1. INTRODUCTION
The most widely grown cereal in the world, maize (Zea mays L.) is significant economically because it may be used for a variety of purposes, including high-tech industries, animal feed, and human nourishment [1]. Around the world, maize is widely farmed in temperate, subtropical, and tropical climates. The USA is the top producer (50.4%) with 361 million tonnes, followed by China and Brazil, out of the 1.04 billion tonnes of maize produced worldwide [1]. “Africa generates about 77.7 million tonnes of which 10.8 m tonnes is from Nigeria, farmed from about 6 million ha arable area” [1]. Because of biotic, abiotic, and agricultural variables, maize yield is still regarded as poor despite its significance [2,3]. “The components of the primary abiotic factors contributing to the low yield in Africa include decreasing soil fertility and inadequate use of fertilisers, which results in severe soil minerals depletion” [4]. “Continuous growth of commodities on the same type of soil has resulted in the a greater amount of rapid decline in soil fertility” [5].
It is a crop with a high yield that is climateadaptable, making it a vital component of diets across the world [6]. It provides food security for people in both rural and urban areas by acting as a cash crop and subsistence crop. Maize is an important source of vital nutrients in addition to being a significant source of calories. It has dietary fiber, carbs, and important minerals and vitamins including zinc, iron, and B vitamins [7]. When consumed in whole grain form, it promotes general health and wellbeing. In many economies, the core activity is the production and sale of maize.
Farming maize boosts the agricultural industry, provides employment, and brings in money for farmers [8]. Moreover, businesses dependent on maize, such those that prepare food and make animal feed, promote economic expansion. For many communities,maize has great cultural significance. It permeates rituals, cuisines, and customs. Corn has cross-cultural importance and is a symbol of identity for many different societies. It plays a crucial role in rites and festivities in several areas. Due to its adaptability and widespread distribution, maize is an essential commodity in international commerce [9]. In addition to being consumed by humans, it is also used in industry and as animal feed.
In areas vulnerable to food shortages or climate change, the capacity to store maize for long periods of time improves food security. The adaptability of maize is astonishing [10]. A variety of products, such as cornmeal, cornflower, cornflour, and corn oil, may be made from it. It is the main component in a wide variety of recipes, including porridge, snacks, and bread and tortillas. One possible way to fight malnutrition is via biofortifying maize. In areas where maize is a staple grain, it helps to improve public health by increasing kinds of maize with increased nutritious content, especially protein and vitamin [11]. In order to promote sustainable agricultural practises, maize is an essential component of crop rotation. It improves soil fertility, reduces insect infestations, and helps stop soil erosion. This supports agricultural ecosystems’ long-term health. Scientific study on maize is very important [12].
After being completely sequenced, its genome has shed light on molecular biology and genetics, which is advantageous for other crops in addition to maize. The development of novel cultivars with improved characteristics, such pest and drought tolerance, is facilitated by this study [13]. Maize is an essential part of efforts to secure food security as the world’s population grows. Its flexibility, diversity, and ability to feed cattle and people make it essential for meeting the dietary demands of a world that is growing faster than ever.
In Ghana, low soil fertility is acknowledged as the main obstacle to farming and food security. Themajority of Ghana’s soils lack adequate amounts of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Phosphorus shortage is a key crop production constraint in tropical agricultural systems soil [14]. Phosphorus is the second most generally limiting component in soil after nitrogen [15]. Phosphorus is a crucial macronutrient for plant development. Nutrient levels in the soil must be adjusted for the optimal yield of maize crops. Because of this, adding fertilisers to the soil to increase its natural fertility in order to maximise production has become necessary. Essential nutrients that are often deficient in soil, such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), are supplied by fertilisers. Fertilisers fill up the nutritional deficit that maize needs for proper development.
Applying fertilisers provide increases maize yields significantly [16]. Using fertiliser maximises crop yields, which leads to more plentiful harvests to satisfy the rising demand for maize. In addition to increasing yield, fertilisers raise the calibre of maize that is produced. Being a vital component of maize growth, nitrogen aids in the development of the leaves and stem. Common nitrogen-based fertilisers include urea and ammonium nitrate. Phosphorus is essential for the growth of plants’ roots and general structure. Common sources of phosphorus include superphosphate and triple superphosphate [17].
In addition to its overall health, potassium helps maize withstand illnesses. A common fertiliser with a potassium base is muriate of potash. Although the use of fertilisers in maize growing has many advantages, overuse or misuse may have negative effects on the environment and the economy [18]. A better-balanced nutrient supply is made possible by combining several fertiliser types, which lowers the possibility of nutrient imbalances in the soil [16]. For many years, it has been suggested that alternate methods of applying fertiliser might maximise yields and improve the efficiency of nutrient use. According to several research [19,20,21], “nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), and some trace elements in order to boost crop productivity” must be applied. For example, phosphorus (P) is, in most agricultural soils, the second most important nutrient required for plant development [22] and one of the most restrictive plant nutrients in crop yield [23].
It is essential to several physiological processes that occur in developing and mature plants. It is related to plant enzymatic responses, which are necessary for mobile division, crucial for the production of seeds and fruits, impact grain quality, and can increase a plant’s resilience to disease. Shanti et al [24] highlighted that “Nitrogen (N) is a vital plant nutrient and a major determining factor required for maize production”. It comprises 1-4 % of the dry matter of plants and is vital to their development. “Nitrogen is an essential part of protein and nucleic acids, and when N is inadequate, growth is reduced [25]. Its availability to a sufficient degree throughout the growing season is essential to the most fruitful growth of maize. “It also mediates the utilisation of potassium, phosphorous, and additional nutrients in plants”.
Bradley [26] emphasised that plants lack nitrogen, they cannot properly use the ideal quantity of these elements in the soil. Thus, an excess or shortage of nitrogen can lower maize output. Being the most important cation in plant life, potassium is a basic nutrient. Enzyme stimulation, the production of proteins, the process of photosynthesis oxygen regulation, stomatal actions, power transmission, phloem transportation, cation-anion harmony, and resistance to stress are among the processes in which it is essential. Bashir [27] added that preserving adequate plant K is, thereby, critical
to successful plant growth”.
In the meanwhile, it is impossible to ignore the essential micronutrients that the plant needs. Micronutrients like zinc have a range of functions, from extremely basic to quite complicated processes. “Zn plays a very important role in plant metabolism by influencing the activities of hydrogenase and carbonic anhydrase and stabilisation of ribosomal proteins” [28]. Marschner [29] argued that “Zinc activates the plant enzymes by carbohydrate metabolism, maintaining the integrity of cellular membranes, protein synthesis and regulation of auxin synthesis”.
Additionally, Cakmak, 2000 stated, “Zn is required for regulation and maintenance of the gene expression to induce tolerance of environmental stresses in plants.” Additionally, according to Xia et al. [30], “nitrogen integrated with zinc improved plant height and yield in maize.” According to Adetunji and Adepetu [31], “Sulphur has additionally grown as an important yield-limiting determinant in many soils.” After N, P, and K, it is identified as the fourth main nutrient. It has a crucial role in the production of the amino acid’s methionine and cysteine, which are important components of proteins and helpful in secondary metabolism.
According to Choudhary and Das [32], ” sulphur has a beneficial effect by lowering soil pH and improving physical condition of the soil”. “Increasing level of S progressively enhanced the average total N uptake by maize and this increase in N uptake may be attributed to increase in N content of plant and dry matters yield due to increasing S levels” as stated by Jaliya et al. [33]. As stated by Ray and Mughogho [34], “S is a secondary nutrient taken up by most grain crops in amount namely 10 to 30 kg ha–1”. Kumawat [35] identified the “synergistic effect of applied P and S” (2004). “In mung and wheat, an antagonistic relationship between P and S was observed.” “This interaction influences the absorption of sulphur, in form of sulphate in the soil” [36] and in maize [22,37]. A comprehensive programme for soil fertility must take into account every macro- and micronutrient that is essential for the growth and development of maize (Zea mays L.). Micronutrient (Zn, Mn, Cu, Fe, and B) deficiencies are less common because of smaller crop removal amounts and generally adequate soil supply in most maize-producing regions where the soil pH is maintained between 6.0 and 7.0.
However, maize macronutrient requirements must be taken into consideration on a seasonal basis” [38]. But since 2000, the price of maize grain has increased significantly, reaching a record high of 16 kg-1 on average at one point in 2017, with prices even reaching 18 kg-1 in some months. Due to these documented high maize costs, many producers have turned to other products, such foliar micronutrient fertilisers, in an attempt to increase production. Previous studies have shown that environmental factors such as natural matter, pH, temperature, moisture, and aeration affect how maize production responds to micronutrient functions. The need for crop nutrients has also grown as a result of the significant genetic advancements that have enhanced maize yields. Accurate knowledge of nutrition absorption, partitioning, and elimination might help determine the best utility timing and rates to combat variability and increase the likelihood of a high-quality yield response. This study aims to ascertain the impact of various combinations of primary, secondary, and micronutrients on the maize yield characteristics in light of this.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Study Area
The study was conducted in the Brong-Ahafo Region’s Wenchi Municipality from August to December of 2020. Situated among latitudes 7° 30′ and 8° 05′ North and longitudes 2° 15′ West and 1° 55′ East, the municipality is situated in the western part of the Brong-Ahafo Region. Its total land area is 1,145 rectangular kilometres, and its borders are shared by Techiman Municipal to the west, Tain District to the east, Kintampo South District to the northwest, and Sunyani Municipal to the south. The average temperature in the municipality is typically high—about 24.5 °C. 30.9 (°C) is the average maximum temperature, while 21.2 (°C) is the average low. April through February are the freshest months. There are two distinct seasons in the municipality: the wet and dry seasons. Timber species like (Milicia excelsa), (Entandrophragma cylindricum), (Triplochiton scleroxylon), and (Khaya ivorensis), are observed in locations such as Nwoase.
2.2 Experimental Treatments
Five (5) treatments were tested in a field experiment as listed below:
- T1= Control
- T2= NPK
- T3= NPK + S + Mg + Ca+ B + Cu + Mo+ Zn
- T4= Manure (containing N, P2O5, K2O, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Pb, Ni and Cd)
- T5= T3 + Manure
2.3 Experimental Layout/Design and Crop Establishment
Before plots were defined and delineated, the experiment site was physically cleared, ploughed, and weeded. Four repetitions of a randomised complete block design (RCBD) were used to arrange the five-by-five-meter plots. reaching stop treatment drifts reaching neighbouring plots, alleys of 1.0 m and 2.0 m, respectively, were left between plots and duplicates. Lake 601 was the maize variety used as a test crop. Each hill had two maize seeds planted at a distance of 75 by 50 cm, at a depth of around 3-5 cm. To prevent weeds from growing in the fields, weeding was done by hand with a hoe. Point placement was employed in all fertiliser treatments to save nutrients for efficient plant utilisation.
The primary nutrients (NPK) were administered in different amounts: urea was used for N, triple superphosphate was used for P, and muriate of potash was used for K. Two weeks after planting, half of the N (60 kg/ha) was treated as urea, and the other half (30 kg/ha) was applied six weeks later. Two weeks following planting, full amountsof potassium (60 kg K2O/ha) and phosphorus (60 kg P2O5/ha) were applied as triple superphosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. 6000 kg of manure ,cow dung were spread out each hectare. 2.5 kg of zinc sulphate (ZnSO4) was sprayed per hectare. Kieserite was used to apply sulphur (S) and magnesium (Mg) at rates of 6 kg S/ha and 7.5 kg MgO/ha, respectively. Nitrabor, or calcium (Ca), was administered at a rate of 10 kg CaO/ha. Additionally, 1.5 kg B/ha of Nitibor, a type of borate, was treated.
2.4 Data Collection
Data for the research was collected after harvesting. Specifically, data were collected on the following;
i. Total number of plants: The total number of plants on each plot (per treatment) were counted and noted.
ii. Stalk weight (kg): After harvesting, 20 stalks from each plot (per treatment) were picked, dried and weighed.
iii. Hurst weight (kg): The weight for all harvested plants (per treatment) was weighed.
iv. Cob weight (kg): This was achieved after dehusking the maize. Afterwards, the cobs were weighed for each experimental plot (per treatment).
v. Grain weight (kg): Selected plants within the middle row of each plot were used. After harvesting, the grains are removed from the cobs and dried to a moisture level of 13 %. Afterwards, the seeds are weighed per plot and recorded.
vi. Agronomic efficiency: This will be determine using the formulae, NUE= ∆Y/∆Q; where ∆Y = change in yield increase and ∆Q = change in qa
vii. ost Ratio (EBCR): This will be determined using the formulae, EV = ∆Y (p)/C; where ∆Y = change in yield increase; p = price of the produce at harvest / kg and C = cost of fertilizer used.
2.5 Statistical Analysis
Data was analysed using the Statistical Packages for Social Scientist (SPSS) vs 26. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on all measured parameters. Means for each parameter were separated by the least significant difference (LSD) method at 5 % level of significance.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Dry Shoot Weight
There was high significant difference (P < 0.05) among the individual treatments with respect to their effect on the dry shoot weight. Specifically, T3 (NPK + Sec_MN) recorded the highest (3.875) dry shoot weight followed by T2 (2.76), T5 (2.7), T4 (2.61) and T1 (2.53) as illustrated in
Fig. 1.
Table 1. Economic viability of the individual treatments
3.2 Grain Weight
With respect to the grain weight, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) among the individual treatments. The highest (7.17) grain weight was recorded by T3 (NPK + Sec_MN) with the least (1.72) being recorded by T1 (Control). The other treatments recorded 4.75, 4.60 and 5.61 for T2 (NPK), T4 (Manure) and T5 (All + Manure) respectively (Fig. 2).
3.3 Agronomic Efficiency
The research also looked at the Agronomic efficiency of the individual treatments. The control treatment (T1) was used as a common ground (basis) to judge the efficiency of the other treatments (T2, T3, T4 and T5). From the analysis, Duncan’s multiple range test for T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 were 1722, 4935, 7172, 4604 and 7172 respectively. Using the table (from Appendix 1) as the basis for calculation, NUE = ∆Y/∆Q; where ∆Y = change in yield increase and ∆Q = change in quantity of fertilizer used. The results revealed no significant difference (P > 0.05) among the individual treatments with respect to their agronomic efficiency. Generally, T3 (NPK + Sec_nutrients) recorded the highest efficiency (24.5 ± 12.47) compared to the other treatments. This was because, on average, for every 1kg of NPK and secondary nutrients applied, 24.5 ± 12.47 kg maize was realized. The implication of this results is that it is more efficient to combine both NPK and secondary nutrients in maize production compared to the other treatments.
3.4 Economic Viability (EV)
Economic viability (EV) is an important index used to evaluate the likely profitability of a practice or product. In this research, the individual treatments were assessed to know their economic implications when adopted. Like in the NUE, the control treatment (T1) was used as a common ground (basis) to judge the profitability in using the other treatments (T2, T3, T4 and T5). The results revealed that there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) among the individual treatments with respect to their economic viability (EV). However, T3 (NPK + Sec_nutrients) proved to be more economically feasible (GH¢ 9.2 ± 4.7). The implication of this results is that for every 1 kg of T3 (NPK + Sec_nutrients) that was used, an amount of GH¢ 9.2 ± 4.7 will be realized. This was the highest compare to T2 (GH¢ 6.1 ± 2.0), T4 (GH¢ 2.5 ± 1.2) and T5 (GH¢ 2.2 ± 0.8). See ap
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Effect of NPK + Sec_MN on the Performance of Maize
Based on the collected data, it was determined that the majority of the study’s parameters were more positively impacted by the use of NPK + Sec_MN. In comparison to the other treatments, NPK + Sec_MN demonstrated very encouraging results in terms of its impact on stalk weight, hurst weight, cob weight, and grain weight. Nutrient optimisation is one of the main benefits of combining NPK fertilisers with secondary micronutrients such as iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn). Specific nutritional needs for different development stages of maize plants exist. While secondary micronutrients provide the plant’s demands for micronutrients, The addition of secondary nutrients to NPK may have contributed to T3’s exceptional performance (NPK + Sec_MN). In a similar vein, a number of studies have demonstrated that in order to increase agricultural yield, several nutritional elements including nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), and certain trace (secondary) elements must be applied [19,20].
In contrast to traditional fertilisation, which lacks micronutrients, the application of micronutrients in conjunction with
macronutrients boosted both the yield and the absorption of nutrients [39,40,41]. A similar claim was also made by Isitekhale et al. [21]. Similarly, Tisdale [28] documented the importance of certain secondary nutrients on maize yield. Marschner [29] and Cakmak [42] also emphasised the critical role that secondary nutrients like zinc and sulphur play in the maintenance and control of gene expression, which is necessary to promote plant tolerance to environmental challenges [42]. According to Xia et al. [30], the integration of nitrogen and zinc increased maize plant height and yield. Adetunji and Adepetu [31] corroborated the significance of S for plant growth. Choudhary and Das [32], who found that S has positive effects via reducing soil pH and enhancing soil physical conditions, provide more credence to this claim.
According to Muthukumararaja and Sriramachandrasekharan et al. [43], applying NPK together with micronutrients greatly enhanced the soil’s availability of both applied and native macro- and micronutrients, increasing maize grain production. According to Kumar et al. [44], zinc (Zn) is regarded as another significant secondary nutrient that is necessary for plant development. Zinc deficiency disrupts the development of both male and female reproductive organs as well as the pollination process, according to Brown et al. [45]. It is necessary for several enzymes and is crucial for the transcription of DNA [44]. Zinc has other roles in plant cells, such as catalysing oxidation, which is essential for the conversion of carbohydrates, and affecting the synthesis of chemicals that promote growth, such as auxins and chlorophyll (Mamatha, 2007). Hnamte et al. [46] argued that NPK fertilisers provide the fundamental nutrients required for plant growth.
Improving nutrient absorption efficiency is mostly dependent on micronutrients. Remison et al. [47] added that in maize, manganese (Mn) is essential for nitrogen metabolism and photosynthesis. These micronutrient deficiencies may impair nutrient absorption, lowering the health and production of plants Rop et al. [48] added that when NPK and secondary micronutrients are combined, nutrient absorption is maximised and overall plant performance is improved. For photosynthesis to occur, the synthesis of chlorophyll requires the elements iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn). Chukwuka et al. [49] emphasized that ore efficient photosynthesis results in higher plant development and growth.
Fertilisers NPK + Sec_MN cause maize plants to photosynthesize at higher rates, which leads to healthier, more robust growth. Gul et al. [50] stated that there are certain secondary micronutrients that help a plant resist environmental stressors and illness. Onwudiwe et al. [51] observed that micronutrients such as zinc (Zn) and copper (Cu) may strengthen a maize plant’s defences. When maize plants get enough of these nutrients, they are more resilient to environmental stresses and show greater resistance to disease [52].
4.2 Assessment of Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) and Economic Viability (EV) as Affected by DifferentNutrients (and Nutrient Combinations)
Given the advantages of applying fertiliser to soils for the development of sustainable food crops, it is desirable to have information on fertiliser availability and usage in order to boost food production [20]. The end result of several yield-contributing factors, including as physiological processes and morphological changes that occur in plants during growth and development phases, is grain yield. The farmer’s income is likewise determined by the same factor. The cost of applying fertiliser must be compared to the value of the yield it produces in order to determine if it is profitable. The field
experiment’s results showed that combining secondary nutrients with NPK was a more efficient way to produce maize than using NPK alone [53]. This combined impact increased yield, which in turn increased revenue. Using this technique, Morris et al. [53] and Kelly [54] investigated the profitability of fertiliser in SSA.
Morris et al. [53] discovered that while fertiliser is often lucrative for West African maize farmers, fewer than half of Ghanaian maize farmers use it. They attributed this to the fact that the majority of farmers base their decisions about applying fertiliser on profitability. Therefore, the very poor returns that maize farmers receive after harvest may be attributed to their low fertiliser application (particularly NPK). The maize plant’s ability to develop vegetatively and produce biologically depends largely on its ability to consume micro and macrochemical ingredients [55]. It follows that applying fertilisers containing the essential components that maize plants need results in a significant rise in biological yield and an improvement in revenue levels. As the findings of the current study demonstrate, it would be reasonable to propose that the addition of secondary nutrients will have a significant impact. According to a prior study, adding elemental S to soil at a rate of 0.5 g S kg-1 reduced soil pH from 7.03 to 6.29 and greatly enhanced magnesium and zinc availability, which raised overall yield by 45% [56,57].
5. CONCLUSIONS
Although the application of NPK alone had a substantial increase on the yield and yield parameters of maize, it was the combined application of the secondary nutrients and NPK that made the difference in the research. The findings showed that the combine effect of secondary nutrients (S + Mg + Ca + B + Cu + Mo + Zn) and NPK had a very positive impact on the stalk weight, weight, cob weight and grain weight. In almost all the parameters assessed, the control treatment proved the need for the application of fertilizer to obtain maximum yield. Based on the results obtained in the research, it is recommended that:
i. With the combination of the secondary nutrients and NPK giving more promising results compared to the other treatments, the research recommends that much attention should be given to this particular treatment. Possibly, different doses of this treatment should also be analysed to know the actual extent at which the secondary nutrients and the NPK can be combined to give the maximum yield.
Also, similar research should be staged at a different location to know whether similar results would be obtained. This is because soil and climatic conditions can as well affect plants’ ability to effectively absorb and utilize available nutrients. By implication, the research sought to know whether the performance of T3 (NPK + Sec_MN) was not soil or climatic bound.
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my wife, Mrs. Belinda Bavug and lovely daughter, Benedicta Bavug. Your constant love and support have really inspired me to greater heights. The love will continue to grow.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to appreciate the love, protection and knowledge I have continuously enjoyed from God. Without His support, I would not have gotten this far. Also, I acknowledge the services of my supervisor, Prof. Vincent Logah for his academic support throughout the course of this research. His productive criticisms contributed immensely to the success of this work. I also thank my brother, Baba Amidu for his immense support during my time in school and throughout my research work. You are indeed worth being called a brother. My sincere gratitude also goes to Dr. Andre Bationo (CEO, AMYA Agro Plus Ltd) and Dr. Marie Bationo (Managing Director, AMYA Agro Plus Ltd). Your support during the conduct of this research will forever be remembered.
Finally, my thanks go to all my friends (on and off- campus) and all the numerous people who in one way or the other contributed to this success. I say gracias to you all.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Sampling methods for agricultural surveys. FAO Statistical Development Series 3. Rome; 2014.
2. Onasanya RO, Aiyelari OP, Onasanya A, Oikeh S, Nwilene FE, Oyelakin OO. Growth and yield response of maize (Zea mays L.) to different rates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in southern Nigeria. World J. Agric. Sci. 2009;5(4):400-407.
3. Olaniyan AB, Lucas EO. Effect of periodic reduction in density of planting on yield of maize genotypes in south western Nigeria. Res. Crops J. 2015;3(2):315-321.
4. Buresh RJ, Smithson PC, Heliums DT. Building soil phosphorus capital in Africa. In RJ. Buresh et al. (ed.) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. SSSA Spec. Publ. 51. SSSA, Madison, WI (this publication). 1997;111-149.
5. Uzoh IM, Obalum SE, Ene J. Mineralization rate constants, half-lives and effects of two organic amendments on maize yield and carbon-nitrogen status of loamy Ultisol in southeastern Nigeria. Agro-Science. 2015;14(3):35-40.
6. Burke WJ, Jayne TS, Black JR. Factors explaining the low and variable profitability of fertilizer application to maize in Zambia. Agricultural economics. 2017;48(1):115- 126.
7. Zhang Y, Li C, Wang Y, Hu Y, Christie P, Zhang J, Li X. Maize yield and soil fertility with combined use of compost and
inorganic fertilizers on a calcareous soil on the North China Plain. Soil and Tillage Research. 2016;155;85-94.
8. Dong YJ, He MR, Wang ZL, Chen WF, Hou J, Qiu XK, Zhang JW. Effects of new coated release fertilizer on the growth of maize. Journal of soil science and plant nutrition. 2016;16(3):637-649.
9. Brar BS, Singh J, Singh G, Kaur G. Effects of long term application of inorganic and organic fertilizers on soil organic carbon and physical properties in maize–wheat rotation. Agronomy. 2015;5(2):220-238..
10. Abate T, Shiferaw B, Menkir A, Wegary D, Kebede Y, Tesfaye K, Keno T. Factors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia. Food security. 2015;7:965-981.
11. Ha N, Feike T, Back H, Xiao H, Bahrs E. The effect of simple nitrogen fertilizer recommendation strategies on product
carbon footprint and gross margin of wheat and maize production in the North China Plain. Journal of environmental management. 2015;163:146-154.
12. Hartmann TE, Yue S, Schulz R, He X, Chen X, Zhang F, Müller T. Yield and N use efficiency of a maize–wheat cropping system as affected by different fertilizer management strategies in a farmer’s field of the North China Plain. Field Crops Research. 2015;174:30-39.
13. Al-Naggar AMM, Shabana RA, Atta MM, Al-Khalil TH. Maize response to elevated plant density combined with lowered Nfertilizer rate is genotype-dependent. The Crop Journal. 2015;3(2):96-109.
14. Mustonen A, Niemelä S, Nordström T, Murray GK, Mäki P, Jääskeläinen E, Miettunen J. Adolescent cannabis use, baseline prodromal symptoms and the risk of psychosis. Br. J. Psychiatry. 2012;212: 227–233.
15. Balemi T, Negisho K. Management of soil phosphorus and plant adaptation mechanisms to phosphorus stress for
sustainable crop production: a review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012;12:547–561.
16. Ranum P, Peña‐Rosas JP, Garcia‐Casal MN. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014;1312(1):105- 112.
17. Frenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize production, consumption and trade: Trends and R&D implications. Food Security. 2022;14(5): 1295-1319.
18. Cairns JE, Hellin J, Sonder K, Araus JL, MacRobert JF, Thierfelder C, Prasanna BM. Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Security. 2013;5:345-360.
19. Ayodele OJ, Omotosho SO. Nutrient management for maize production in soils of the savannah zone of southwestern
Nigeria. International Journal of Soil Science. 2008;3:20-27.
20. Adekayode FO, Ogunkoya MO. Effect of quantity and placement distances of inorganic 15-15- 15 fertilizer in improving soil fertility status and the performance and yield of maize in a tropical rain forest zone of Nigeria. America-Eurasian J. Agric. And Environ. Sci. 2010;7(2):122-129.
21. Isitekhale HHE, Aboh SI, Oseghale ES. Sulphur status of some soils in Edo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Scientific Technol. Res. 2013;2(5):91-95.
22. Muhammad I, Muhammad JK, Amjad A, Amanullah J, Sajida P. Effect of Phosphorus and Sulfur on the yield and
nutrient uptake of maize. International Journal of Farming and Allied Sciences. 2015;4(3):244-252.
23. Akande MO, Makinde EA, Oluwatoyinbo FI, Adetunji MT. Effects of phosphate rock application on dry matter yield and phosphorus recovery of maize and cowpea grown in sequence. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010;4(5):293-303.
24. Shanti KVP, Rao MR, Reddy MS, Sarma RS. Response of maize (Zea mays) hybrid and composite to different levels of
nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 1997;67:424-425.
25. Haque MM, Hamid A, Bhuiyan NI. Nutrient uptake and productivity as affected by nitrogen and potassium application levels in maize/sweet potato intercropping system. Korean Journal of Crop Sciences. 2001;46(1):1-5.
26. Bradey NC. The nature and properties of soils, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA; 1984.
27. Bashir MK. The determinants of rural household food security in the Punjab, Pakistan: An econometric analysis. Working paper 1203, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of estern Australia, Crawley, Australia;
2012.
28. Tisdale SL, Nelson WL, Beaten JD. Zinc In soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Fourth edition, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1984.
29. Marschner H. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Second edition. London: Academic Press, £29.95 (paperback). 1995;889.
30. Xia L, Kent B, Monroe B. Comparative Others, Trust, and Perceived Price Fairness. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of Society of Consumer Psychology, San Francisco; February 20, 2004.
31. Adetunji MT, J, Adepetu A. Sulphur fertilization requirements of Southwestern Nigerian soils. Ife J. of Agric Res. 1989; 11:23-30.
32. Choudhary HP, Das SK. Effect of P, S and Mo application on yield of rain-fed blackgram and their residual effect on safflower and soil and water conservation in eroded soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 1996;44:741-745.
33. Jaliya MM, Chiezey UF, Tanimu B, Odunze AC, Othman MK, Babaji BA, Sani BM, Mani H. Effects of nitrogen and sulfur fertilizers on nitrogen content in soil, ear leaf, flag leaf and grain of QPM maize varieties at Samaru Zaria. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2012;4(5):217-222.
34. Ray RW, Mughogho SK. Sulphur nutrition of maize in four regions of Malawi. Agronomy Journal. 2000;92:649–656.
35. Kumawat BL, Pathan ARK, Chauhan R. Response of taramira to sulphur and phosphorus application on Typic
Psamment. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2004;52(4):476-478.
36. Islam MN, Hoque S, Islam A. Effect of P and S interactions on nutrient concentration and yield of wheat, rice and
mungbean. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2006; 54:86-91.
37. Adetunji MT. Effect of lime and phosphorus application on the sulphate adsorption capacity of southwestern Nigerian soils. Ife J. Agric. Res. 1991;13:11-20.
38. Rego TJ, Sahrawat KL, Wani SP, Pardhasaradhi G. Widespread deficiencies of sulfur, boron and zinc in Indian semi-arid tropical soils: on-farm crop. J Plant Nutri.2007;30:1569-1583.
39. Bakry MA, Soliman YR, Moussa SA. Importance of micronutrients, organic manure and bio-fertilizer for improving maize yield and its components grown in desert sandy soils. Res. J Agric. and Biol. Sci. 2009;5:16-23.
40. Singh RN, Nath NN, Singh SK, Mohan TK, Shahh JP. Effect of agronomic management practices on growth, yield
and quality of kharif maize (Zea mays L.) under excessive moisture conditions. Crop Res. 2009;32(3):302-305.
41. Azhar G. Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.). Am. J Plant Sci. 2011;2:63-69.
42. Cakmak I. Tansley review No. 111 possible roles of zinc in protecting plant cells from damage by reactive oxygen species. The New Phytologist. 2000;146(2):185-205.
43. Muthukumararaja TM, Sriramachandrasekharan MV. Effect of zinc on yield, zinc nutrition and zinc use efficiency of lowland rice. Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2012;8(2): 551-561.
44. Kumar A, Kumar A, Devi S, Patil S, Payal C, Negi S. Isolation, screening and characterization of bacteria from Rhizospheric soils for different plant growth promotion (PGP) activities: An In vitro study. Recent Research in Science and Technology. 2012;4(1):1-5.
45. Brown PH, Cakmak I, Zhang Q. Forms and function of zinc in plants. Zinc in soils and plants. In: A.D. Robson (ed). Kluwar Academic Publishers, Dordecht, The Netherlands, 1993;93-1-6.
46. Hnamte L, Lalrammawia C, Gopichand B. Effect of NPK fertilizer on growth and yield of maize under different jhum cycles in Mizoram. India: Department of Forestry, Mizoram University; 2016.
47. Remison SU, Eifediy EK. Effects of different organic materials and NPK fertilizer on the performance of maize. Poljoprivreda. 2014;20(1):16-12.
48. Rop K, Karuku GN, Mbui D, Njomo N, Michira I. Evaluating the effects of formulated nano-NPK slow release fertilizer composite on the performance and yield of maize, kale and capsicum. Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 2019; 64(1):9-19.
49. Chukwuka K, Ajala S, Nwosu PC, Omotayo OE. Effects of NPK single fertilizers on relative growth performances of two cycles of maize (Zea mays L.) grown in a degraded soil of Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Agronomy; 2015.
50. Gul S, Khan MH, Khanday BA, Nabi S. Effect of sowing methods and NPK levels on growth and yield of rainfed maize (Zea mays L.). Scientifica; 2015.
51. Onwudiwe N, Benedict OU, Ogbonna PE, Ejiofor EE. Municipal solid waste and NPK fertilizer effects on soil physical properties and maize performance in Nsukka, Southeast Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2014;13(1):68-75.
52. Heuchan S. Plant stimuli-responsive biodegradable polymers for the use in timed release fertilizer coatings (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)); 2018.
53. Morris M, Kelly V, Kopicki RJ, Byerlee D. Fertilizer Use in African Agriculture:
54. Lessons Learned and Good Practice Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2007.
55. Kelly VA. Factors Affecting Demand for Fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.: World Bank; 2006.
56. Ehsanullah TA, Randhawa MA, Anjum SA, Nadeem M, Naeem M. Exploring the role of zinc in maize (Zea mays L.) through soil and foliar application. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research. 2015;3(3):69-75.
57. Mamatha BS, Arunkumar R, Baskaran V. Effect of processing on major carotenoid levels in corn (Zea mays) and selected vegetables: Bioavailability of lutein and zeaxanthin from processed corn in mice. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 2012; 5:1355-1363.
Leave a reply