Agricultural Reviews
Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma
Print ISSN 0253-1496
Online ISSN 0976-0741
NAAS Rating 4.84
Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma
Print ISSN 0253-1496
Online ISSN 0976-0741
NAAS Rating 4.84
Comparative Phosphorus Calibration, based on Three Extractants for Maize (Zea mays) Production in an Alfisol
Submitted10-12-2024|
Accepted11-06-2025|
First Online 26-06-2025|
Background: Effective phosphorus (p) in a particular soil depends on appropriate laboratory analytical method, of which soil extractant are pivotal. Comparative effects of P application to soil for maize production, based on prediction by three soil available P extractants were investigated in 2023 and 2024.
Methods: Phosphorus application to maize based on calculations from three extraction methods (Bray 1, Mehlich III and pressurized hot water at both maintenance level and sufficiency level) while evaluation of the residual effects was measured and the experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design at a spacing of 75 cm by 25 cm and NPK 15:15:15 was applied at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. Yield parameters were collected as well as soil samples. Data were subjected to analysis of variance using SAS software (version 9.0) and regression analysis while means were separated using Least Significant Difference at 5% level of significant.
Result: Phosphorus application based on Pressurized Hot Water Extraction (PHW) at maintenance level resulted in the most significantly (P≤0.05) better yield of dehusked maize (6.64 t/ha). Application of P based on Bray 1 at 5 mg/kg above the maintenance level, resulted into best significant fresh cob weight. There was a strong relationship (r=0.7 P≤0.05) between applied P based on PHW at the maintenance and dehusked weight of maize at the first planting. However, at residual planting (based on earlier applied P), PHW resulted into the optimum dehusked weight of maize (r=0.7 P≤0.05). Generally, increase in P application led to reducing extractible Zn in the experimental soils. Increase in P application also led to increase in soil pH, while it was the opposite in soil exchangeable acidity.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.