View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Agronomy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, H-2100 Gödöllő, Páter Károly utca 1, Hungary
Open access

Abstract

Nitrogen (N) is one of the most essential nutrients affecting the yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.). A field experiment was conducted at the experimental plot of the Department of Agronomy, The Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Hungary, to investigate the effect of nitrogen fertilisation on the yield and quality of maize. The experimental site included four observation plots with a net of 2 × 5 m size. Four N levels of T1, T2, T3, and T4 were sprayed at indicated plants in four replications according to treatment viz. 0, 50, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1. Nitrogen application in general does not significantly affect maize yield, its components, or grain quality. However, out of the four N treatments, the optimal N application between 50–100 kg N ha−1 potentially increased the yield, also the total expression of protein and starch contents in maize can be achieved with the right amount of N fertiliser, indicating that the treatment could produce a high grain yield as well as high protein and starch contents. Good N fertilising practice will boost the maize's nutritional value and make it more significant in the agriculture in the future. In addition, more research and assessment are essential to acquire the most benefit from the effect of optimal N application on maize yield and quality, and the findings could be beneficial to researchers and growers.

Abstract

Nitrogen (N) is one of the most essential nutrients affecting the yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.). A field experiment was conducted at the experimental plot of the Department of Agronomy, The Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Hungary, to investigate the effect of nitrogen fertilisation on the yield and quality of maize. The experimental site included four observation plots with a net of 2 × 5 m size. Four N levels of T1, T2, T3, and T4 were sprayed at indicated plants in four replications according to treatment viz. 0, 50, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1. Nitrogen application in general does not significantly affect maize yield, its components, or grain quality. However, out of the four N treatments, the optimal N application between 50–100 kg N ha−1 potentially increased the yield, also the total expression of protein and starch contents in maize can be achieved with the right amount of N fertiliser, indicating that the treatment could produce a high grain yield as well as high protein and starch contents. Good N fertilising practice will boost the maize's nutritional value and make it more significant in the agriculture in the future. In addition, more research and assessment are essential to acquire the most benefit from the effect of optimal N application on maize yield and quality, and the findings could be beneficial to researchers and growers.

1 Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.), also known as corn, was the first global grain crop, with 1,125 million tonnes of production accounting for more than 40% of total grain production. Maize is also a valuable grain crop after wheat in Hungary, which is the 3rd largest maize producer in Europe with 8.4 million tonnes at about 12% of total production out of 67.8 million tonnes in 2020 (Eurostat, 2021).

However, now the world faces climate change that will affect potential productivity, soil fertility, and nutrient management. These factors are the main contributors to low yield production. Thus, the development of superior cultivars and improved technology could be the key to doubling yields and reducing the impact of vulnerability to climate change (Loch, 2015). As far as climate change, plant nutrients are both a part of the problem and a part of the solution. Improper use of nitrogen (N) is associated with greenhouse gases emission (GHG), while its deficiency is the main barrier to obtaining high yield and quality (Majumdar, 2018).

Nitrogen (N) is the most important essential element in agricultural production, and its deficiency is one of the main yield-limiting factors for grain production. According to Hammad et al. (2011), maize grain yields positive responses to applied N, but over-fertilisation with N is a common problem for the maize rotation system. Excessive N present in the soil cannot be absorbed by crops and instead reduces N use efficiency, wastes resources, and degrades the environment. The use of N fertiliser for grain production has made a substantial contribution to global food security (Zhai et al., 2019).

Fertiliser consumption in Hungary currently ranges from 60 to 70 kg per hectare for N, with yields production of roughly seven metric tons per hectare. According to Loch (2015), reducing fertiliser application results in decrease in the yield averages of maize. Similarly, Moser et al. (2006) found that maize plots produced higher yields when given large N doses. However, the increase of N application will not stimulate the additional number of grains but increase the 1,000 grain weight. Meanwhile, fertilisation together with plant protection will boost yields. While the effect may not be significant, it does have the potential to minimise the consumption of N (Árendás et al., 2012). According to Nagy (2012) and Árendás et al. (2014), nutrient application, which has a major impact on production and quality, is important. Moreover, proper nutrients application is essential in modern crop production, where without it crop safety would be compromised (Pepó, 2017). Furthermore, water stress caused by climate change might reduce yields; however, choosing stress-resistant maize hybrids can help plants cope with high temperatures (Marton et al., 2012).

In maize, effective nitrogen application improves quality characteristics such as grain protein content (Amanullah et al., 2009) and affects grain protein concentration more consistently, with a large effect size for protein as N fertilizer levels rise (Correndo et al., 2021). However, the low and high N dose rates can also affect the quality of maize. Therefore, ensuring the optimum supply of N dose is essential to improving maize quality (Hammad et al., 2011). Considering the foregoing, the current study was carried out to quantify the effect of N fertilisation on grain yield and its components, and grain quality parameters like moisture, oil, protein, and starch concentrations for maize crops.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Experimental site

A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of N levels on yield and quality of maize at an experimental plot of the Department of Agronomy, The Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Hungary, in 2021. This experimental site is located in a hilly section of the country, near-average climatic zone, 242 m above sea level (47046′N, 19021′E) on sandy loam, brown forest soil (Chromic Luvisol). The humus content was 3.12%, while sand, silt, and clay contents were 10%, 54%, and 36% respectively, at the top of the 20 cm layer (Tóth et al., 2018). The soil had a slightly acidic pH of 6.2 (H2O) and a pH of 5.1 (KCl) (Dekemati et al., 2020). In 2021, the average annual precipitation in Gödöllő was 531.0 mm (20.91 inches). In Hungary, the precipitation estimation is between 400 and 500 mm (15.8–19.7 inches) per year, the western parts are slightly wetter than the eastern.

2.2 Treatment

The maize hybrid seed variety MV 277 was sown on 26 May 2021 using a Wintersteiger Plotman maize planter machine with a plant density of 75 thousand plant ha−1. The experimental site consisted of four observation plots with N levels of T1 (0 kg N ha−1), T2 (50 kg N ha−1), T3 (100 kg N ha−1), and T4 (150 kg N ha−1) of net sizes 2 × 5 m. Each treatment contained four replications with ten plants per replication. The various treatments were applied as spraying on the indicated plants during the vegetative growth stage (V12). Standard agronomic practices were applied uniformly to all treatments.

2.3 Measurement

At harvest, the total number of cobs was recorded from each plot. The seed obtained from four tagged plants per replications after threshing, cleaning, and sun-drying were measured for cob weight, the number of rows per cob, grain number per cob, also the grain yields per plot were calculated and expressed in kilograms. 1,000 grains was counted using Contador 2 seed counter then weighted on SCALTEC electric weight balance to determine the 1,000 grain weight value. The grain quality parameters like moisture content, oil, protein, and starch concentrations were obtained using the Mininfra Grain Analyser.

2.4 Statistical analysis

One-way ANOVA was used to examine the effect of N fertilisation on grain yield and its components, as well as grain quality parameters (moisture, oil, protein, and starch concentrations) of maize at P ≤ 0.05 probability level. Differences among treatment means were compared by Post Hoc Multiple Comparison tests using Least Significant Difference (LSD) at P ≤ 0.05. Analyses were conducted with the IBM SPSS version 23.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Effect of nitrogen on grain yield and its components

The ANOVA table (Table 1) shows that there were no differences in grain yield, cob weight, row number/cob, grain number/row, grain number/cob, 1,000 grain weight, and grain oil content between the groups for various N treatments (0, 50, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1). However, the different levels of N treatments showed significant differences on cob number (F (3,12) = [4.798], P= 0.02).

Table 1.

Analysis of variance of grain yield, cob number/plot, cob weight, row number/cob, grain number/row, grain number/cob, and 1,000 grain weight at different levels of N treatments (0, 50, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1)

CharacteristicSource of variationSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Grain yield/plot (kg)Between groups0.51530.1721.5970.242
Within groups1.289120.107
Total1.80415
Cob number/plotBetween groups26.68838.8964.7980.020
Within groups22.250121.854
Total48.93815
Cob weight (g)Between groups6073.12232024.3742.6210.099
Within groups9270.03312772.503
Total15343.15415
Row number/cobBetween groups2.68830.8960.7820.527
Within groups13.750121.146
Total16.43815
Grain number/rowBetween groups38.688312.8960.8980.470
Within groups172.2501214.354
Total210.93815
Grain number/cobBetween groups19556.18836518.7291.4960.265
Within groups52275.750124356.312
Total71831.93815
1,000 grain weightBetween groups761.6123253.8710.4100.748
Within groups7422.22312618.519
Total8183.83415

df: Degree of freedom; Sig.: Significance; Significance level = P ≤ 0.05.

The results (Table 2) demonstrate that the maximum grain yield per plot (11.50 kg ± 1.17) was provided by treatment T2 (50 kg N ha−1), while the minimum (9.47 kg ± 1.71) was recorded in the plot with the highest N application T4 (150 kg N ha−1). The cob number/plot produced statistically similar values for N rates of 0, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1, which were significantly lower than for the 50 kg N ha−1. Nitrogen application at T2 (50 kg N ha−1) resulted in maximum cob number/plot (17.25 ± 1.71) followed by T1 (0 kg N ha−1), T4 (150 kg N ha−1), and T3 (100 kg N ha−1) with 14.75 ± 1.26, 14.25 ± 0.96, and 14.00 ± 1.41, respectively.

Table 2.

Mean values (± standard deviation) and Post Hoc LSD test results of grain yield and its components at different nitrogen fertilisation levels

Treatment (kg N ha−1)Grain yield/plot (kg)Cob number/plotCob weight (g)Row number/cobGrain number/rowGrain number/cob1,000 grain weight
T1 (0)10.41±0.78a14.75±1.26ab207.75±3.54a15.50±1.00a40.25±2.75a625.50±76.65a241.67±36.17a
T2 (50)11.5±1.17a17.25±1.71a210.73±2.71a15.50±1.00a43.75±6.13a675.00±73.86a250.38±23.56a
T3 (100)10.47±1.39a14.00±1.41b254.18±2.36a16.50±1.00a43.75±2.87a722.00±65.44a238.73±21.70a
T4 (150)9.47±1.71a14.25±0.96b241.28±2.34a15.75±1.26a44.00±2.00a691.75±42.57a231.10±11.84a
LSD (P ≤ 0.05)NS1.33NSNSNSNSNS

*Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 level according to Post Hoc LSD test; LDS (0.05) = Least significant difference at P ≤ 0.05; NS = Not significant.

The maximum cob weight (254.18 ± 2.36 g) was recorded for treatment T3 (100 kg N ha−1) and the lowest (207.75 ± 3.54 g) for the control treatment T1 (0 kg N ha−1). Row number/cob values were statistically similar for all N treatments. N treatment at a rate of 100 kg N ha−1 provided the highest row number/cob (16.50 ± 1.00), whereas the lowest value (15.50 ± 1.00) was obtained for treatments T1 and T2 with 0 and 50 kg N ha−1, respectively. The number of grains/row was not significantly affected by the different N rates, with the highest value (44.00 ± 2.00) obtained for T4 (150 kg N ha−1) and the lowest (40.25 ± 2.75) for T1 (0 kg N ha−1).

Grain number/cob of maize was not significantly affected by the different N rates (Table 2), however, treatment T3 (100 kg N ha−1) provided the highest (722.00 ± 65.44) grain number/cob, followed by T4 (150 kg N ha−1), T2 (50 kg N ha−1), and T1 (0 kg N ha−1) with values of 691.75 ± 42.57, 675.00 ± 73.86, and 625.50 ± 76.65, respectively. The application of N did not affect the 1,000 grain weight. Treatment T2 (50 kg N ha−1) resulted in the maximum weight (250.38 ± 23.56) and it was statistically comparable to T1, T3, and T4 with 241.67 ± 36.17, 238.73 ± 21.70, and 231.10 ± 11.84, respectively.

According to our results, nitrogen application had no impact on maize grain yield and its components. This could be due to other factors contributing to maize grain yield, as researchers have shown that yield is influenced by several environmental or technological factors (Băşa et al., 2016). According to Ngoune and Shelton (2020), maize grain yield is affected by a number of factors, including technology (agricultural practices, management decisions, etc.), biology (diseases, insects, pests, weeds), and the environment (climatic conditions, soil fertility, topography, water quality, etc.). Also, an adjusted crop arrangement would increase maize production by an average of 18 percent, making it the most promising component studied according to Eash et al. (2019).

However, many studies have proven that increasing N levels in maize crops can increase grain yields (Reddy et al., 1985; Tsai et al., 1992), as N has a positive effect on plant growth, promoting and increasing the yield (Eltelib et al., 2006). Nitrogen deficiency will reduce vegetative and reproductive growth, which has the potential of reducing yield (Fageria and Baligar, 2005). It was fond in a previous research that grain yield rose as the amount of sprayed nitrogen increased up to a certain point, but levelled off after that, also, maize hybrids required the same amount of nitrogen for optimal grain yield (Tsai et al., 1992). Furthermore, if grain yield does not respond to an increase in N fertiliser rate, it shows that raising the N fertiliser rate is not a smart approach for achieving maximum grain yield (Hammad et al., 2011). In addition, Zhai et al. (2019) claimed that nitrogen application combined with proper tillage procedures has a considerable impact on grain yield, nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen use efficiency. They also indicated that for the best economic results, deep vertical rotary tillage with a N rate of 225 kg ha−1 was the best option.

According to the results, grain yield had no positive relationship with the number of cobs, cob weight, row number of one cob, number of grains/row, number of grains/cob, and 1,000 grains. However, according to Băşa et al. (2016), the application of 80 kg N ha−1 in maize crops increases the values of yield components (except 1,000 grain weight) and in turn increases grain yield. Similar findings have been revealed by Li et al. (2019), according to their study, there was a relationship between yield and agronomic characteristics such as the number of seeds/tassel, the weight of 1,000 seeds, plant height and tassel length, and all these factors contributed to high grain yields in rice.

3.2 Effect of nitrogen on grain quality

According to Table 3, there were significant differences in grain moisture content (F (3,12) = [74.935], P = 0.00), grain protein content (F (3,12) = [6.404], P = 0.08), and starch concentration (F (3,12) = [3.621], P = 0.45) between the groups with different N treatments (0, 50,100 and 150 kg N ha−1). However, oil content was similar for all treatments (F (3,12) = [2.507], P = 0.11).

Table 3.

Analysis of variance of grain quality parameters like moisture, oil, protein, and starch contents at four levels of N fertilisation (0, 50, 100, and 150 kg N ha−1)

CharacteristicSource of variationSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Moisture (%)Between groups7.21332.40474.9350.000
Within groups0.385120.032
Total7.59815
Oil (%)Between groups0.06130.0202.5070.108
Within groups0.097120.008
Total0.15715
Protein (%)Between groups0.86730.2896.4040.008
Within groups0.542120.045
Total1.40915
Starch (%)Between groups0.96230.3213.6210.045
Within groups1.063120.089
Total2.02415

df: Degree of freedom; Sig.: Significance; Significance level = P ≤ 0.05.

The results reveal that levels of nitrogen have a considerable impact on grain moisture content (Table 4). Treatment T3 (100 kg N ha−1) provided the highest (14.43 ± 0.15%) grain moisture content, while the highest N rate (treatment T4) provided the lowest (12.65 ± 0.10%) grain moisture content. N treatment at 150 kg N ha−1 resulted in the highest oil content (3.53 ± 0.06%), but the differences were not statistically significant. The protein content was significantly affected by levels of N. Maximum protein content (5.23 ± 0.12%) was obtained for treatment T2 (50 kg N ha−1) and T1 (0 kg N ha−1) with no statistical differences, and the lowest (4.64 ± 0.10%) value was presented by T4 (150 kg N ha−1). Starch content was significantly affected by N rates (Table 4), the highest (72.43 ± 0.33% and 72.43 ± 0.22%) values were recorded for treatments T3 and T4, followed by T2 and T1 with 71.98 ± 0.37% and 71.90 ± 0.24%, respectively.

Table 4.

Mean values (± standard deviation) and Post Hoc LSD test results of grain quality parameters (moisture, oil, protein, and starch contents) at four levels of N fertilisation

Treatment (kg N ha−1)Moisture (%)Oil (%)Protein (%)Starch (%)
T1 (0)13.58±0.30b3.42±0.12a4.99±0.32ab71.90±0.24b
T2 (50)13.00±0.08c3.39±0.07a5.17±0.23a71.98±0.37ab
T3 (100)14.43±0.15a3.37±0.10a5.23±0.12a72.43±0.33a
T4 (150)12.65±0.10c3.53±0.06a4.64±0.10b72.43±0.22a
LSD (P ≤ 0.05)0.17NS0.210.29

*Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 level according to Post Hoc LSD test; LDS (0.05) = Least significant difference at P ≤ 0.05; NS = Not significant.

In general, the grain yield of maize crops increases in response to N, and this condition is closely related to grain quality such as moisture, oil, protein, and starch content. However, the association between grain quality and N value was not significant in this study in contrast to the results discovered by Eltelib et al. (2006), where nitrogen significantly increased the protein content of forage maize. Thus, recent research has demonstrated that increased N levels would increase seed protein content (SPC) in maize. On the other hand, low N conditions not only restrict grain yield but also grain quality including moisture and protein contents (Tsai et al., 1992; Hammad et al., 2011).

Since no difference was found in the effects of different N treatments in our study, we can only conclude that the optimal efficiency of N fertilising is between 50–100 kg N ha−1. Further studies are needed to be able to determine the optimal application of N more accurately. Cultivation practices play an important role in improving grain yield and grain quality beside technology, biology, and the environment.

4 Conclusions

This study assessed the effect of N fertilisation on maize yield and quality. The findings revealed that increased fertiliser application had no significant impact on either yield and its components or grain quality, such as moisture, oil, protein, and starch contents. However, out of the four N levels applied, the optimal N application between 50–100 kg N ha– 1 might potentially increase the yield, indicating that N treatment has the ability to produce higher grain yield as well as higher protein and starch contents. Furthermore, total expression of protein and starch contents in maize can be achieved with the right amount of N fertiliser, boosting its nutritional value and making it of greater agricultural importance in the future. More research and assessment are essential to acquire the most benefit from N application on maize yield and quality, and the findings will be beneficial to researchers and agricultural producers as well.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Doctoral Program of the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Hungary. The authors would like to express their gratitude to all colleagues and the technical staff both in the field and laboratories for their assistance and valuable contribution to this study.

References

  • Amanullah , Khattak, R.A. , and Khalil, S.K. (2009). Plant density and nitrogen effects on maize phenology and grain yield. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 32(2): 246260.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Árendás, T. , Berzsenyi, Z. , and Bónis, P. (2012). Agronomic research in Martonvásár, aimed at promoting the efficiency of field crop production. Acta Agraria Debreceniensis ,49: 8993. https://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/49/2502.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Árendás, T. , Bónis, P. , Micskei, Gy. , Sugár, E. , Szőke, Cs. , Marton, L.Cs. , and Berzsenyi, Z. (2014). A kukorica termésreakciója és termésstabilitása N-trágyázási tartamkísérletekben (Yield reaction and yield stability of maize in N-fertilization duration experiments). In: Pepó, P. and Csajbók, J. (Eds.) XIIIth congress of the European society for Agronomy (ESA): Book of abstracts. Debrecen, University of Debrecen, pp. 2328.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Băşa, A.G. , Ion, V. , Dumbravă, M. , Temocico, G. , Epure, L.I. , and Ştefan, D. (2016). Grain yield and yield components at maize under different preceding crops and nitrogen fertilization conditions. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 10: 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.09.025.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Correndo, A.A. , Fernandez, J.A. , Vara Prasad, P.V. , and Ciampitti, I.A. (2021). Do water and nitrogen management practices impact grain quality in maize? Agronomy, 11(9): 1851, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091851.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dekemati, I. , Simon, B. , Bogunovic, I. , Kisic, I. , Kassai, K. , Kende, Z. , and Birkás, M. (2020) Long term effects of ploughing and conservation tillage methods on earthworm abundance and crumb ratio. Agronomy ,10(10): 1552, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101552.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eash, L. , Fonte, S.J. , Sonder, K. , Honsdorf, N. , Schmidt, A. , Govaerts, B. , and Verhulst, N. (2019). Factors contributing to maize and bean yield gaps in Central America vary with site and agroecological conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, 157(4): 300317, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859619000571.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eltelib, H.A. , Hamad, M.A. , and Ali, E.E. (2006). The effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on growth, yield, and quality of forage maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agronomy ,5(3): 515518.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eurostat (2021). Crop production in national humidity, Available at: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=apro_cpnh1&lang=en (Accessed: 10 January 2022).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fageria, N.K. and Baligar, V.C. (2005). Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Advances in Agronomy, 88: 97185, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(05)88004-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hammad, H.M. , Ahmad, A. , Khaliq, T. , Farhad, W. , and Mubeen, M. (2011). Optimizing rate of nitrogen application for higher yield and quality in maize under semiarid environment. Crop and Environment, 2(1): 3841.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Li, R. , Li, M. , Ashraf, U. , Liu, S. , and Zhang, J. (2019). Exploring the relationships between yield and yield-related traits for rice varieties released in China from 1978 to 2017. Frontiers in Plant Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00543.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Loch, J. (2015). Nutrient management in Hungary - a review. Agrokémia és Talajtan, 64(2): 373382. https://doi.org/10.1556/0088.2015.64.2.5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majumdar, K. (2018). Does improved plant nutrition provide a credible entry point for climate and weather adaptive crop production? Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 66: S84S103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marton, L.Cs. , Árendás, T. , and Berzsenyi, Z. (2012): Martonvásári kukorica hibridek a szárazságban (Martonvásár maize hybrids in drought.). Martonvásár, 24(2): 47.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moser, S.B. , Feil, B. , Jampatong, S. , and Stamp, P. (2006). Effects of pre-anthesis drought, nitrogen fertilizer rate, and variety on grain yield, yield components, and harvest index of tropical maize. Agric. Water Manage, 81(1–2): 4158.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nagy, J. (2012). The effect of fertilization and precipitation on the yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in a long-term experiment. Időjárás ,116: 3952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ngoune, L.T. and Shelton, C.M. (2020). Factors affecting yield of crops. In: Amanullah, A. (Ed.), Agronomy – climate change and food security, IntechOpen, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90672.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pepó, P. (2017). Tartamkísérletek mint a klímaváltozás indikátorai (Duration experiments as indicators of climate change). Növénytermelés, 66(3): 3346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reddy, K.P. , Subhani, S.M. , Khan, P.A. , and Kumar, K.B. (1985). Effect of light and benzyladenine on dark-treated growing rice (Oryza sativa) leaves II. Changes in peroxidase activity. Plant and Cell Physiology, 26(6): 987994, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a077018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tóth, E. , Gelybó, G. , Dencso, M. , Kása, I. , Birkás, M. , and Horel, Á. (2018). Soil CO2 emissions in a long-term tillage treatment experiment. Soil Management and Climate Change: Effects on Organic Carbon, Nitrogen Dynamics, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 293307. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812128-3.00019-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tsai, C.Y. , Dweikat, I. , Huber, D.M. , and Warren, H.L. (1992). Interrelationship of nitrogen nutrition with maize (Zea mays) grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency and grain quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 58(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740580102.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhai, L. , Xu, P. , Zhang, Z. , Wei, B. , Jia, X. , and Zhang, L. (2019). Improvements in grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of summer maize by optimizing tillage practice and nitrogen application rate. Agronomy Journal, 111(2): 666676. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj 2018.05.0347.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Amanullah , Khattak, R.A. , and Khalil, S.K. (2009). Plant density and nitrogen effects on maize phenology and grain yield. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 32(2): 246260.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Árendás, T. , Berzsenyi, Z. , and Bónis, P. (2012). Agronomic research in Martonvásár, aimed at promoting the efficiency of field crop production. Acta Agraria Debreceniensis ,49: 8993. https://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/49/2502.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Árendás, T. , Bónis, P. , Micskei, Gy. , Sugár, E. , Szőke, Cs. , Marton, L.Cs. , and Berzsenyi, Z. (2014). A kukorica termésreakciója és termésstabilitása N-trágyázási tartamkísérletekben (Yield reaction and yield stability of maize in N-fertilization duration experiments). In: Pepó, P. and Csajbók, J. (Eds.) XIIIth congress of the European society for Agronomy (ESA): Book of abstracts. Debrecen, University of Debrecen, pp. 2328.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Băşa, A.G. , Ion, V. , Dumbravă, M. , Temocico, G. , Epure, L.I. , and Ştefan, D. (2016). Grain yield and yield components at maize under different preceding crops and nitrogen fertilization conditions. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 10: 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.09.025.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Correndo, A.A. , Fernandez, J.A. , Vara Prasad, P.V. , and Ciampitti, I.A. (2021). Do water and nitrogen management practices impact grain quality in maize? Agronomy, 11(9): 1851, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091851.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dekemati, I. , Simon, B. , Bogunovic, I. , Kisic, I. , Kassai, K. , Kende, Z. , and Birkás, M. (2020) Long term effects of ploughing and conservation tillage methods on earthworm abundance and crumb ratio. Agronomy ,10(10): 1552, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101552.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eash, L. , Fonte, S.J. , Sonder, K. , Honsdorf, N. , Schmidt, A. , Govaerts, B. , and Verhulst, N. (2019). Factors contributing to maize and bean yield gaps in Central America vary with site and agroecological conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, 157(4): 300317, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859619000571.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eltelib, H.A. , Hamad, M.A. , and Ali, E.E. (2006). The effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on growth, yield, and quality of forage maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agronomy ,5(3): 515518.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eurostat (2021). Crop production in national humidity, Available at: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=apro_cpnh1&lang=en (Accessed: 10 January 2022).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fageria, N.K. and Baligar, V.C. (2005). Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Advances in Agronomy, 88: 97185, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(05)88004-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hammad, H.M. , Ahmad, A. , Khaliq, T. , Farhad, W. , and Mubeen, M. (2011). Optimizing rate of nitrogen application for higher yield and quality in maize under semiarid environment. Crop and Environment, 2(1): 3841.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Li, R. , Li, M. , Ashraf, U. , Liu, S. , and Zhang, J. (2019). Exploring the relationships between yield and yield-related traits for rice varieties released in China from 1978 to 2017. Frontiers in Plant Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00543.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Loch, J. (2015). Nutrient management in Hungary - a review. Agrokémia és Talajtan, 64(2): 373382. https://doi.org/10.1556/0088.2015.64.2.5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majumdar, K. (2018). Does improved plant nutrition provide a credible entry point for climate and weather adaptive crop production? Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 66: S84S103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marton, L.Cs. , Árendás, T. , and Berzsenyi, Z. (2012): Martonvásári kukorica hibridek a szárazságban (Martonvásár maize hybrids in drought.). Martonvásár, 24(2): 47.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moser, S.B. , Feil, B. , Jampatong, S. , and Stamp, P. (2006). Effects of pre-anthesis drought, nitrogen fertilizer rate, and variety on grain yield, yield components, and harvest index of tropical maize. Agric. Water Manage, 81(1–2): 4158.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nagy, J. (2012). The effect of fertilization and precipitation on the yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in a long-term experiment. Időjárás ,116: 3952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ngoune, L.T. and Shelton, C.M. (2020). Factors affecting yield of crops. In: Amanullah, A. (Ed.), Agronomy – climate change and food security, IntechOpen, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90672.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pepó, P. (2017). Tartamkísérletek mint a klímaváltozás indikátorai (Duration experiments as indicators of climate change). Növénytermelés, 66(3): 3346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reddy, K.P. , Subhani, S.M. , Khan, P.A. , and Kumar, K.B. (1985). Effect of light and benzyladenine on dark-treated growing rice (Oryza sativa) leaves II. Changes in peroxidase activity. Plant and Cell Physiology, 26(6): 987994, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a077018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tóth, E. , Gelybó, G. , Dencso, M. , Kása, I. , Birkás, M. , and Horel, Á. (2018). Soil CO2 emissions in a long-term tillage treatment experiment. Soil Management and Climate Change: Effects on Organic Carbon, Nitrogen Dynamics, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 293307. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812128-3.00019-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tsai, C.Y. , Dweikat, I. , Huber, D.M. , and Warren, H.L. (1992). Interrelationship of nitrogen nutrition with maize (Zea mays) grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency and grain quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 58(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740580102.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhai, L. , Xu, P. , Zhang, Z. , Wei, B. , Jia, X. , and Zhang, L. (2019). Improvements in grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of summer maize by optimizing tillage practice and nitrogen application rate. Agronomy Journal, 111(2): 666676. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj 2018.05.0347.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: András Salgó

Co-ordinating Editor(s) Marianna Tóth-Markus

Co-editor(s): A. Halász

       Editorial Board

  • L. Abrankó (Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary)
  • D. Bánáti (University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary)
  • J. Baranyi (Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK)
  • I. Bata-Vidács (Agro-Environmental Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • J. Beczner (Food Science Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • F. Békés (FBFD PTY LTD, Sydney, NSW Australia)
  • Gy. Biró (National Institute for Food and Nutrition Science, Budapest, Hungary)
  • A. Blázovics (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • F. Capozzi (University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy)
  • M. Carcea (Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics Rome, Italy)
  • Zs. Cserhalmi (Food Science Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • M. Dalla Rosa (University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy)
  • I. Dalmadi (Szent István University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • K. Demnerova (University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic)
  • M. Dobozi King (Texas A&M University, Texas, USA)
  • Muying Du (Southwest University in Chongqing, Chongqing, China)
  • S. N. El (Ege University, Izmir, Turkey)
  • S. B. Engelsen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark)
  • E. Gelencsér (Food Science Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • V. M. Gómez-López (Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain)
  • J. Hardi (University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia)
  • K. Héberger (Research Centre for Natural Sciences, ELKH, Budapest, Hungary)
  • N. Ilić (University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia)
  • D. Knorr (Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
  • H. Köksel (Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey)
  • K. Liburdi (Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy)
  • M. Lindhauer (Max Rubner Institute, Detmold, Germany)
  • M.-T. Liong (Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia)
  • M. Manley (Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa)
  • M. Mézes (Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary)
  • Á. Németh (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • P. Ng (Michigan State University,  Michigan, USA)
  • Q. D. Nguyen (Szent István University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • L. Nyström (ETH Zürich, Switzerland)
  • L. Perez (University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain)
  • V. Piironen (University of Helsinki, Finland)
  • A. Pino (University of Catania, Catania, Italy)
  • M. Rychtera (University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic)
  • K. Scherf (Technical University, Munich, Germany)
  • R. Schönlechner (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria)
  • A. Sharma (Department of Atomic Energy, Delhi, India)
  • A. Szarka (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • M. Szeitzné Szabó (National Food Chain Safety Office, Budapest, Hungary)
  • S. Tömösközi (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • L. Varga (University of West Hungary, Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary)
  • R. Venskutonis (Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania)
  • B. Wróblewska (Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research, Polish Academy of Sciences Olsztyn, Poland)

 

Acta Alimentaria
E-mail: Acta.Alimentaria@uni-mate.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Biological Abstracts
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • CAB Abstracts
  • Chemical Abstracts
  • Current Contents: Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
  • Elsevier Science Navigator
  • Essential Science Indicators
  • Global Health
  • Index Veterinarius
  • Science Citation Index
  • Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch)
  • SCOPUS
  • The ISI Alerting Services

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
856
Journal Impact Factor 1,000
Rank by Impact Factor Food Science & Technology 130/143
Nutrition & Dietetics 81/90
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,941
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,039
Journal Citation Indicator 0,19
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator Food Science & Technology 143/164
Nutrition & Dietetics 92/109
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
30
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,235
Scimago Quartile Score

Food Science (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1,4
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Food Sciences 222/338 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,387

 

2020
 
Total Cites
768
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
0,650
Rank by
Nutrition & Dietetics 79/89 (Q4)
Impact Factor
Food Science & Technology 130/144 (Q4)
Impact Factor
0,575
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year
0,899
Impact Factor
Journal
0,17
Citation Indicator
 
Rank by Journal
Nutrition & Dietetics 88/103 (Q4)
Citation Indicator
Food Science & Technology 142/160 (Q4)
Citable
59
Items
Total
58
Articles
Total
1
Reviews
Scimago
28
H-index
Scimago
0,237
Journal Rank
Scimago
Food Science Q3
Quartile Score
 
Scopus
248/238=1,0
Scite Score
 
Scopus
Food Science 216/310 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank
 
Scopus
0,349
SNIP
 
Days from
100
submission
 
to acceptance
 
Days from
143
acceptance
 
to publication
 
Acceptance
16%
Rate
2019  
Total Cites
WoS
522
Impact Factor 0,458
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,433
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,503
Immediacy
Index
0,100
Citable
Items
60
Total
Articles
59
Total
Reviews
1
Cited
Half-Life
7,8
Citing
Half-Life
9,8
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00034
Article Influence
Score
0,077
% Articles
in
Citable Items
98,33
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,04267
Average
IF
Percentile
7,429
Scimago
H-index
27
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,212
Scopus
Scite Score
220/247=0,9
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Food Science 215/299 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,275
Acceptance
Rate
15%

 

Acta Alimentaria
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 1100 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 754 EUR / 944 USD
Print + online subscription: 872 EUR / 1090 USD
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 776 EUR / 944 USD
Print + online subscription: 896 EUR / 1090 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Alimentaria
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
1972
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia    
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0139-3006 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2535 (Online)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jan 2022 0 0 0
Feb 2022 0 0 0
Mar 2022 0 0 0
Apr 2022 0 0 0
May 2022 0 5 2
Jun 2022 0 104 81
Jul 2022 0 6 6