1

SUBMISSION FORM

This form should be attached to each copy of the manuscript at any submission. Take photocopies as you need in
letter size or A4 size. Please type all the items.
Date (M/D/Y): 08/18/2010
Type of paper : [x ] Regular paper, [ ] Short report

Category (Select the most suitable category as follows):

Review Crop Morphology Crop Physiology Genetic Resources Evaluation

Post Harvest Physiology x Agronomy & Crop Ecology

Number of sheets: Text _10__, Table and fig. caption _1__, Table __5_, Fig. __0_, Photo. _0__, Total _16__
Request of reprint: __4___ copies (All reprints are charged for.)

Is the cover necessary? Yes No (Put mark to

the
corresponding item. An additional charge for covers is
necessary)
Running title (shorter than about 100 letters including author's name):
Ntamatungiro, S. --------- Rice Plant Measurements
Title, Author's name, Institution (Put the copy of title and byline from the manuscript):
Rice Plant Measurements as Indicators of the Need for Topdressing Nitrogen Fertilizer
at Panicle Differentiation Growth Stage
Sixte Ntamatungiro
(Department of Agriculture, University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff, AR 71601, USA)
Corresponding author:
Sixte Ntamatungiro, Fax #: 8705754629; E-mail: ntamatungiros@uapb.edu

Name: Sixte Ntamatungiro

Institution: University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff,

1200 North University Drive, Mail Slot 4913,
Department of Agriculture,
Pine Bluff, AR 71601, USA.
Full address, zip code and nation

Tel. 8705757143, Fax: 8705754629, E-mail: ntamatungiros@uapb.edu

Message to the editor.

Please review this manuscript for publication.

This form and the manuscript should be sent to,

THE CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF JAPAN, Tokyo Secretariat
2F Shin-Kyoritsu Building, Shinkawa 2-22-4, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0033, Japan
E-mail: cssj-jim@bridge.ocn.ne.jp, Fax: +81-3-3553-

1Sixte Ntamatungiro ------- Rice Plant Measurements

2
 1 2
2
1
2Rice Plant Measurements as Indicators of the Need for Topdressing
3Nitrogen Fertilizer at Panicle Differentiation Growth Stage
4
5Sixte Ntamatungiro

6 (Department of Agriculture, University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff, AR 71601, USA)
7Corresponding author: Sixte Ntamatungiro, Fax#: 8705754629, E-mail: ntamatungiros@uapb.edu
8
9Abstract: Plant measurements provide an estimate of total nitrogen accumulation (TNA)
10during the rice growing season and may also indicate if additional N is needed at panicle
11differentiation (PD) to increase grain yield. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship
12between plant measurements at PD and grain yield response to N fertilizer applied at PD. Dry
13matter accumulation (DMA), TNA, N concentration in Y-leaves (YLN) and in whole plants
14(WPN), and SPAD meter readings were measured for two different cultivars at N rates of 0 to 134
15kg ha-1 applied prior to flooding (PF) and 0 to 101 kg ha-1 applied at PD. Plant measurements at
16PD corresponded to optimum grain yields when 101 kg N ha-1 was applied PF. When grain yields
17were increased by N applied at PD, the actual N rate applied at PD was not of great importance.
18The grain yield increase by PD N ranged from 0.6% to 24.5%, and the variation in grain yield
19increase accounted for by plant measurements was <10% for YLN, and <20% for DMA, SPAD,
20WPN, and TNA. Values of SPAD, WPN, and TNA measurements at optimum PF N were within
21the range of estimated measurements above which no grain yield increase due to PD N was
22obtained. The reliability of plant measurements as indicators of the need for topdressing N at PD
23was relatively low for the two cultivars studied and could be increased by evaluation of cultivars
24that respond well to N applied at PD.
25
26Key words: Dry matter accumulation, Nitrogen concentration, Prior to flooding, Panicle
27differentiation, Rice, SPAD meter, Total nitrogen accumulation.
28
29
30
31
32
33 In the southern rice (Oryza sativa L.) belt of the United States of America, proper N
34fertilizer application and management are required to produce profitable rice grain yields (Norman
35et al., 2003). The tall, leafy rice cultivars grown prior to the mid-1980s required the N be applied
 1 3
2
1in split applications of about 50% at PF and 50% near PD to maximize grain yields and minimize
2lodging. The stiff-strawed, semi-dwarf and short-statured rice cultivars that are grown now enable
3the N to be applied in a large single PF application, which results in similar or better grain yields
4with less N than the recommended split-application method (Norman et al., 2000). Nitrogen is
5required throughout the rice growth cycle, but the greatest requirement for N is between the early
6to mid-tillering and PD growth stages (Doberman and Fairhurst, 1999). The N concentration in
7the rice tissue is high at the beginning of the tillering stage and is influenced by the year in which
8the crop is being grown, cultivar, native N fertility, and PF N fertilizer rate (Norman et al., 2003).
9For instance, the N concentration in aboveground tissues of ‘Lacassine’ (semi-dwarf) and ‘LaGrue’
10(short-statured) rice fertilized with 101 kg N ha-1 at PF decreased from 2.7% to 2.1% in 1993,
112.8% to 1.9% in 1994 and from 3.2% to 1.5% in 1995 between 2 and 4 wk after N was applied at
12PF, respectively (Ntamatungiro et al., 1999). The decline in tissue N concentration during the
13rapid vegetative growth period continues through the reproductive growth stage and may result in
14insufficient N before grain fill, if supplemental N is not applied near or at the PD growth stage.
15Minimal N accumulation usually occurs during grain fill, because most of the N in the grain comes
16from N that is remobilized and translocated from the rice stems and leaves (Guindo et al., 1994).
17Rice breeders have developed short-statured and semi-dwarf cultivars that are more responsive to
18the N applied at PF than at PD with minimal to no lodging (Moldenhauer et al., 1997). Because
19these newer short-statured and semi-dwarf rice cultivars require more N during the vegetative
20growth stage to reach their full yield potential, the efficient use and management of the PF N is
21extremely important in determining their grain yield potential (Norman et al., 1997). Thus, the
22strategy of N management recommended for these stiff-strawed rice cultivars involves the
23application of a large PF N rate and monitoring the rice plant at PD for adequate plant N uptake
24with various diagnostic techniques. If the N fertilizer applied at PF was not applied at the correct
25rate or managed properly, additional N fertilizer will have to be applied at PD for the rice to reach
26its full yield potential. As the amount of N taken up during vegetative growth increases, the
27magnitude and probability of significant yield increases from N applied at PD usually decrease
28(Bollich et al., 1994). Fertilizer N applied at PD is taken up in 3 to 7 d with 65 to 80% efficiency
29(Wilson et al., 1989). By the reproductive growth stage, the rice plant has developed an extensive
30root system near the soil surface and has a high N uptake capacity (Bufogle et al., 1997a).
31However, when deficient amounts of N are taken up during vegetative growth, N applied at PD
32may not be taken up efficiently, which makes complete recovery of all the lost grain yield potential
33unlikely (Wilson et al., 1998). Nitrogen fertilizer requirements at PD may be minimized or
 1 4
2
1avoided if the PF N fertilizer is applied at the correct rate and managed properly. Thus,
2appropriate diagnosis of the plant N status at the end of vegetative growth is necessary to
3determine if and how much N fertilizer should be applied at PD to maximize grain yield. The
4rapid plant measurement techniques used to assess the rice plant N status include the YLN
5(Mikkelsen, 1970), SPAD meter (Hussain et al., 2000; Ntamatungiro et al., 1999; Peng et al.,
61993; Peng et al., 1995; Turner and Jund, 1991), and plant size (Ntamatungiro et al., 1999; Wells
7et al., 1993). Given the importance of adequate TNA during vegetative growth stage in
8determining grain yield (Ntamatungiro et al., 1999; Sheehy et al., 1998), plant measurements may
9also help to estimate if additional N fertilizer is needed to increase grain yield.
10 The objectives of this study were (i) to determine the effect of nitrogen fertilization prior to
11flooding on thresholds plant measurements at PD that maximize grain yield, (ii) to evaluate the
12interaction of nitrogen fertilization prior to flooding and at PD on grain yield, and (iii) to
13determine the relationship between grain yield response to N fertilizer applied at PD and plant
14measurements taken prior to applying N fertilizer at PD.
15
16 Materials and Methods
17 1. Field, plant materials, and experimental design
18 This study was conducted at the University of Arkansas Rice Research and Extension
19Center, near Stuttgart, Arkansas during two years (2000 -2001) to evaluate the accuracy of the N
20diagnostic techniques for estimating the need for topdressing N fertilizer at PD on flooded rice.
21The soil used for the study was a Dewitt silt loam (fine, smectitic Typic Albaqualfs) with an
22average soil water pH of 5.1 and soil organic matter of 11 g kg-1. Rice was drill-seeded at a rate of
23112 kg ha-1 in plots that contained nine rows. Rows had a length of 4.6 m and a row spacing of
240.18 m. Phosphorus (triple superphosphate, 20 kg P ha-1) and potassium (potassium chloride, 60 kg
25K ha-1) fertilizers were preplant incorporated. Management with respect to irrigation and pest
26control followed the guidelines recommended by the Cooperative Extension Service for the drill-
27seeded, delayed flood rice (Slaton, 2001). The experiment was arranged as a split-plot design with
28four replications. The main plot treatments were factorial combinations of five PF N rates (0, 34,
2967, 101 and 134 kg ha-1) and four PD N rates (0, 34, 67 and 101 kg ha-1). The subplot treatments
30were two rice cultivars (Wells and Cocodrie). Cocodrie is a semi-dwarf, long-grain cultivar and
31Wells is a short-statured, long-grain cultivar. Both cultivars have displayed a significant
32interaction between N fertilizer application strategy (single PF or two-way split) and rate on grain
33yield (Norman et al., 2000). The PF N was applied at the 4- to 5-leaf growth stage and followed
 1 5
2
1immediately by establishment of the permanent flood, which was maintained until physiological
2maturity.
3
4 2. Plant measurements and grain yield
5 Plant measurements were taken at the PD growth stage when the rice internodes were about
61.3 cm in length. Prior to N fertilizer application at PD, SPAD readings were taken and samples
7of Y-leaves and total aboveground plant biomass were collected. SPAD meter readings were
8taken on five randomly selected Y-leaves from the second inside row of each plot and were
9averaged for statistical analyses. The SPAD readings were taken on healthy Y-leaves at 3 to 4 cm
10from the leaf tip. Total dry matter accumulation was determined from whole above ground plant
11samples harvested from a 1-m section from the second inside row of each plot. In addition, 40
12most recently matured leaf blades (i.e., termed Y-leaves) were randomly collected from rice plants
13in the middle of the second inside row in each plot. Plant tissues were oven-dried at 60oC to a
14constant weight, weighed, ground to pass a 1-mm sieve, and analyzed for N concentration by
15combustion (Sweeney and Rexroad, 1987) with a LECO analyzer (Model SP 428, LECO Corp.,
16St. Joseph, MI). Grain yields were measured at maturity by harvesting 2.6 m2 of the four middle
17rows with a small plot combine. Grain yields were adjusted to a uniform moisture content of 120 g
18kg-1. Grain yield measured included the combined effect of PF and PD fertilizer N. The effect of
19PD fertilizer N alone was obtained by subtracting grain yield of plots receiving PF fertilizer only
20from grain yield of plots receiving both PF and PD N fertilizer. The percentage of yield increase
21or decrease due to PD N fertilizer for each plot was calculated with the following formula: [(Yield
22with PD N fertilizer - Yield without PD N fertilizer) / Yield without PD N fertilizer] x 100.
23
24 3. Data analysis
25 Analysis of variance of all variables measured was performed by using SPSS 12.0 for
26Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill.). Mean separations were performed by Fisher’s protected least
27significant difference (LSD) method at a significance level of 0.05. A linear relationship between
28grain yield increase due to N applied at PD and plant measurements taken prior to applying PD N
29fertilizer was fitted to identify thresholds values for the plant measurements above which there was
30no grain yield response to PD N application. The critical values, above which no PD N would be
31needed, were determined by solving the linear equation Y = a - bX = 0 for X, where Y is grain
32yield increase due to PD N, a is the intercept, b is the slope, and X is a plant measurement. If Y =
330, a = bX and X = a/b.
 1 6
2
1
2 Results and Discussion
3 1. Rice grain yields as influenced by N fertilization
4 Maximum grain yields (averaged across years and cultivars) was achieved when 134 kg N ha-
51 was applied at PF without N applied at PD and when 101 kg N ha-1 was applied at PF with N
6application at PD (Table 1*). In general, near maximum grain yields were not produced if < 67 kg
7N ha-1 was applied PF, regardless of the N rate applied at PD. At lower PF N rates, the plant may
8not accumulate enough size or dry matter to fully utilize N provided at the PD growth stage.
9Wilson et al. (1998) showed that as N uptake increased during the vegetative growth stage due to
10increasing PF N rate, the uptake efficiency of N fertilizer applied at PD also increased.
11Paradoxically, Wilson et al. (1998) also found that as N uptake increased during the vegetative
12growth stage, the likelihood of significant grain yield increases from N applied at PD declined.
13Application of too much N to rice can cause excessive vegetative growth, mutual shading, sterility,
14and increase the incidence of some diseases and result in grain yield reduction (Cartwright et al.,
152000; Long et al., 2000; Norman et al., 2003).
16 Grain yields (averaged across years and PD N rates) for the treatments without PF N application
17were 6559 kg ha-1 for Cocodrie and 5183 kg ha-1 for Wells (Table 2*)). Maximum grain yields
18were achieved when 101 kg N ha-1 was applied PF for Wells and 134 kg N ha-1 was applied PF for
19Cocodrie. No significant differences in grain yields (averaged across N rates applied at PD) were
20observed between PF N rates of 101 and 134 kg N ha-1 for Cocodrie or Wells. Norman et al
21(2000) reported that Cocodrie achieved maximum grain yields when 101 kg N ha-1 was applied in
22a single PF application compared to 134 kg N ha-1 applied in a two-way split application. They
23also did not observe a significant yield increase of Wells when more than 101 kg N ha-1 was
24applied at PF.
25 Grain yields (averaged across years and PF N rates) were higher for Cocodrie than Wells
26regardless of N fertilizer rate applied at PD (Table 2). Both cultivars required 101 kg N ha -1
27applied at PD to maximize grain yield. However, when 101 kg N ha -1 was applied at PD, grain
28yields increased by only 4% for Cocodrie and 9% for Wells compared to when no N was applied at
29PD. Thus, grain yield response to N fertilizer applied at PD to these cultivars was limited,
30especially when compared with the yield increases from N applied PF, which were 47% for
31Cocodrie and 79% for Wells. Although maximum yields were produced with 101 kg N ha-1
32applied at PD, about one-half of the maximum yield increase was achieved when 34 or 67 kg N ha -
331 was applied at PD indicating that the N rate applied at PD is not of great importance so long as it
 1 7
2
1is applied when needed. Data shown in Table 1 for the interaction between PF and PD N rates,
2averaged across cultivars and years, tend to support this conclusion, even when PF N rates were
3very low. Moldenhauer et al. (1997) indicated that cultivars, such as the short-statured Wells and
4the semi dwarf Cocodrie, were bred to be more responsive to N applied at PF and less responsive
5to N applied at PD. Norman et al. (2000) showed that an optimum rate of N applied PF to these
6cultivars gives equal or better maximum yields than a two-way split N application of equal or
7slightly higher total N rates.
8
9 Grain yield increase due to N fertilization at PD
10 Significant grain yield increases due to N fertilizer applied at PD occurred across all N rates
11applied PF, but especially with PF N rates ≤ 67 kg N ha-1. The percentage of grain yield increase
12from all N rates > 0 kg N ha-1 applied at PD tended to differ in magnitude between cultivars and
13decreased as the PF N rate increased (Table 3*). Percent grain yield increases due to N fertilizer
14applied at PD ranged from 0.6% to 9.8% for Cocodrie and 6.0% to 25% for Wells at PF N rates ≤
15101 kg N ha-1 (Table 3). Application of N fertilizer at PD is needed to enhance rice grain yields
16only when the PF N rate is inadequate due to improper application rate or management (Norman et
17al., 2003). However, care should be taken to monitor the N accumulation status of the rice plant to
18avoid application of excessive N at PD that will not increase rice grain yields or could possibly
19reduce grain yields.
20
21 2. Maximum grain yields as related to plant measurements at PD
22 All the plant measurements, averaged across years, were significantly increased by PF N
23application rates for Cocodrie and Wells (Table 4*). Maximum WPN and TNA values for
24Cocodrie, and maximum TNA values for Wells were obtained when 134 kg N ha -1 was applied PF.
25There were no significant differences between the effects of 101 and 134 kg N ha -1 applied PF on
26DMA, SPAD, and YLN for Cocodrie and on DMA, SPAD, YLN, and WPN for Wells. The lack
27of significant increase of the above plant measurements at PF N rates > 101 kg N ha -1 and the
28maximum yields obtained at PF N rates ≥ 101 kg N ha-1 suggest that additional N fertilizer at the
29PD growth stage may not be needed. In fact, when 101 kg N ha -1 was applied PF, plant
30measurements at PD corresponded to approximate thresholds above which no significant grain
31yield response to N fertilizer applied at PD was measured. Thus, when >101 kg N ha -1 had been
32applied PF, the significant increase or lack of increase in values for any of the plant measurements
33does not affect the usefulness of the plant measurements and is only of concern as it indicated that
 1 8
2
1the threshold value had been met and no grain yield response to N fertilizer applied at PD would
2be expected or only topdressing N amounts at PD should not exceed 34 kg ha -1 as it may reduce
3grain yields. This in itself is the only information really needed in commercial rice production as
4concerns N application at PD. The approximate threshold values at the 101 kg N ha-1 PF N rate for
5Cocodrie rice were 3783 kg ha-1 for DMA, 40.1 for SPAD, 37.3 g N kg-1 for YLN, 28.3 g N kg-1
6for WPN, and 106.8 kg N ha-1 for TNA (Table 5*). The approximate threshold values for Wells
7rice fertilized at PF with 101 kg N ha-1 were 4544 kg ha-1 for DMA, 42.6 for SPAD, 35.2 g N kg-1
8for YLN, 23.1 g N kg-1 for WPN, and 105 kg N ha-1 for TNA (Table 5).
9
10 Grain yield response to PD N as affected by plant
11measurements at PD
12 A linear regression equation was used to characterize the relationship between the percentage
13of grain yield increase and the plant measurements taken at the PD growth stage. Plant
14measurements at PD accounted for less than 25% of the variation in the percentage of grain yield
15increase due to PD N (Table 5). This was probably caused by the low responsiveness of these
16cultivars to PD N since we assumed that N fertilizer applied was the main factor limiting grain
17yield. Using a more PD N fertilizer responsive cultivar, Turner and Jund (1991) found that more
18than 60% of the variation in grain yield increase due N fertilizer applied at PD was accounted for
19by SPAD readings. Ntamatungiro et al. (1999) indicated that environmental and other conditions
20occurring during the reproductive growth stage may be among the factors contributing to lower
21correlation coefficients between grain yield and plant measurements. Based on the variation in the
22percentage of grain yield increase due to PD N accounted for by plant measurements at PD, plant
23measurements were ranked in the following order: TNA > DM > WPN > SPAD > YLN for
24Wells; and TNA > SPAD = WPN > DM > YLN for Cocodrie. Thus, TNA explained more
25variation in grain yield increase due to PD N than DMA, SPAD, YLN, and WPN. YLN
26accounted for less 10% of the variation in percentage of grain yield increase due to PD N for both
27cultivars. TNA accounted for 18% to 19% of the variation in percentage of grain yield increase due
28to PD N. No grain yield increase due to PD N was obtained at TNA of 117 and 123 kg N ha-1 for
29Cocodrie and Wells, respectively (Table 5). These critical values of TNA (117.3 to 122.8 kg N ha-
301) for Wells (Table 5) fall within the range of TNA values (118.1 to 137.9 kg N ha -1) measured at
31PF N rates that produced near maximum grain yields without N applied at PD. Although Bufogle
32et al. (1997b) reported that TNA by rice plants of cultivars grown in drill-seeded and water-seeded
33rice cultures varied from one year to another, TNA in our study were not significantly influenced
 1 9
2
1by year or the year x PF N rate interaction. Even though TNA method has some merit for
2predicting the need for supplemental N application at PD, it requires the time-consuming
3determination of DMA and WPN and is not a timely enough method to use for recommending N
4fertilizer at PD in a large number of commercial rice fields. Therefore, TNA can practically be
5used only to estimate N availability and uptake efficiency, not the need for PD N application. The
6predicted critical thresholds for DMA, SPAD, YLN, and WPN (Table 5) were generally greater
7than their mean values when 101 and 134 kg N ha-1 was applied PF (Table 4). Estimated critical
8DMA, YLN, and WPN were overestimated and were therefore not reliable. The critical SPAD
9reading was 40.7 for the semi-dwarf cultivar Cocodrie. This is in close agreement with observed
10SPAD readings of 40.1 and 41.7 at the PF N rates of 101 and 134 kg N ha -1, respectively. Turner
11and Jund (1991) reported that the SPAD meter readings were very accurate in predicting the need
12for N fertilizer at PD for semi dwarf cultivars. Peng at al. (1996) recommended topdressing 30 kg
13N ha-1 when SPAD readings were <35 for the IR72 cultivar in Asia. However, SPAD readings are
14significantly affected by N management practice, cultivar, and the time of application at different
15locations (Hussain et al., 2000). Estimated WPN values above which no PD N fertilizer was
16needed were 29.5 g N kg for Cocodrie and 26.6 g N kg -1for Wells (Table 5). These estimated
-1

17WPN values were within the range of observed WPN values (28.3 and 32.1 g N kg-1) for Cocodrie,
18but outside the range of observed WPN values (23.1 to 26.0 g N kg -1) for Wells at PF N rates ≥
19101 kg ha-1(Table 4). These data indicate that SPAD readings and WPN could be used to estimate
20the need for PD N for the semi dwarf cultivar Cocodrie.
21
22 3. Conclusions
23 Environmental factors that influence the fertilizer use efficiency of N applied PF vary among
24years and likely influence whether supplemental N is needed near panicle differentiation. Rice
25yield response to N fertilization at PD for short-statured and semi-dwarf cultivars is limited when
26adequate N is applied PF and managed appropriately. Data from this study showed that when rice
27grain yields were increased from N applied at PD, the actual N rate applied at PD was not of great
28importance. Application of 34 to 67 kg N ha-1 produced near maximum grain yields when
29suboptimum N rates were applied PF. However, growers need a reliable and quick diagnostic
30method to predict the need for supplement N near the PD growth stage so that grain yields are
31maximized and excessive N is not applied.
32 The SPAD method requires that an adequate number of measurements are made to represent the
33N status of the field or areas within a field that can be fertilized differently. Information can be
 1 10
2
1used immediately provided that critical thresholds, which can be determined in routine N
2calibration studies that are specific for new cultivars, different environmental conditions, and
3various soils, are available to interpret the field measurements. The major difference between
4these methods appears to be their reliability and economic feasibility. For the environmental
5conditions and dry-seeded, delayed-flood rice production system used in Arkansas, the SPAD,
6YLN, WPN, and TNA methods were not consistent at predicting the need for N application at PD.
7

8 Acknowledgments

9 Research was partially supported by Rice Check-off Program Funds administered by the

10Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board. The author extends special thanks to Dr. Rick

11Norman and Dr. Nathan Slaton for their support when this field experiment was conducted in 2000

12and 2001 and to Chuck Pipkens and Marvin Bennett for their assistance with field work and data

13collection.

14
15 References
16
17Bufogle, A., Jr., Bollich, P.K., Kovar, J.L, Lindau, C.W., and Macchiavelli, R.E. 1997a. Rice
18 plant growth and nitrogen accumulation from a midseason application. J. Plant Nutrition 20:
19 1191-1201.
20Bufogle A., Jr., Bollich, P.K., Norman, R.J., Kovar, J.L., Lindau, C.W., and Macchiavelli, R.E.
21 1997b. Rice plant growth and nitrogen accumulation in drill-seeded and water-seeded
22 culture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61: 832-839.
23Bollich, P.K., Lindau, C.W., and Norman, R.J. 1994. Management of fertilizer nitrogen in dry
24 seeded delayed-flood rice. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 34: 1007-1012.
25Cartwright, R.D., Norman, R.J., and Slaton, N.A. 2000. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer rate and
26 application method on sheath blight and yield of Cypress rice. In R.J. Norman and C.A.
27 Beyrouty (ed.) B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 1999. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Ser.
28 476. Fayetteville. 179-188.
29Doberman, A., and Fairhurst, T. 1999. Field handbook. Nutritional disorders and nutrient
30 management in rice. IRRI, PPI/PPIC.
31Guindo, D., Wells, B.R., and Norman, R.J. 1994. Cultivar and nitrogen rate influence on nitrogen
32 uptake and partitioning by rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 840-845.
33Hussain, F., Bronson, K.F., Singh, Y, Singh, B., and Peng, S. 2000. Use of chlorophyll meter
34 sufficiency indices for nitrogen management of irrigated rice in Asia. Agron. J. 92: 875-
35 879.
36Long, D.H., Lee, F.N., and TeBeest, D.O. 2000. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on disease progress
37 of rice blast on susceptible and resistant cultivars. Plant Dis. 84: 403-409.
38Mikkelsen, D.S. 1970. Recent advances in rice plant tissue analysis. Rice J. 73: 2-5.
 1 11
2
1Mikkelsen, D.S. 1987. Nitrogen budgets in flooded soils used for rice production. Plant Soil 100:
2 71-97.
3Moldenhauer, K.A. K., Gravois, K.A., Lee, F.N., Norman, R.J., Bernhardt, J.L., and Wells, B.R.
4 1997. Breeding and evaluation for improved rice varieties-the Arkansas rice breeding and
5 development program. In R.J. Norman and T.H. Johnston eds., B.R. Wells rice research
6 studies 1996. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Ser. 456. Fayetteville. 17-21.
7Norman, R.J., Wilson, C.E., Jr., Slaton, N.A., Gravois, K.A., and Moldenhauer, K.A.K. 1997.
8 Grain yield response of new rice cultivars/varieties to nitrogen fertilization. In R.J. Norman
9 and T.H. Johnston eds., B.R. Wells rice research studies 1996. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res.
10 Ser. 456. Fayetteville. 125-129.
11Norman, R.J., Wilson, C.E., Jr., Slaton, N.A., and Moldenhauer, K.A.K. 2000. Grain yield
12 response of new rice cultivars to nitrogen fertilization. In R.J. Norman and T.H. Johnston
13 eds., B.R. Wells rice research studies 1999. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Ser. 476.
14 Fayetteville. 267-277.
151Norman, R.J., Wilson, C.E., Jr., and Slaton, N.A. 2003. Soil fertilization and rice nutrition in
16 mechanized rice culture. In C.W. Smith and R.H. Dilday eds., Rice: Origin, History,
17 Technology, and Production. Wiley Sciences. 331-411.
18Ntamatungiro, S., Norman, R.J., McNew, R.W., and Wells, B.R. 1999. Comparison of plant
19 measurements for estimating nitrogen accumulation and grain yield by flooded rice. Agron.
20 J. 91: 676-685.
21Peng, S., Varcia, F.V., Laza, M.R.C., and Cassman, K.G. 1993. Adjustment for specific weight
22 improves chlorophyll meter’s estimate of rice leaf nitrogen concentration. Agron. J. 85:
23 987-990.
24Peng, S., Laza, M.R.C., Varcia, F.V., and Cassman, K.G. 1995. Chlorophyll meter estimates leaf
25 area-based nitrogen concentration of rice. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26: 927-935.
26Peng, S., Garcia, F.V., Laza, R.C., Sanico, A.L., Visperas, R.M., and Cassman, K.G. 1996.
27 Increase nitrogen use efficiency using a chlorophyll meter in high-yielding irrigated rice.
28 Field Crops Res. 47: 243-252.
29Sheehy, J.E., Dionora, M.J.A., Mitchell, P.L., Peng, S., Cassman, K.G., Lemaire, G., Williams,
30 R.L. 1998. Critical nitrogen concentrations: implications for high-yielding rice (Oryza
31 sativa L.) cultivars in the tropics. Field Crops Research 59: 31-41.
32Slaton, N.A. 2001. Rice production handbook. Misc. Publ. 192. Ark. Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of
33 Arkansas, Little Rock, AR.
34Sweeney, R.A., and Rexroad, P.R. 1987. Comparison of LECO FP-328 nitrogen determination
35 with AOAC copper catalyst Kjeldahl method for crude protein. J. Assoc. Off. Anal.
36 Chem.70: 1028-1030.
37Turner, F.T., Jund, M.F. 1991. Chlorophyll meter to predict nitrogen top-dress requirements for
38 semi dwarf rice. Agron. J. 83: 926-928.
39Wells, B.R., Norman, R.J., Helms, R.S., and Baser, R.E. 1993. Use of plant area measurements to
40 estimate midseason nitrogen rates for rice. In W.E. Sabbe ed., Arkansas soil fertility studies
41 1992. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Ser. 425. Fayetteville. 18-21.
42Wilson, C.E., Jr., Norman, R.J., and Wells, B.R. 1989. Seasonal uptake patterns of fertilizer
43 nitrogen applied in split applications to rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 1884-1887.
44Wilson, C.E., Jr., Bollich, P.K., and Norman, R.J. 1998. Nitrogen application timing effects on
45 nitrogen efficiency of dry-seeded rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62: 959-964.
46
47
48
49
 1 12
2
1 Tables
2
3Table 1. Effects of N fertilizer applied preflood and at panicle differentiation on rice grain yields.
4
5Table 2. Interactions between preflood nitrogen fertilization and rice cultivar, and between panicle
6differentiation nitrogen fertilization and rice cultivar on grain yields.
7
8Table 3. Interaction between preflood N fertilization and rice cultivar on grain yield increase due to
9N fertilizer applied at panicle differentiation (averaged over years and panicle differentiation N
10rates).
11
12Table 4. Plant measurements (averaged over years) at panicle differentiation growth stage as
13influenced by preflood N fertilization and rice cultivars.
14
15Table 5. Linear regression equations of percent grain yield increase (Y) due to N fertilization at
16panicle differentiation growth stage on rice plant measurements.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Table 1. Effects of N fertilizer applied preflood and at panicle differentiation on rice grain yields.
Grain yield (kg ha-1)
al.
et
o
gir
un
at
m
a
Nt

3
2/
te
Ra
on
cti
du
Re

e1
bl
Ta
 1 13
2
Panicle differentiation rates (kg N ha-1)
-1
Preflood rates (kg N ha ) 0† 34 67 101
0 ±
5373 5783 6121 6288
al. 34 7193 7581 7711 7926
67 8638 9109 9071 9489
et
101 9467 9776 9667 9754
o
gir
un 134 9936 9367 9496 9792
at LSD(0.05) ¶ 332
m CV (%) 7.6
a 1±N rates applied at preflood; † N rates applied at panicle differentiation; ¶ LSD for comparing
Nt 2preflood N rates for different panicle differentiation N rates.
3
3 4
2/ 5
te 6
Ra 7
on 8
cti 9
du 10
Re 11
12
13
e2 14
bl 15
Ta 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25Table 2. Interactions between preflood nitrogen fertilization and rice cultivar, and between panicle
26differentiation nitrogen fertilization and rice cultivar on grain yields.
Grain yields (kg ha-1 )
Application time N rate ( kg Cocodrie Wells
ha-1 )
PF 0 6559 5183
34 8152 7052

67 9168 8985

101 9612 9720

134 9656 9639

†
LSD(0.05) = 211
 1 14
2
PD 0 8522 7721

34 8545 8101

67 8647 8179
al.
et
o
gir 101 8836 8463
un ‡
at LSD (0.05) = 189
m 1 LSD for comparing cultivars for different preflood N rates; ‡ LSD to comparing cultivars for
†

a 2different panicle differentiation N rates.

Nt 3
4
3 5
2/ 6
te 7
Ra 8
on 9
cti 10
du 11
Re 12
13
e3 14
bl 15
Ta 16
17
18
19
20
21
22Table 3. Interaction between preflood N fertilization and rice cultivar on grain yield increase due to
23N fertilizer applied at panicle differentiation (averaged over years and panicle differentiation N
24rates).
Grain yield increase (%)

Preflood N rates (kg ha-1 ) Cocodrie Wells

0 9.8 24.5

34 5.7 12.5

67 5.7 9.3

101 0.6 6.0

134 -4.9 -2.4

1 15
2
LSD (0.05) ¶ 4.3

1¶ LSD for comparing cultivars for different preflood N rates.

2
3
4
1 16
2
1Table 4. Plant measurements (averaged over years) at panicle differentiation growth stage as
2influenced by preflood N fertilization and rice cultivars.
Cultivar Preflood N rate DMA† SPAD YLN WPN TNA

al.
et
o
gir
un
at
m
a
Nt

3
2/
te kg N ha-1 kg ha-1 g N kg-1 g N kg-1 kg N ha-1
Ra
on
cti
du
Re

e4
bl
Ta

Cocodrie 0 1758 29.3 27.3 13.9 24.1

34 2701 33.4 29.7 16.9 45.6

67 3753 38.2 34.1 23.1 85.7

101 3783 40.1 37.3 28.3 106.8

134 4146 41.4 40.3 32.1 137.9

1 17
2
Wells 0 1490 34.1 25.8 14.8 21.8
34 3078 35.8 29.8 15.8 48.8

67 3826 40.1 32.1 19.1 73.2

101 4544 42.6 35.2 23.1 105.3

134 4438 43.3 37.7 26.0 118.1

LSD(0.05) ¶ 580 1.5 5.0 3.0 18.8
CV (%) 10.6 2.5 9.7 8.0 14.8
1† DMA = dry matter accumulation; SPAD = SPAD meter readings; YLN = N concentration in the
2most recently matured leaf blade; WPN = N concentration in the above ground tissues; TNA =
3total N accumulation; ¶ LSD for comparing PF N rates for the same cultivar; CV = Coefficient of
4variation.
1
1Table 5. Linear regression equations of percent grain yield increase (Y) due to N fertilization at
2panicle differentiation growth stage on rice plant measurements.
Critical values above which
Cultivar Equations R2 there is no yield increase

Y=14.5 - 0.003 x DMA 0.12*** 4833 kg DMA ha-1

al.
et
o Y=33.6 - 0.825 x SPAD 0.16*** 40.7
Y=17.4 - 0.418 x YLN 0.08** 41.65 g YLN kg-1
gir
un
at Y=15.6 - 0.529 x WPN 0.16*** 29.51 g WPN kg-1
m Y=11.46 - 0.098 x TNA 0.18*** 117.3 kg TNA ha-1
a
Nt
Wells
3
2/ Y=31.8 - 0.006 x DMA 0.17*** 5300 kg DMA ha-1
te Y=53.0 - 1.094 x SPAD 0.07** 48.4
Ra
on Y=28.4 - 5.69 x YLN 0.03* 49.90 g YLN kg-1
cti Y=39.4 – 14.82 x WPN 0.15*** 26.58 g WPN kg-1
Y=25.3 - 0.206 x TNA 0.19*** 122.8 kg TNA ha-1
du
Re
3*, **, *** Significant at the 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively.
4DMA = dry matter accumulation; YLN = N concentration in the most recently matured leaf blade;
5SPAD = SPAD meter readings; WPN = N concentration in the above ground tissues; TNA = total
e5
6N accumulation.
bl
7 Ta