Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 10;10(11):2426.
doi: 10.3390/plants10112426.

Examination of the Productivity and Physiological Responses of Maize (Zea mays L.) to Nitrapyrin and Foliar Fertilizer Treatments

Dalma Rácz  1 , Lóránt Szőke  2 , Brigitta Tóth  2 , Béla Kovács  2 , Éva Horváth  1 , Péter Zagyi  1 , László Duzs  1 , Adrienn Széles  1
Affiliations

Examination of the Productivity and Physiological Responses of Maize (Zea mays L.) to Nitrapyrin and Foliar Fertilizer Treatments

Dalma Rácz et al. Plants (Basel). .

Abstract

Nutrient stress has been known as the main limiting factor for maize growth and yield. Nitrapyrin, as a nitrification inhibitor-which reduces nitrogen loss-and foliar fertilizer treatments have been successfully used to enhance the efficiency of nutrient utilization, however, the impacts of these two technologies on physiological development, enzymatic responses, and productivity of maize are poorly studied. In this paper, the concentration of each stress indicator, such as contents of proline, malondialdehyde (MDA), relative chlorophyll, photosynthetic pigments, and the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) were measured in maize leaf tissues. In addition, biomass growth, as well as quantitative and qualitative parameters of yield production were examined. Results confirm the enhancing impact of nitrapyrin on the nitrogen use of maize. Furthermore, lower activity of proline, MDA, SOD, as well as higher photosynthetic activity were shown in maize with a more favorable nutrient supply due to nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer treatments. The obtained findings draw attention to the future practical relevance of these technologies that can be implemented to enhance the physiological development and productivity of maize. However, this paper also highlights the importance of irrigation, as nutrient uptake from soil by the crops decreases during periods of drought.

Keywords: abiotic stress; foliar fertilizer; maize; nitrapyrin; nutrient supply; stress response.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Nitrate content changes in the soil during the growing season due to nitrapyrin treatment and soil temperature. Each column represents the means ± SD (n = 6) of nitrate measurements. Data of the dashed line show the weekly mean of average daily soil temperature. CT: untreated control; FF: foliar fertilizer; NP: nitrapyrin-treated soil; NP + FF: joint treatment of nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer; TS: soil temperature; Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (Student’s t-test, p < 0.05) between nitrapyrin-treated and untreated soils.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The relative chlorophyll (Chl) content of maize leaves due to each treatment at different phenological stages (V12 and R1). Data represent mean ± SD (n = 25). CT: untreated control; FF: foliar fertilizer; NP: nitrapyrin; NP + FF: joint treatment of nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test, p ≤ 0.05) between the different treatments.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Changes in MDA concentration of maize leaves due to each treatment at different phenological stages (V12 and R1). Data represent mean ± SD (n = 5); CT: untreated control; FF: foliar fertilizer; NP: nitrapyrin; NP + FF: joint treatment of nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test, p ≤ 0.05) between the different treatments.
Figure 4
Figure 4
SOD activity osf maize leaves due to each treatment at different phenological stages (V12 and R1). Data represent mean ± SD (n = 5); CT: untreated control; FF: foliar fertilizer; NP: nitrapyrin; NP + FF: joint treatment of nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer, FW: fresh weight. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test, p ≤ 0.05) between the different treatments.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Proline content of maize leaves due to each treatment at different phenological stages (V12 and R1). Data represent mean ± SD (n = 5); CT: untreated control; FF: foliar fertilizer; NP: nitrapyrin; NP + FF: joint treatment of nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test, p ≤ 0.05) between the different treatments.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Meteorological data of growing season in the study area. PR: precipitation; TMEAN: mean daily temperature; TMAX: mean daily maximum temperature; TMIN: mean daily minimum temperature.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Biomass productivity of maize in different treatments. (A) Stem diameter; (B) Root mass. Data represent mean ± SD (n = 5); CT: untreated control; FF: foliar fertilizer; NP: nitrapyrin; NP + FF: joint treatment of nitrapyrin and foliar fertilizer. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (Student’s t-test, p < 0.05) between nitrapyrin-treated and control plants.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Xu H., Twine T.E., Girvetz E. Climate Change and Maize Yield in Iowa. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0156083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156083. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li X., Takahashi T., Suzuki N., Kaiser H.M. The impact of climate change on maize yields in the United States and China. Agric. Syst. 2011;104:348–353. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.12.006. - DOI
    1. Cairns J.E., Hellin J., Sonder K., Araus J.L., MacRobert J.F., Thierfelder C., Prasanna B.M. Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Secur. 2013;5:345–360. doi: 10.1007/s12571-013-0256-x. - DOI
    1. Arora N.K. Impact of climate change on agriculture production and its sustainable solutions. Environ. Sustain. 2019;2:95–96. doi: 10.1007/s42398-019-00078-w. - DOI
    1. Southworth J., Randolph J.C., Habeck M., Doering O.C., Pfeifer R.A., Rao D.G., Johnston J.J. Consequences of future climate change and changing climate variability on maize yields in the midwestern United States. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000;82:139–158. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00223-1. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources