Alabama (2022) had the highest GDD, supporting prolonged and consistent crop development, which resulted in the highest yields (17,380 kg ha⁻1) [25,31]. In contrast, Georgia (2020) and Alabama (2021) exhibited lower GDD, limiting crop growth durations and reducing yields (15,951 kg ha⁻1 and 14,470 kg ha⁻1, respectively).
Location-specific factors significantly influenced LAI, biomass accumulation, total N, and soil total N at all growth stages. Alabama (2022) consistently outperformed other locations, achieving the highest LAI, biomass, and total N at the EME stage, likely due to favorable environmental conditions rather than variations in N rate, as the Npl (34 kg N ha⁻1) was uniform across locations [2,4,27]. At the SD and silk stages, Alabama (2022) maintained superior LAI, biomass, and total N levels, reflecting effective utilization of applied N under favorable climatic conditions [7,22,24]. The high soil total N measured in Alabama (2021) during the silk stage suggests non-utilized N due to constrained crop development under less favorable conditions. At harvest, Alabama (2022) recorded the highest biomass and total N, underscoring the cumulative advantages of optimal conditions and effective N management [24].
The variation in parameters across growth stages highlights the importance of phenological stages in plant growth and nutrient uptake [30,33,34]. The higher values of biomass accumulation measured at the silk stage suggest that this stage is a critical period for resource allocation and plant growth [34]. This finding aligns with the well-established understanding that the silk stage represents a peak in photosynthetic capacity and nutrient demand [35,36]. Similarly, the highest LAI values measured at the SD stage indicate a critical period in crop development, as supported by recent studies [36,37,38]. Total nitrogen and soil total N showed distinctive patterns, with increases up to silk or harvest, depending on the location. These trends highlight the dynamic interaction between plant nutrient demand, soil N availability, and environmental factors across phenological stages.
Neme significantly influenced biomass accumulation, total N, and soil total N across growth stages. At the SD stage, the Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 produced higher biomass (2298 kg ha⁻1) than Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 (1992 kg ha⁻1), indicating that lower N rates better matched early-stage nutrient demands [39,40]. However, by the silk stage, this initial advantage diminished, with no significant differences in biomass measured. Total N at the SD stage was higher under Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 (69.5 kg ha⁻1) compared to Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 (61.4 kg ha⁻1), highlighting the efficiency of lower N rates at earlier growth stages. At harvest, total N levels were similar between N application rates, suggesting that both rates supplied sufficient N for the crop to reach its full physiological potential by harvest [41]. Higher soil total N under Neme 112 kg ha⁻1 (50.9 kg ha⁻1) compared to Neme 56 kg ha⁻1 (27.3 kg ha⁻1) suggests increased residual N, raising concerns about potential leaching under heavy rainfall [42,43].
For Nsd, soil total N at the silk stage increased with higher Nsd rates, with the Nsd 190 kg ha⁻1 achieving the highest soil total N (138.9 kg ha⁻1). While this could benefit late-stage development, it also highlights the risk of excessive residual N and potential environmental losses [42,43,44,45].
Sweet corn yield, ear productivity, and kernel structure varied significantly by location. Alabama (2022) recorded the highest yield (17,380 kg ha⁻1), ears per plant (1.13), and EL (19 cm). These factors, which are positively correlated, underscore the importance of optimal growing conditions, including favorable temperatures, moderate N applications (224–280 kg ha⁻1), adequate rainfall, and high GDD [4,7,25,44,45,46].
NUE measures how effectively plants use applied N [29,41]. Alabama (2022) achieved the highest NUE across all growth stages (NUEeme, NUEsd, NUEsilk, and NUEharv), reflecting the combined benefits of favorable environmental conditions and precise N management [29,47]. Enhanced NUE was measured with a low Npl rate (34 kg ha−1), combined with a Neme rate of 56 kg ha−1 and a moderate Nsd rate (134–162 hg ha−1). These practices emphasize the value of split N applications in improving N uptake, reducing leaching, and minimizing environmental risks [12,29].
Therefore, moderate N application rates (224–280 kg ha⁻1) appear to provide an optimal balance between crop productivity, N efficiency, and soil health, particularly under conditions where environmental factors align to support crop growth. This range aligns with the measured results in Alabama (2022), where moderate N rates, combined with favorable rainfall and GDD, contributed to superior crop performance.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the importance of selecting appropriate N fertilization rates and application timings to enhance sweet corn growth and yield under the subtropical environmental conditions of the southeastern US. Moderate N rates (224–280 kg ha⁻1) combined with split applications significantly improved sweet corn growth and yield while minimizing environmental risks. In Alabama (2022), the highest yields (17,380 kg ha−1) and NUE were achieved with the use of moderate N rates combined with favorable rainfall distribution patterns. This highlights the importance of integrating environmental variability into N management strategies. The findings suggest that growers can adopt lower N rates (Npl: 34 kg ha−1; Neme: 56 kg ha−1) during planting and early growth stages, along with moderate N rate applications (Nsd: 134–162 hg ha−1) at critical development stages to achieve a balance between productivity and sustainability. Future research should focus on integrating advanced modeling and precision agriculture technologies to refine site-specific N recommendations, accounting for inter-annual climatic variability. By adopting these practices, growers can enhance resource use efficiency, improve economic returns, and contribute to the sustainability of sweet corn production systems in the southeastern US and similar regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.F., T.C., E.T.-Q. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; methodology, J.P., W.F., T.C., E.T.-Q. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; software, J.P., E.T.-Q. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; validation, T.C., E.T.-Q. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; formal analysis, J.P. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; investigation, J.P. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; resources, A.L.B.R.d.S.; data curation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P.; writing—review and editing, W.F., T.C., E.T.-Q. and A.L.B.R.d.S.; visualization, A.L.B.R.d.S.; supervision, A.L.B.R.d.S.; project administration, A.L.B.R.d.S.; funding acquisition, A.L.B.R.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank farm managers for each location where field experiments were conducted, as well as members of the Vegetable Crop Team at Auburn University for helping with sampling and data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. USDA. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service—Vegetables 2021 Summary. Available online: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (accessed on 20 January 2025).
  2. Leghari, S.J.; Wahocho, N.A.; Laghari, G.M.; HafeezLaghari, A.; MustafaBhabhan, G.; HussainTalpur, K.; Bhutto, T.A.; Wahocho, S.A.; Lashari, A.A. Role of nitrogen for plant growth and development: A review. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2016, 10, 209–219. [Google Scholar]
  3. Morton, L.W.; Cooley, D.; Clements, J.; Gleason, M. Climate, Weather and Apples; Department of Sociology, Iowa State University: Ames, IN, USA, 2017; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  4. Revilla, P.; Anibas, C.M.; Tracy, W.F. Sweet corn research around the world 2015–2020. Agronomy 2021, 11, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khan, A.A.; Hussain, A.; Ganai, M.A.; Sofi, N.; Hussain, S.T. Yield, nutrient uptake and quality of sweet corn as influenced by transplanting dates and nitrogen levels. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 3567–3571. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sugiyama, T.; Sakakibara, H. Regulation of carbon and nitrogen assimilation through gene expression. In Photosynthetic Nitrogen Assimilation and Associated Carbon and Respiratory Metabolism; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 227–238. [Google Scholar]
  7. Evans, J.R.; Clarke, V.C. The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Calabi-Floody, M.; Medina, J.; Rumpel, C.; Condron, L.M.; Hernandez, M.; Dumont, M.; de La Luz Mora, M. Smart fertilizers as a strategy for sustainable agriculture. Adv. Agron. 2018, 147, 119–157. [Google Scholar]
  9. Oktem, A.; Oktem, A.; Emeklier, H. Effect of nitrogen on yield and some quality parameters of sweet corn. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2010, 41, 832–847. [Google Scholar]
  10. Stephens, J.M.; Liu, G. Soil Preparation and Liming for Vegetable Gardens. Available online: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/VH024 (accessed on 12 June 2024).
  11. Camberato, J.; Nielsen, R.; Joern, B.; Nitrogen Management Guidelines for Corn in Indiana. Purdue Nitrogen Management Update. 2017. Available online: https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/nitrogenmgmt.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2016).
  12. Panison, F.; Sangoi, L.; Durli, M.M.; Leolato, L.S.; Coelho, A.E.; Kuneski, H.F.; Liz, V.O.d. Timing and splitting of nitrogen side-dress fertilization of early corn hybrids for high grain yield. Rev. Bras. Ciência Solo 2019, 43, e0170338. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gao, L.; Li, Y.-L.; Li, W.; Yu, T.; Li, G.-K.; Li, C.-Y.; Hu, J.-G. Effects of nitrogen application on yields and nitrogen use efficiencies of sweet corn in south China. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2017, 23, 1215–1224. [Google Scholar]
  14. Malik, W.; Isla, R.; Dechmi, F. DSSAT-CERES-maize modelling to improve irrigation and nitrogen management practices under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kalvová, J.; Halenka, T.; Bezpalcová, K.; Nemešová, I. Köppen climate types in observed and simulated climates. Stud. Geophys. Geod. 2003, 47, 185–202. [Google Scholar]
  16. Beck, H.E.; Zimmermann, N.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E.F. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 180214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kemble, J.M.; Bertucci, T.R.; Jennings, K.M.; Meadows, I.M.; Rodrigues, C.; Walgenbach, J.F.; Wszelaki, A.L. Southeastern U.S. 2022 Vegetable Crop Handbook; Great American Media Services: Sparta, MI, USA, 2022; Volume 2023, p. 365. [Google Scholar]
  18. McMaster, G.S.; Wilhelm, W. Growing degree-days: One equation, two interpretations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1997, 87, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eck, M.A.; Murray, A.R.; Ward, A.R.; Konrad, C.E. Influence of growing season temperature and precipitation anomalies on crop yield in the southeastern United States. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 291, 108053. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zebarth, B.; Leclerc, Y.; Moreau, G. Rate and timing of nitrogen fertilization of Russet Burbank potato: Nitrogen use efficiency. Can. J. plant Sci. 2004, 84, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. Khan, Z.H.; Khalil, S.K.; Iqbal, A.; Ullah, I.; Ali, M.; Shah, T.; Wu, W.; Shah, F. Nitrogen doses and plant density affect phenology and yield of sweet corn. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2017, 26, 3809–3815. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kar, P.; Barik, K.; Mahapatra, P.; Garnayak, L.; Rath, B.; Bastia, D.; Khanda, C. Effect of plantinggeometry and nitrogen on yield, economics and nitrogen uptake of sweet corn (Zea mays). Indian J. Agron. 2006, 51, 43–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abewoy, D. Review on impacts of climate change on vegetable production and its management practices. Adv. Crop Sci. Technol. 2018, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marañón, E.; Lorenzo, M.P.; Cermeño, P.; Mouriño-Carballido, B. Nutrient limitation suppresses the temperature dependence of phytoplankton metabolic rates. ISME J. 2018, 12, 1836–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jones, C.; Brown, B.D.; Engel, R.; Horneck, D.; Olson-Rutz, K. Nitrogen Fertilizer Volatilization; Montana State University Extension: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cazetta, J.O.; Seebauer, J.R.; Below, F.E. Sucrose and nitrogen supplies regulate growth of maize kernels. Ann. Bot. 1999, 84, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guo, R.; Li, X.; Christie, P.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, F. Seasonal temperatures have more influence than nitrogen fertilizer rates on cucumber yield and nitrogen uptake in a double cropping system. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 151, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Subedi, K.; Ma, B. Corn Crop Production: Growth, Fertilization and Yield; Nova Science Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liliane, T.N.; Charles, M.S. Factors affecting yield of crops. In Agronomy-Climate Change & Food Security; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; p. 9. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dhaliwal, D.S.; Williams, M.M. Evidence of sweet corn yield losses from rising temperatures. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 18218. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ben-Asher, J.; Garcia y Garcia, A.; Hoogenboom, G. Effect of high temperature on photosynthesis and transpiration of sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. rugosa). Photosynthetica 2008, 46, 595–603. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ciampitti, I.A.; Vyn, T.J. A comprehensive study of plant density consequences on nitrogen uptake dynamics of maize plants from vegetative to reproductive stages. Field Crops Res. 2011, 121, 2–18. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cheng, Q.; Xu, H.; Fei, S.; Li, Z.; Chen, Z. Estimation of maize LAI using ensemble learning and UAV multispectral imagery under different water and fertilizer treatments. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, G.; Long, H.; Zhang, R.; Xu, A.; Niu, L. Photosynthetic traits, water use and the yield of maize are influenced by soil water stability. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 1235. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yan, Y.; Duan, F.; Li, X.; Zhao, R.; Hou, P.; Zhao, M.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Dai, T.; Zhou, W. Photosynthetic capacity and assimilate transport of the lower canopy influence maize yield under high planting density. Plant Physiol. 2024, 195, 2652–2667. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sangoi, L.; Picoli Junior, G.J.; Vargas, V.P.; Vieira, J.; Schmitt, A.; Zoldan, S.R.; Siega, E.; Carniel, G. Nitrogen side-dress as a strategy to reduce defoliation damages at different growth stages of maize. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2014, 35, 671–682. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang, T.; Zhao, J.; Fu, Q. Quantitative Relationship of Plant Height and Leaf Area Index of Spring Maize under Different Water and Nitrogen Treatments Based on Effective Accumulated Temperature. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fageria, N.K.; Baligar, V.C. Enhancing Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crop Plants. In Advances in Agronomy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; Volume 88, pp. 97–185. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ren, Y.; Sun, Z.; Hu, X.; Liu, Q.; Xu, Q.; Qin, D.; Wang, X.; Liu, S.; Ma, C.; Wei, X. Effects of Different Nitrogen Allocation Ratios and Period on Cotton Yield and Nitrogen Utilization. Water 2023, 15, 3011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Govindasamy, P.; Muthusamy, S.K.; Bagavathiannan, M.; Mowrer, J.; Jagannadham, P.T.K.; Maity, A.; Halli, H.M.; GK, S.; Vadivel, R.; TK, D. Nitrogen use efficiency—A key to enhance crop productivity under a changing climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1121073. [Google Scholar]
  42. Xu, A.; Li, L.; Xie, J.; Wang, X.; Coulter, J.A.; Liu, C.; Wang, L. Effect of long-term nitrogen addition on wheat yield, nitrogen use efficiency, and residual soil nitrate in a semiarid area of the loess plateau of China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Flynn, N.E.; Comas, L.H.; Stewart, C.E.; Fonte, S.J. High N availability decreases N uptake and yield under limited water availability in maize. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 14269. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhou, S.; Xia, P.; Chen, J.; Xiong, Q.; Li, G.; Tian, J.; Wu, B.; Zhou, F. Optimizing nitrogen application position to change root distribution in soil and regulate maize growth and yield formation in a wide–narrow row cropping system: Pot and field experiments. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1298249. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yadete, E.; Gurmu, S.; Biya, M. Effects of Time and Rate of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on Phenology, Growth and Yield of Maize at Jimma, Southwestern Ethiopia. World J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2024, 2, 185–197. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nemeskéri, E.; Helyes, L. Physiological responses of selected vegetable crop species to water stress. Agronomy 2019, 9, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nielsen, R. N loss mechanisms and nitrogen use efficiency. In Purdue Nitrogen Management Workshops; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2006; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Rainfall and daily maximum and minimum temperatures during the sweet corn fall season in (a) Georgia (2020), (b) Alabama (2021), and (c) Alabama (2022).
Figure 1. Rainfall and daily maximum and minimum temperatures during the sweet corn fall season in (a) Georgia (2020), (b) Alabama (2021), and (c) Alabama (2022).
Nitrogen 06 00020 g001
Figure 2. Effect of location on (a) leaf area index, (b) biomass accumulation, (c) total nitrogen (N) uptake, and (d) soil total nitrogen across growth stages. Values followed by similar lowercase letters among locations within growth stages indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. Abbreviations: LAI—leaf area index; N—nitrogen; EME—emergence stage sampling; SD—side-dress stage sampling.
Figure 2. Effect of location on (a) leaf area index, (b) biomass accumulation, (c) total nitrogen (N) uptake, and (d) soil total nitrogen across growth stages. Values followed by similar lowercase letters among locations within growth stages indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. Abbreviations: LAI—leaf area index; N—nitrogen; EME—emergence stage sampling; SD—side-dress stage sampling.
Nitrogen 06 00020 g002
Figure 3. Correlation-based network analysis using Pearson’s correlation method to compare all response variables: number of ears per plant (EAR), ear weight (EW), leaf area index (LAI), biomass (BD), yield (Y), soil total N (SN), total N (TKN), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), ear diameter (ED), ear length (EL), kernel rows (KR), number of kernels in an ear row (KIR), and total number of kernels per ear (KTG).
Figure 3. Correlation-based network analysis using Pearson’s correlation method to compare all response variables: number of ears per plant (EAR), ear weight (EW), leaf area index (LAI), biomass (BD), yield (Y), soil total N (SN), total N (TKN), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), ear diameter (ED), ear length (EL), kernel rows (KR), number of kernels in an ear row (KIR), and total number of kernels per ear (KTG).
Nitrogen 06 00020 g003
Table 1. Location, geographic coordinates, year, season, soil type, planting spacing, planting date, harvest date, and accumulated growing degree days from planting to harvest for each field experiment.
Table 1. Location, geographic coordinates, year, season, soil type, planting spacing, planting date, harvest date, and accumulated growing degree days from planting to harvest for each field experiment.
LocationGeographic
Coordinates
YearSeason Soil Type IRS 1 (cm)PS 2 (cm)PD 3 Harvest GDD 4 (°C)
Georgia32.01814° N, 82.22138° W2020FallIrvington loamy sand91.4417.78Aug. 26 Nov. 2928
Alabama32.50053° N, 85.89281° W2021FallKalmia loamy sand91.4417.78Aug. 16 Nov. 1921
Alabama32.50053° N, 85.89281° W2022FallKalmia loamy sand91.4417.78Aug. 17 Nov. 7980
1 IRS = in-row spacing. 2 PS: plant spacing. 3 PD: planting date. 4 GDD: growing degree days (the base temperature for sweet corn is 10 °C).
Table 2. Nitrogen fertilizer rates applied at planting, emergence, and side-dress stages, and total nitrogen applied for each experimental field.
Table 2. Nitrogen fertilizer rates applied at planting, emergence, and side-dress stages, and total nitrogen applied for each experimental field.
Treatments N Rates (kg ha−1)
Npl 1Neme 2 Nsd 3Total N
1 34 56 134 224
2 34 56 162 252
3 34 56 190 280
4 34 112 134 280
5 34 112 162 308
6 34 112 190 336
1 Npl: nitrogen application at planting day. 2 Neme: nitrogen application at emergence stage. 3 Nsd: nitrogen application at side-dress stage.
Table 3. Sampling stages for nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4+), biomass accumulation, and total nitrogen.
Table 3. Sampling stages for nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4+), biomass accumulation, and total nitrogen.
StagesDAP 1
Soil Total N (NO3 + NH4+)Biomass and Total N
2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022
PL 20 0 0 ---
EME 319 25 28 19 25 28
SD 440 4440 40 4440
Silk54 66 62 54 66 62
Harvest68 74 82 68 74 82
1 DAP: days after planting. 2 PL: planting day sampling (day 0). 3 EME: emergence stage sampling. 4 SD: side-dress stage sampling.
Table 4. Effect of Neme on biomass accumulation, total nitrogen uptake, and soil total nitrogen across growth stages.
Table 4. Effect of Neme on biomass accumulation, total nitrogen uptake, and soil total nitrogen across growth stages.
Neme 1
(kg ha−1)
Biomass (kg ha−1)Total N Uptake (kg ha−1)Soil Total N (kg ha−1)
SD 2SilkSDHarvestEME 3SD
562298 a 42604 a69.5 a98.0 a12.4 a27.3 b
1121992 b2797 a61.4 b108.8 a19.3 a50.9 a
p-value 5**ns*nsns***
1 Neme: nitrogen application at emergence stage. 2 SD: side-dress stage sampling. 3 EME: emergence stage sampling. 4 Values followed by similar lowercase letters among Neme indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to the Tukey’s mean test. 5 Levels of significance (p-value): ns, non-significant; *, significant at p ≤ 0.05; **, significant at p ≤ 0.01; ***, significant at p ≤ 0.001.
Table 5. Effect of Nsd on leaf area index and soil total nitrogen across growth stages.
Table 5. Effect of Nsd on leaf area index and soil total nitrogen across growth stages.
Nsd 1
(kg ha−1)
LAI 2
(cm2)
Soil Total N
(kg ha−1)
SD 3Silk
1901870 a 4138.9 a
1622069 a93.1 b
1341953 a81.4 b
p-value 5ns*
1 Nsd: nitrogen application at side-dress stage. 2 LAI: leaf area index. 3 SD: side-dress stage sampling. 4 Values followed by similar lowercase letters among Nsd indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. 5 Levels of significance (p-value): ns, non-significant; *, significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 6. Effect of the interaction between location and Neme on total nitrogen and soil total nitrogen uptake across growth stages.
Table 6. Effect of the interaction between location and Neme on total nitrogen and soil total nitrogen uptake across growth stages.
Neme 1
(kg ha−1)
Georgia (2020)Alabama (2021)Alabama (2022)
Harvest
Total N Uptake (kg ha−1)
56-41.40 aB154.59 bA
112-39.78 aB177.77 aA
p-value 2-**
Neme (kg ha−1)SD 3
Soil total N (kg ha−1)
5624.36 b 4 B 53.78 aB53.93 aA
11283.54 aA2.99 aB66.41 aA
p-value******
1 Neme: nitrogen application at emergence stage. 2 Levels of significance (p-value): *, significant at p ≤ 0.05; **, significant at p ≤ 0.01. 3 SD: side-dress stage sampling. 4 Values followed by similar lowercase letters among Neme within each location indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. 5 Values followed by similar uppercase letters among locations within Neme indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test.
Table 7. Effect of the interaction between location and Nsd on leaf area index, biomass accumulation, and total nitrogen uptake across growth stages.
Table 7. Effect of the interaction between location and Nsd on leaf area index, biomass accumulation, and total nitrogen uptake across growth stages.
Nsd 1
(kg ha−1)
Georgia (2020)Alabama (2021)Alabama (2022)
EME 2
LAI (cm2) 3
134303 a 4 C 5777 bB1467 aA
162322 aC814 abB1335 abA
190344 aC965 aB1268 bA
p-value 6***
Nsd (kg ha−1)SD 7
Biomass (kg ha−1)
1341179 aC2116 aB3217 aA
1621573 aB1890 aB2724 bA
1901475 aC2035 aB3095 aA
p-value***
Nsd (kg ha−1)EME
Total N uptale (kg ha−1)
134-13.00 aB67.58 aA
162-15.01 aA21.36 bA
190-17.71 aA20.67 bA
p-value-**
Nsd (kg ha−1)SD
Total N uptake (kg ha−1)
13441.91 aB57.37 aB96.44 aA
16253.83 aB50.52 aB83.18 bA
19050.54 aB52.61 aB102.61 aA
p-value***
1 Nsd: nitrogen application at side-dress stage. 2 EME: emergence stage sampling. 3 LAI: leaf area index. 4 Values followed by similar lowercase letters among Nsd within each location indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. 5 Values followed by similar uppercase letters among locations within each Nsd indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. 6 Levels of significance (p-value): *, significant at p ≤ 0.05. 7 SD: side-dress stage sampling.
Table 8. Effect of location on yield, ears per plant, ear diameter, ear length, number of kernels in an ear row, and total number of kernels per ear.
Table 8. Effect of location on yield, ears per plant, ear diameter, ear length, number of kernels in an ear row, and total number of kernels per ear.
LocationYield (kg ha−1)Ears per PlantED 1 (cm)EL 2 (cm)KIR 3KTG 4
Georgia (2020)15,951 ab 51 b4.17 c17 c33 a472 ab
Alabama (2021)14,470 b1 b4.77 a18 b36 a503 ab
Alabama (2022)17,380 a1.13 a4.49 b19 a30 b437 b
p-value 6*****************
1 ED: ear diameter. 2 EL: ear length. 3 KIR: number of kernels in an ear row. 4 KTG: total number of kernels per ear. 5 Values followed by similar lowercase letters among locations indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. 6 Levels of significance (p-value): **, significant at p ≤ 0.01; ***, significant at p ≤ 0.001.
Table 9. Effect of location, Neme application, and Nsd application on nitrogen use efficiency at emergence, side-dress, silk, and harvest stages.
Table 9. Effect of location, Neme application, and Nsd application on nitrogen use efficiency at emergence, side-dress, silk, and harvest stages.
NUEeme 1 (%)NUEsd 2 (%)NUEsilk 3 (%)NUEharv 4 (%)
Location
Georgia (2020)-43.0 b15.5 b21.0 b
Alabama (2021)23.0 b 537.5 b22.1 b13.2 c
Alabama (2022)28.9 a60.6 a51.0 a51.6 a
p-value 6**********
Neme 7 (kg ha−1)
5626.5 a58.8 a31.7 a29.3 a
11225.4 a35.2 b27.3 b27.8 a
p-valuens****ns
Nsd 8 (kg ha−1)
13425.9 a46.3 a33.7 a29.8 ab
16225.2 a45.2 a27.6 b30.5 a
19026.8 a49.5 a27.2 b25.4 b
p-valuensns***
Location*Nemensnsnsns
Location*Nsdnsnsnsns
Neme*Nsdnsnsnsns
Location*Neme*Nsdnsnsnsns
1 NUEeme: Nitrogen use efficiency at emergence stage sampling. 2 NUEsd: Nitrogen use efficiency at side-dress stage sampling. 3 NUEsilk: Nitrogen use efficiency at silk stage sampling. 4 NUEharv: Nitrogen use efficiency at harvest stage sampling. 5 Values followed by similar lowercase letters within a column for each factor (location, Neme, or Nsd) indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05) according to Tukey’s mean test. 6 Levels of significance (p-value): ns, non-significant; *, significant at p ≤ 0.05; **, significant at p ≤ 0.01; ***, significant at p ≤ 0.001. 7 Neme: application at emergence stage. 8 Nsd: application at side-dress stage.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Paranhos, J.; Foshee, W.; Coolong, T.; Torres-Quezada, E.; da Silva, A.L.B.R. Impacts of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Timing and Rate on Sweet Corn Production Under Subtropical Environmental Conditions. Nitrogen 2025, 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen6020020

AMA Style

Paranhos J, Foshee W, Coolong T, Torres-Quezada E, da Silva ALBR. Impacts of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Timing and Rate on Sweet Corn Production Under Subtropical Environmental Conditions. Nitrogen. 2025; 6(2):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen6020020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Paranhos, Jessica, Wheeler Foshee, Timothy Coolong, Emmanuel Torres-Quezada, and Andre Luiz Biscaia Ribeiro da Silva. 2025. "Impacts of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Timing and Rate on Sweet Corn Production Under Subtropical Environmental Conditions" Nitrogen 6, no. 2: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen6020020

APA Style

Paranhos, J., Foshee, W., Coolong, T., Torres-Quezada, E., & da Silva, A. L. B. R. (2025). Impacts of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Timing and Rate on Sweet Corn Production Under Subtropical Environmental Conditions. Nitrogen, 6(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen6020020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop