Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

A bibliographic review of climate change and fertilization as the main drivers of maize yield: implications for food security

Agriculture & Food Security volume 12, Article number: 14 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Crop production contribution to food security faces unprecedented challenge of increasing human population. This is due to the decline in major cereal crop yields including maize resulting from climate change and declining soil infertility. Changes in soil nutrient status and climate have continued to occur and in response, new fertilizer recommendations in terms of formulations and application rates are continuously developed and applied globally. In this sense, this review was conducted to: (i) identify the key areas of concentration of research on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize grain yield, (ii) assess the extent of the effect of climate change on maize grain yield, (iii) evaluate the extent of the effect of fertilization practices on maize grain yield, and (iv) examine the effect of interaction between climate change factors and fertilization practices on maize grain yield at global perspective.

Methodology

Comprehensive search of global literature was conducted in Web of Science (WoS) database. For objective 1, metadata on co-authorship (country, organisation), and co-occurrence of keywords were exported and analysed using VOSviewer software. For objective 2–4, yield data for each treatment presented in the articles were extracted and yield increment calculated.

Results

The most significant keywords: soil fertility, nutrient use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, integrated nutrient management, sustainability, and climate change adaptation revealed efforts to improve maize production, achieve food security, and protect the environment. A temperature rise of 1–4 °C decreased yield by 5–14% in warm areas and increased by < 5% in cold areas globally. Precipitation reduction decreased yield by 25–32%, while CO2 concentration increased and decreased yield by 2.4 to 7.3% and  9 to 14.6%, respectively. A promising fertilizer was a combination of urea + nitrapyrin with an average yield of 5.1 and 14.4 t ha−1 under non-irrigation and irrigation, respectively. Fertilization under climate change was projected to reduce yield in the average range of 10.5–18.3% by 2099.

Conclusion

The results signified that sole fertilizer intensification is insufficient to attain sustainable maize yield. Therefore, there is need for integrated agronomic research that combines fertilizers and other technologies for enhancing maize yield, and consequently maize contribution to the attainment of global food security under climate change conditions.

Introduction

The human population is projected to rise to 9 billion by 2050 and food necessity is anticipated to increase by 85% [1, 2]. Sustaining this growing population requires stable agricultural production and food systems [2, 3] which are currently affected by land degradation and climate change [4, 5]. Attaining the correct balance between food security, environment protection, and addressing climate change remains the leading bottleneck to sustainable food production systems and arable land management [6]. In fact, it is devastating for less-favoured agricultural areas inhabited by poor vulnerable groups of people and communities in countries with limited resources to mitigate the impacts resulting into food insecurity, and poverty-environment traps [7, 8]. One way to respond is transforming major crop production techniques to offset the negative effects of climate change and consequently increase agricultural productivity [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].

Maize (Zea mays L) is among the top three cereal food crops grown and consumed globally [18,19,20,21]. It is a staple food in the diets of millions of people in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia and important feed crop for livestock in Europe and North America. However, there is still a significant global shortage of maize which precipitates food insecurity [22]. Climate change and soil fertility deterioration are among the causes contributing to declining maize production [20, 23]. Earlier, it was reported that increasing maize production in semi-arid areas requires right fertilizer use, soil management, and application of other recommended practices [24]. The interactions between climate, soil features, and agronomic management are critical to understanding productivity and sustainability of maize agroecosystems [25, 26].

Generally, the effect of climate change and fertilizer application on maize production and yield has been documented differently [20, 27, 28]. For instance, the interaction between temperature and rainfall alters soil water balance and reduce soil moisture by 11.2%, hence aggravating soil drying [29]. Generally, the average impact of different projected climate scenarios on grain yield could range between − 9% and − 39% [30]. On the other hand, fertilizer application has been reported to increase yield depending of climate conditions. Literature shows contradicting effect of changes in temperature, rainfall and CO2 concentration, and fertilizer on yield of maize. Earlier, it was reported that maize yield was positively correlated with mean temperature change in the control and negatively with nitrogen application [31]. Moreover, yield reduction by drought increased with the increased application of nitrogen [32]. Besides, maize yield response was negatively correlated with temperature effects expressed as accumulated corn heat units (CHU), but positively before side-dressing with different nitrogen fertilizer [33]. It was also reported that substituting chemical nitrogen fertilizer with organic fertilizers may mitigate N2O emission but may reduce maize yield as compared to sole inorganic nitrogen fertilizer application [34]. Generally, maize yield is highly dependent on fertilizer management, soil type and nutrient status, maize growth duration period, and the initial soil organic content [35] and change in meteorological variables. Accordingly, changes in soil nutrient status along with climate change occur every year and new fertilizer recommendations in terms of types, formulations, and application rates continue to emerge which affect yield.

Based on the above literature, this research was designed to bridge the gap in the literature about the interaction between maize yield and fertilization in a changing climate. However, the specific goals were to: (i) identify the key areas of concentration of research on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize yield, (ii) assess the extent of the effect of climate change on maize grain yield, (iii) evaluate the extent of the effect of fertilization practices on maize grain yield, and (iv) examine the effect of interaction between climate change factors and fertilization practices on maize grain yield at global perspective.

Methodology

Search strategy and document evaluation

Comprehensive search of global literature was conducted in Web of Science (WoS) database. WoS was chosen because it is regarded as the most complete and extensively used database  archiving literature used in reviews and bibliometric analyses. The search keywords were "Maize” AND “fertilizer” AND “climate change” AND “soil” AND “yield” covering years 2003–2021. No language restriction was applied because all articles were written in English. The search yielded a total of 287 articles which included 269 journal articles, 8 book reviews, and 10 conference proceedings. Being a manageable number, all articles were screened by titles, abstracts, and keywords. All the 287 articles retrieved contained at least a keyword from the search equation hence all used for bibliometric analyses to address objective one.

For objective 2–4, the inclusion and exclusion strategy involved reviewing the articles to answer the following questions:

  1. 1.

    Was there any climate change factor effect on maize yield reported?

  2. a)

    Yes (heat or temperature or water or drought stress or CO2 concentration effect on yield reported)

  3. b)

    No (something else)

  4. c)

    Unclear

  5. 2.

    Was there any fertilizer effect on maize yield reported?

  6. a)

    Yes (organic or chemical fertilizer effect on yield reported)

  7. b)

    No (something else)

  8. c)

    Unclear

  9. 3.

    Was there any fertilizer and climate change factor interaction effect on maize yield reported?

  10. a)

    Yes (organic or chemical fertilizer and heat or temperature or water or drought stress or CO2 concentration interactive effect on yield reported)

  11. b)

    No (something else)

  12. c)

    Unclear

Therefore, only articles with yes response were selected for reporting of objectives 2–4, because they met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1) for the topic of this study.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Documents’ assessment criteria

Full size image

Data extraction and analysis

Document metadata: For objective 1, author details, like names, affiliation and country, title of document, abstract, publication date, and journal name exported. Bibliographic analyses for co-authorship (country, organisation), co-occurrence of keywords (most significant and all), and total links were conducted using VOSviewer (Version 1.6.17) bibliographic metric tool. Results were visualized and mapped out to identify potential gaps and highlight knowledge limits in terms of regions where the studies were done.

For objectives 2–4, data extracted included country, soil type in experimental site, type of fertilizer, fertilizer rates, and yield. Yield data were extracted directly from article tables and using a WebPlotDigitizer if presented as figures. Yield increase or decrease by major treatments were calculated and presented in tabular form [36]. For climate effect, the key results from individual articles were highlighted and synthesized without tabulating. Qualitative evidence was also presented and discussed.

Results and discussion

Advancement of scientific documents based on literature search on maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield (MFCCSY)

During early 2000s, less than 4.8% of documents were published. Later, the progress was 5 (2.1%) documents in 2012, 7 (2.4%) in 2013, 15 (5.2%) in 2014, 20 (6.9%) in 2015, 16 (15.5%) in 2016, 28 (9.8%) in 2017, 36 (12.5%) in 2018, and 51 (17.8%) in 2019. This represents a progressive increase from 2.1% to 17.8% from 2012 to 2019. However, only a slight decrease was realised in the number of papers in 2020 and 2021 with 47 (16.4%). The trend was exponential, justified by high R2 (0.9) model fit regarding the scientific papers published in the topics of maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield (MFCCSY) (Fig. 2). This increased number of publications signifies rapid response to address agricultural resources degradation, climate change, and food insecurity. The human population is projected to rise to 9 billion by 2050 and food necessity anticipated to increase by 85% [1, 2]. The 2021 UN food system summit recommended addressing environmental challenges like averting climate change threats on agrarian systems ability to sustainably produce food. In response to that call, robust research on cropping systems, soil factors, climate change, and major food crops was carried out.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Publication trends of web of science literature on MFCCSY from 2003 to 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield

Full size image

In total, 81 countries published at least one document on the MFCCSY topics. Out of the 81 countries, two published > 80 documents, five published between 20 and 43 documents, 11 published documents between 10 and 19, and 63 published documents between 1 and 19. China published the highest number of papers (99) followed by the USA with 81 publications. These two countries contributed 62.7% of the MFCCSY literature between 2003 and 2022 in WoS. It was in accordance with corn production of these countries: USA is the largest a producer (383,943 million t) and China is the second one (with 272,552 million t). These two countries co-authored more documents with countries with total link strength of 64 and 55 in China and USA, respectively. The other countries that had slightly higher total link strength were German (37), Kenya (26), and United Kingdom (21) (Table 1). Increasing publications and co-authorship (Figs. 3, 4) on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize can be regarded as evidence of more advanced research by these countries to increase food production to sustain the rising population. However, each of the African countries published less than 15 documents in this period except Kenya that published 29 documents showing that Africa needs to do more in terms of publishing research findings. Of course, this may not be conclusive, because it is possible that studies of most African countries could be published in journals not indexed by WoS. However, we pointed on evidences of collaborations on what was reported earlier that Africa lagged behind in terms of maize research and production hence low yield [37].

Table 1 The top 20 publishing and co-authoring countries on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Co-authorship countries (affiliations) on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Co-authorship organisations (affiliations) on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield

Full size image

According to the network co-occurrence of all author keywords, MFCCSY appeared 162, 140, 126, 126, and 91 times, respectively, out of 1586 words with total links of 168, 139, 126, 125, and 87 of all author keywords that appeared in the published documents from 2003 to 2021 (Table 2). Accordingly, in the most significant author keywords, climate change, maize, maize yield, soil fertility, and fertilizer appeared 46, 52, 46, 20, and 32 times with total links 40, 39, 38, 15, and 17, respectively, out of 882 words that appeared in the published documents (Table 3). In fact, higher total link value showed that the keyword has been linked with others several times. The other relevant keywords that appeared were climate change adaptation, drought, temperature, cropping systems, integrated nutrient management, biochar, greenhouse gases, nitrogen fertilizer, nitrogen use efficiency, nitrate leaching, organic matter, nutrient use efficiency, carbon sequestration, and sustainability among others (Figs. 5, 6). The keyword sustainability is evidence of maize sustainable intensification to increase yield without degrading agroecosystems. The practices pointed out in all authors’ keywords such as integrated nutrient use, nutrient use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, and climate change adaptation ensure increased maize productivity, food security, and environmental security. Particularly, the keyword nitrogen use efficacy is a pertinent area of research focus, because it ensures high yield production though at environmental cost if over applied. Excess nitrogen in the environment degrades soil, reduces water, and air quality, and contributes to climate change by increasing N2O and NO emissions [38]. This underscores application of technologies that ensure effective use of fertilizers inputs in crop production to sustainably ensure stable food production and boost food security [39, 40]. Overall, judicious fertilizer intensification in maize production is partly directed to the attainment of SDG2 (zero hunger) and 13 (climate action).

Table 2 Co-occurrence and total link of selected significant all author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021
Full size table
Table 3 Co-occurrence and total link of selected most significant author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Network of co-occurrence of the most significant author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Network of co-occurrence of all author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield

Full size image

Effect of climate change on maize yield

According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate change caused directly or indirectly by human activities affect global atmospheric composition. Ultimately, these activities change the climate characteristics hence affecting productivity of agroecosystems. In this sense, researchers analyse the effect of climate change on crop yield [41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. For example, rise in CO2 concentration under projected climate change was predicted to increase yield by 7.3% between 2021 and 2050 from the baseline of 3.5 t ha−1 (1981–2010) [43]. In contrast, yield was predicted to decrease by 10–17%, 8.9–14.7%, and 10.1–12.9% in 2030s, 2050s, and 2070s, respectively under increasing CO2 [48]. Accordingly, CO2 decreased yield by 0.1% at 360 ppm (1980–2009), 0.8% at 496 ppm (2040–2069), and increased yield by 2.4% at 556 ppm (2040–2069), 4.5% at 734 ppm (2070–2099) [49]. Overall analysis reveals uncertain positive and negative effects of increasing CO2 concentration on yield depicting the need for continuous monitoring, assessment, and prediction.

Concerning temperature, a report in Canada revealed that rising temperature reduced yield by 41% [50]. Similarly, high-temperature stress reduced yield by 25–32% between 2018 and 2017 in China [32]. Also, a prediction of yield decline of up to 32% in southern Africa between 2070 and 2099 was reported [41]. The effect of temperature stress is severe during the reproductive stage, since it can cause grain weight reduction by 25–32% [51]. In Africa, each 1 °C mean temperature rise caused yield loss of 5–10% in 10 countries, but increased by < 5% in four moderately cool countries [52]). In China, corn yield had a significant negative correlation with variations in the average maximum temperature (Tmax) during the growth season [31]. A 1 °C increase in Tmax caused 14% yield reduction. This shows a maximum yield change of 4% by 1 °C temperature change between China and African countries. It is also explained that temperature effect on maize yield varies by altitude [53]. What remains uncertain is the exact change in regional temperature rise in low and high altitudes that will affect yield and in what percentage. Closely related to temperature effect on maize yield is drought. High and very high agricultural drought hazard zones are approximated at 23.57 and 27.19% of global total agricultural area [47]. In tropical areas, the overriding effect of climate change will be in altered water balance/rainfall. It is underscored that increased incidence of severe drought is likely to double the rate of drought-induced yield losses in the prevalent warming scenarios [46], reducing yield by up to 33% in USA [54]. Drought and heat stress hasten soil drying, interfere with crop water-utilization patterns, and negatively affecting reproduction thus yield. Projection of maize yield is reported to decrease and increase by 4.7 and 3.5% in the fast warming-low rainfall climates and slow warming-high rainfall regions, respectively by 2050 [7]. A prediction in Uganda indicated that water balance (rainfall) will decrease yield by 11.35% between 2021 and 2050. It remains unclear the pattern of water balance that will sustain grain yield. Together, it is reported that high CO2 concentration, intensive rainfall, and rising temperature increased grain yield by 8.5% [55]. It is reported in China that enhancing maize yields required medium temperature (14.2–14.6 °C) and precipitation (628.4–649.9 mm) [23]. However, the medium temperatures, rainfall, and CO2 concentrations that enhance maize yield under changing climate in different regions remain unclear and hence require investigation.

Effect of fertilizer application on maize yield

Nutrient stress is among the key limiting factors that curtail maize growth and yield [56, 57], and hence, judicious fertilizer application as well as increasing nutrient use efficiency are critical steps to addressing nutrient limitation [58]. The future therefore, calls for better maize crop and soil fertility management as significant factors to boost yield [41]. Among the options include optimizing application of fertilizers through integrated soil fertility management framework to ensure proper utilization of limited nutrients [59], site-specific nutrient management [60,61,62], and use of balanced fertilizers [62,63,64].

Nitrogen sources and application rates were the principal investigations undertaken. Even when organic fertilizers were used, nitrogen was the major element investigated. The dominant fertilizer sources were urea, NPK, and ammonium sulfate. The yield range differed by fertilizer source, rate, and nature of use (whether sole or combined). Application of high nitrogen (120 kg ha−1) rate in West Africa produced 1.6 t ha−1 equivalent to 60% yield increment compared to the control [65]. Similarly, in Italy, application of 180 kg N ha−1 yielded 2.7 t ha−1 compared to 1.2 t ha−1 in the control which represents 125% yield increment (67]. In China, yield from higher rates of nitrogen 168–321 kg N ha−1 was 9.3–9.5 t ha−1 compared to 5.7 t ha−1 in the control [67] presenting a 60% yield increase by higher nitrogen application rates. Accordingly, a yield difference of 14.7 and 13.5 t ha−1 was registered in 100% and 70% nitrogen fertilization (urea) compared to the control (10.6 t ha−1) [68] reflecting a yield increment of 38.7 and 26.9%. Accordingly, the yield in 100% NPK was 4.7 t ha−1 compared to 3.0 t ha−1 in 50% NPK and 2.0 in the control [69]. Overall, 100% yield difference in NPK and urea suggests the effect of nitrogen source. Certainly, this may not be conclusive, since there are other influencing factors that differ in the two countries.

A part from rates accounting for yield increment differences, we observed that soil type in the experimental sites affected yield response to different fertilizer sources and rates. For example, 90 kg Nha−1 under calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric acrisol soil produced 1.98 and 2.3 t ha−1, respectively, in Italy and Ghana [66, 70]. Comparing a similar rate (90 kg Nha−1) in in Italy and Ghana under calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric acrisol soil produces a yield difference of 0.3 t ha−1. The low grain yield from 90 kg Nha−1 under calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric acrisol depicts the need to investigate higher doses of nitrogen that can produce optimum yield. In Chile, application of 200 and 400 kg ha−1 of urea in soils of alluvial origin produced 16.7 and 9.4 t ha−1, respectively [71]. Conversely, in China, slightly higher rate (175 kg Nha−1) under Mollisol soil produced the highest yield of 10.8 t ha−1 compared to 5.5 t ha−1 in the control [72] representing 96.4% yield increment. This shows that yield effect by fertilizer rates varies by soil type and/or location of the experiment depicting the importance of geographical experiment replication for purposes of reproducibility and replicability of results.

From our synthesis, it became clear that various techniques were applied to reduce nitrogen loss and improve nitrogen use efficiency and consequently yield. For example, in Pakistan, application of urea with nitrapyrin (nitrification inhibitor) and gibberellic registered different results; 6.2 t ha−1 in urea (200 kg N kg ha−1) + nitrapyrin (700 g ha−1) + Gibberellic acid (60 g ha−1), 5.3 t ha−1 in urea (200 kg N kg ha−1) + nitrapyrin (700 g ha−1), 4.5 t ha−1 in sole urea, and 4.0 t ha−1 in the control [73]. Similarly, considerably higher yield was recorded in nitrogen application through prilled urea (5.6 t ha−1), sulfur coated (5.4 t ha−1), and neem-coated urea (5.8 t ha−1) compared to 2.8 t ha−1 in the control [74]. This shows that the highest (107%) yield increment was recorded in nitrogen supplied through neem-coated urea. Coating of urea ensures slow release of nitrogen thereby lowering nitrogen losses, and improving uptake in the form of ammonium [75]. The results reveal the possibility of combining neem-coated urea + nitrapyrin + gibberellic acid to improve grain yield. Therefore, future study could consider evaluating the effect of different levels of neem-coated urea + nitrapyrin + gibberellic acid on yield. Another approach to improve nutrient use efficiency is site nutrient management [60,61,62]. For example, specific nutrient management involving nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N:P2O5:K2O) had superior (6.99 t ha−1) yield compared to farmers practice (3.8 t ha−1) and control (2.9 t ha−1) under maize–wheat–mungbean cropping system [76]. This shows 145% yield increment by site-specific nutrient management due to optimum nutrient supply that matches crop demand.

Besides, application of organic materials in sole or in combination with chemical fertilizers enlisted various effects. In China, application of biochar (20 t ha−1) had yield of 1.2 t ha−1 compared to 1.1 t ha−1 in organic fertilizer [32]. This is seemingly very low yield related to quantity of biochar used. Besides, application of biochar at 30 t ha−1 increased maize leaf chlorophyll content (21%), photosynthetic rate by 16.5%, and yield by 11.9% [77]. We suggest that future study could consider assessing the yield effect of integrating reduced rates biochar with different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. This is because nitrogen and phosphorus could improve the efficacy of biochar. Earlier, in Malaysia, it was reported that the average yield from rice biochar (10 and 15 t ha−1) combined with triple superphosphate, dolomite (75 and 100%) was 15.17 t ha−1 compared to 9.77 and 9.22 t ha−1 in NPK and Control (no biochar or fertilizer), respectively [78]. This is a clear indication that effective utilization of biochar to sustain higher grain yield is possible through its amendment with chemical fertilizers, and use of increased application rate. However, future studies could consider investigating the effect of biochar from different materials, such as wheat straw, corn stems, and wood sawdust with varying NPK levels and dolomite. This widens the scope of applicability of results since organic materials vary by physicochemical properties. Conversely, integration of 25 kg Nha−1 (FYM) + 25 Nha−1 (urea) + 30 kg P ha−1 registered the highest (46.7%) yield increase compared to the control [79]. Similarly, in China, a higher yield (8.2 t ha−1) in inorganic NPK fertilizer + horse manure compared to sole NPK (7.2 t ha−1) was recorded reflecting 1 t ha−1 yield improvement [31]. Overall, this confirms the role of integrated fertilizer use in improving corn yield. The effect of different fertilizers sources and rates on grain yield and associated increment increments is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 The summary of the effect of fertilizers on maize yield (selected data)
Full size table

The improvement of maize yield by fertilizers was not in isolation but in combination with other agronomic practices with irrigation being the dominant (Table 5). A study in Spain involving nitrogen × irrigation levels revealed that the highest yield of 12.4 and 17.2 t ha−1 at 75% and 100% irrigation compared to 6.91 and 10.8 t ha−1 was recorded in single application of 170 kg N ha−1 of urea (with urease inhibitor) [80]. This reveals a yield enhancement of 79.5 and 59.3% in 75 and 100% irrigation interacting with nitrogen levels, respectively. What remains unknown would be the yield effect if urea with urease inhibitor is applied at over 200 kgha−1 at 50–100% irrigation. This is critical since potential optimum yield needs to be obtained with minimal water requirement due to climate change. Accordingly, nitrogen fertilizer rates at 120, 180, 240, and 360 kg ha−1 had yield ranging from 6.1 to 6.7 t ha−1 and 8.3 to 8.5 t ha−1 under drought and non-drought water regimes [32]. This slightly depicts low physiological and nitrogen utilization efficiency of maize under drought conditions. Similarly, in China, the highest yield (15.7 t ha−1) was recorded under surface drip fertigation and plastic mulch + clay soil compared to 13.2 t ha−1 in the control [47] presenting a 18.9% yield increment. Conversely, the application of NPK at 375 kg ha−1 + alternative ridges-furrows + transparent polyethylene film, alternative ridges-furrows + black polyethylene film and conventional flat planting had yield of 4.3, 4,3, and 2.9 t ha−1 compared to 3.8,3.8 and 1.7 t ha−1 in the control, respectively [81]. Closely related to the effect of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK), the interaction between NPK levels × mycorrhiza had varying effect on yield; 4.7 t ha−1 in 100% NPK + Sans CMA, 2.9 t ha−1 Sans CMA + 50% NPK, and 1.6 t ha−1 (Sans CMA + 0% NPK (control) [69]. This shows 193% yield increment in 100% NPK + Sans CMA compared to the control. Based on a promising treatment, future studies would consider evaluating 100% NPK + Sans CMA with varying level of irrigation to ascertain its potential yield. Besides, earlier, we reported that integrated chemical and organic fertilizers sustain yield. Based on the promising results of Sans CMA mycorrhiza, a study could be also conducted to establish integrated effect of 100% NPK + Sans CMA and farmyard manure on yield.

Table 5 The summary of effect of fertilizers × other agronomic practices on maize yield (selected data)
Full size table

Other practices that enhanced fertilizer effect on maize yield were seed dressing, tillage, and planting date. Maize grain yield increased to 2.6 t ha−1 by mounding and 60 kg N ha−1 application as compared to 2.3 t ha−1 in level tillage [82]. Similarly, a simulation of yield in a 5 year experiment under 180 kg Nha−1 showed that yield under conventional and no tillage was 3.2 and 2.2 t ha−1 compared to the control of 1.4 and 0.95 t ha−1, respectively [66], representing 128 and 131% yield improvement. On the other hand, a comparative assessment of maize, finger millet, and sorghum for household food security in the face of increasing climatic risk in Zimbabwe indicated that high rate of fertilizer: 90 kg N ha−1, 26 kg P ha−1 and 7 t ha−1 manure had 3.9, 3.3, and 0.6 t ha−1 yield in early, normal, and late planting, respectively [83]. Our analysis of the yield effect between fertilizer interaction with tillage, and planting dates without irrigation reveals a low yield of  < 4 t ha−1. This depicts the necessity for water to ensure sustainable yield and food production.

Interactive effect of climate change and fertilization on maize yield

Maize yield is susceptible to climate change since meteorological variables control availability of resources like, CO2, water, and solar radiation that directly affect maize growth and development. Countries with better management practices are anticipated to have better yields but probably more susceptible to yield losses [52] due to climate change. In fact, maize grain yield due to sufficient nutrient supply is more sensitive to climate variability [84]. Therefore, specific application and adjustment of agronomic techniques matching the changing climate patterns like technical fertilizer application to sustain higher maize yield in future is required [29, 52]. Temperature increase by 1 °C is reported to reduce maize yield by 2.6% though with slight increase in some areas depending of nutrient management [86]. Specifically, nitrogen fertilization is reported to control the reaction of maize grain yield to variations in temperature, rainfall, and CO2 [53]. It is projected that fertilizer use under elevated CO2 concentration will increase yield by 9% between 2021 and 2050 [43]. However, reduction in yield by 14 and 26% due to increased temperature with application of 0 and 160 kgNha−1 was reported in sub-Saharan Africa [53]. The same report shows that a 4 °C rise in temperature had less effect on grain yield at 80 and 160 kgNha−1. Accordingly, yield reduced by > 10% for 1 °C temperature rise in areas with soil total nitrogen < 1.10 g kg−1 but, increased when > 1.33 g kg−1 depicting nitrogen to contribute to the resilience of maize grown in summer warming [86]. Consequently, nitrogen application improved grain yield by 5.4 and 26.8% in the dry and wet years, respectively [53]. Low yield increase in dry year was attributed to the fact that high nitrogen application increased the leaf area and transpiration rates, and caused curling of maize leaves hence decreasing photosynthesis. Conversely, temperature rise and precipitation decrease were simulated to cause yield change of 2.78 to 9.94% in 55.2 kgNha−1, − 3.81% to − 8.88% in 110.4 kgNha−1, and − 2.33% to 10.63% in 165.6 kgNha−1 as influence by sowing dates for 2040–2069/1980–2010 [87]. Increase in fertilizer rates decreased yield, implying that increasing fertilizer rates only do not address the effects of climate on yield. This suggests need for broader agronomic research integrating fertilizers, sowing dates, and irrigation, since precipitation was predicted to decrease. Because earlier projections under climate change revealed that high fertilizer rate and late sowing would decrease yield by 13 and 20% for the periods 2010–2069 and 2070–2099 [41]. Contradictory, a recent prediction indicated that soil fertility under climate change will increase yield by 19.6% between 2021 and 2050 from the baseline of 3.5 t ha−1 (1981–2010) [43]. Interestingly, another simulation revealed a reduction in grain yield by 10–46% between 2080 and 2099 irrespective of soil fertility and crop management. In fact, yield will decrease by an average of 2.8 t ha−1 in intensive mineral fertilizer use and 2.7 t ha−1 in integrated soil-crop management relative to the baseline of 3.7 and 3.3 t ha−1 (1986–2005) due to climate change [88]. Synthesizing the above results reveals that fertilization especially with nitrogen under climate change will reduce yield by year 2099. Hence, this raises the following questions: (i) what will be appropriate nitrogen level that can produce maximum grain yield under elevated CO2, temperature, and reduced rainfall? (ii) What sowing date, irrigation level combined with nitrogen levels produces maximum grain yield under elevated CO2, temperature, and reduced rainfall? (iii) What will be the exact grain yield reduction (sensitivity) by nitrogen levels under elevated CO2, temperature, and reduced/increased precipitation?

Conclusions

This bibliographic review was carried out to analyse the interaction between maize yield, fertilization, and climate change. General synthesis of literature on climate and fertilizer effects reveal interesting results: a 1–4 °C temperature rise will decrease and increase yield by 5–14% and < 5% in warm and cold areas, respectively, precipitation reduction will decrease yield by 25–32% while CO2 concentration will increase and decrease yield by 2.4 to 7.3% and 9 to 14.6% between 2030 and 2099. A promising fertilizer was a combination of urea + nitrapyrin with an average yield of 5.1 and 14.4 t ha−1 under irrigation and non-irrigation. A 90 kg Nha−1 application under calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric acrisol soil had low (1.98–2.3 t ha−1) yield in all countries. Fertilization under climate change will reduce yield by an average of 10.5–18.3% by 2099. This signifies that a part from judicious fertilizer intensification in maize production, there is need for integrated agronomic research that combines fertilizers and other enhancing technologies if optimum yield and maize contribution to food security are to be attained under climate change.

Availability of data and materials

All data analysed during this study are included in this article.

References

  1. Roxburgh CW, Rodriguez D. Ex-ante analysis of opportunities for the sustainable intensification of maize production in Mozambique. Agric Syst. 2016;142:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Choruma D, Balkovic J, Odume ON. Calibration and validation of the EPIC model for maize production in the Eastern Cape. South Africa Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(9):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090494.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Kumar B, Choudhary M, Nayak HS, Parihar MD, Parihar N, Meena BR. Energy auditing and carbon footprint under long-term conservation agriculture-based intensive maize systems with diverse inorganic nitrogen management options. Sci Total Environ. 2019;664:659–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Doraiswamy PC, McCarty GW, Hunt ER, Yost RS, Doumbia M, Franzluebbers AJ. Modeling soil carbon sequestration in agricultural lands of Mali. Agric Syst. 2007;94(1):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Subedi R, Bhatta LD, Udas E, Agrawal NK, Joshi KD, Panday D. Climate-smart practices for improvement of crop yields in mid-hills of Nepal. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5(1):1631026. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1631026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cao Q, Miao Y, Feng G, Gao X, Liu B, Liu Y, Li F, Khosla R, Mulla DJ, Zhang F. Improving nitrogen use efficiency with minimal environmental risks using an active canopy sensor in a wheat-maize cropping system. Field Crop Res. 2017;214:365–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.09.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kikoyo DA, Nobert J. Assessment of impact of climate change and adaptation strategies on maize production in Uganda. Phys Chem Earth. 2016;93:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huffman WE, Jin C, Xu Z. The economic impacts of technology and climate change: new evidence from US corn yields. Agric Econ. 2018;49(4):463–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Johansen A, Carter MS, Ambus P, Jensen ES. Annual maize and perennial grass-clover strip cropping for increased resource use efficiency and productivity using organic farming practice as a model. Eur J Agron. 2013;47:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Syswerda SP, Robertson GP. Ecosystem services along a management gradient in Michigan (USA) cropping systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2014;189:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Srinivasarao C, Lal R, Kundu S, Babu MBBP, Venkateswarlu B, Singh AK. Soil carbon sequestration in rainfed production systems in the semiarid tropics of India. Sci Total Environ. 2014;487:587–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rurinda J, van Wijk MT, Mapfumo P, Descheemaeker K, Supit I, Giller KE. Climate change and maize yield in southern Africa: what can farm management do? Glob Change Biol. 2015;21(12):4588–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guardia G, Aguilera E, Vallejo A, Sanz-Cobena A, Alonso-Ayuso M, Quemada M. Effective climate change mitigation through cover cropping and integrated fertilization: A global warming potential assessment from a 10-year field experiment. J Cleaner Prod. 2019;241:118307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Komarek AM, Thurlow J, Koo J, De Pinto A. Economywide effects of climate-smart agriculture in Ethiopia. Agric Econ. 2019;50(6):765–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Renwick LLR, Kimaro AA, Hafner JM, Rosenstock TS, Gaudin ACM. Maize-Pigeonpea intercropping outperforms monocultures under drought. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4:562663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.562663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Madembo C, Mhlanga B, Thierfelder C. Productivity or stability? Exploring maize-legume intercropping strategies for smallholder Conservation Agriculture farmers in Zimbabwe. Agricul Syst. 2020;185:102921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martinez MJ, Furst C. Simulating the capacity of rainfed food crop species to meet social demands in sudanian savanna agro-ecologies. Land. 2021;10(8):827. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shiferaw B, Prasanna BM, Hellin J, et al. Crops that feed the world 6 Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Sec. 2011;3:307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0140-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ranum P, Peña-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1312:105–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chukwudi UP, Kutu FR, Mavengahama S. Influence of heat stress, variations in soil type, and soil amendment on the growth of three drought-tolerant maize varieties. Agronomy-Basel. 2021;11(8):1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081485.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implication. Food Secur. 2022;4:1295–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grote U, Fasse A, Nguyen TT, Erenstein O. Food security and the dynamics of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2021;4:617009. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen HX, Zhao Y, Feng H, Li HJ, Sun BH. Assessment of climate change impacts on soil organic carbon and crop yield based on long-term fertilization applications in Loess Plateau, China. Plant Soil. 2015;390(1–2):401–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2332-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ngugi LW, Rao KPC, Oyoo A, Kwena K. Opportunities for coping with climate change and variability through adoption of soil and water conservation technologies in semi-arid Eastern Kenya. In: Adapting African Agriculture to Climate Change: Transforming Rural Livelihoods. 2015. p. 149–157.

  25. Steward PR, Dougill AJ, Thierfelder C, Pittelkow CM, Stringer LC, Kudzala M, Shackelford GE. The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environments: A meta-regression of yields. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2018;251:194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nwaogu C, Kassahun T, Eneche PUS. Climate change induced soil compaction: evaluating the adaptation measures to enhance maize yields in a tropical humid acidic soil, Nigeria. In: climate change, hazards and adaptation options: handling the impacts of a changing climate. Springer International Publishing AG, 2020;717–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37425-9_36.

  27. Chen ZM, Xu YH, He Y, Zhou XH, Fan JL, Yu H, Ding WX. Nitrogen fertilization stimulated soil heterotrophic but not autotrophic respiration in cropland soils: A greater role of organic over inorganic fertilizer. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;116:253–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bortoletto-Santos R, Cavigelli MA, Montes SE, Schomberg HH, Thompson A, Kramer AI, Polito M, Ribeiro C. Oil-based polyurethane-coated urea reduces nitrous oxide emissions in a corn field in a Maryland loamy sand soil. J Cleaner Product. 2020;249:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang JT, Yang J, An PL, Ren W, Pan ZH, Dong ZQ, Han GL, Pan YY, Pan SF, Tian HQ. Enhancing soil drought induced by climate change and agricultural practices: Observational and experimental evidence from the semiarid area of northern China. Agric For Meteorol. 2017;243:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Freduah BS, MacCarthy DS, Adam M, Ly M, Ruane AC, Timpong-Jones EC, Traore PS, Boote KJ, Porter C, Adiku SGK. Sensitivity of maize yield in smallholder systems to climate scenarios in semi-arid regions of West Africa: accounting for variability in farm management practices, Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(10):639. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu P, Zhao HJ, Li Y, Liu ZH, Gao XH, Zhang YP, Sun M, Zhong ZW, Luo JF. Corn yields with organic and inorganic amendments under changing climate. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2018;111(2–3):141–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-018-9916-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang Y, Huang YF, Fu W, Guo WQ, Ren N, Zhao YN, Ye YL. Efficient physiological and nutrient use efficiency responses of maize leaves to drought stress under different field nitrogen conditions. Agronomy. 2020;10(4):523. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Xie M, Tremblay N, Trembla G, Bourgeois G, Bouroubi MY, Wei Z. Weather effects on corn response to in-season nitrogen rates. Can J Plant Sci. 2013;93(3):407–17. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps2012-145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gao WL, Man XM. Evaluation of the agronomic impacts on yield-scaled N2O emission from wheat and maize fields in China. Sustainability 2017;9(7):1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Berhane M, Xu M, Liang ZY, Shi JL, Wei GH, Tian XH. Effects of long-term straw return on soil organic carbon storage and sequestration rate in North China upland crops: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. 2020;26(4):2686–2701. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15018

  36. Diacono M, Montemurro F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Develop. 2010;30(2):401–22. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009040.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Leitner S, Pelster DE, Werner C, Merbold L, Baggs EM, Mapanda F, Butterbach-Bahl K. Closing maize yield gaps in sub-Saharan Africa will boost soil N2O emissions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2020;47:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.08.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Muller C, Elliott J, Pugh TAM, Ruane AC, Ciais P, Balkovic J, Deryng D, Folberth C, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Reddy AD, Schmid E, Wang XH. Global patterns of crop yield stability under additional nutrient and water inputs. PLoSONE. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schut AGT, Traore PCS, Blaes X. Assessing yield and fertilizer response in heterogeneous smallholder fields with UAVs and satellites. Field Crops Res. 2018;221:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Verdi L, Mancini M, Napoli M, Vivoli R, Pardini A, Orlandini S, Dalla MA. Soil carbon emissions from maize under different fertilization methods in an extremely dry summer in Italy. Italian J Agrometeorol Rivista Italiana Di Agrometeorol. 2019; 24(2): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.13128/ijam-648

  41. Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, Chikowo R, Giller KE. Managing soil fertility to adapt to rainfall variability in smallholder cropping systems in Zimbabwe. Field Crop Res. 2013;154:211–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.08.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nezomba H, Mtambanengwe F, Rurinda J, Mapfumo P. Integrated soil fertility management sequences for reducing climate risk in smallholder crop production systems in southern Africa. Field Crop Res. 2018;224:102–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Muluneh A. Impact of climate change on soil water balance, maize production, and potential adaptation measures in the rift valley drylands of Ethiopia. J Arid Environ. 2020;179:104195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Munch T, Berg M, Mirschel W, Wieland R, Nendel C. Considering cost accountancy items in crop production simulations under climate change. Eur J Agron. 2014;52:57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li HD, Shi WJ, Wang B, An TT, Li S, Li SY, Wang JK. Comparison of the modeled potential yield versus the actual yield of maize in Northeast China and the implications for national food security. Food Secur. 2017;9(1):99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0632-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yu CQ, Huang X, Chen H, Huang GR, Ni SQ, Wright JS, Hall J, Ciais P, Zhang J, Xiao YC, Sun ZL, Wang XH, Yu L. Assessing the impacts of extreme agricultural droughts in china under climate and socioeconomic changes. Earths Fut. 2018;6(5):689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wu DL, Xu XX, Chen YL, Shao H, Sokolowski E, Mi GH. Effect of different drip fertigation methods on maize yield, nutrient and water productivity in two-soils in Northeast China. Agric Water Manag. 2019;13:200–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Saddique Q, Cai HJ, Xu JT, Ajaz A, He JQ, Yu Q, Wang YF, Chen H, Khan MI, Liu DL, He L. Analyzing adaptation strategies for maize production under future climate change in Guanzhong Plain, China. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2020;63(6):1879–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-020-09935-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ruane AC, Cecil LD, Horton RM, Gordon R, McCollum R, Brown D, Killough B, Goldberg R, Greeley AP, Rosenzweig C. Climate change impact uncertainties for maize in Panama: Farm information, climate projections, and yield sensitivities. Agric For Meteorol. 2013;170:132–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. He W, Yang JY, Qian B, Drury CF, Hoogenboom G, He P, Lapen D, Zhou W. Climate change impacts on crop yield, soil water balance and nitrate leaching in the semiarid and humid regions of Canada. PLoS ONE. 2018;3(11):e0207370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang XL, Yan Y, Xu CC, Wang XY, Luo N, Wei D, Meng QF, Wang P. Mitigating heat impacts in maize (Zea mays L) during the reproductive stage through biochar soil amendment. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;311:107321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107321.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Shi WJ, Tao FL. Vulnerability of African maize yield to climate change and variability during 1961–2010. Food Security. 2014;6(4):471–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-014-0370-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Falconnier GN, Corbeels M, Boote KJ, Affholder F, Adam M, MacCarthy DS, Ruane AC, Nendel C, Whitbread AM, Justes E, Ahuja LR, Akinseye FM, Alou IN, Amouzou KA, Anapalli SS, Baron C, Basso B, Baudron F, Bertuzzi P, Challinor AJ, Chen Y, Deryng D, Elsayed ML, Faye B, Gaiser T, Galdos M, Gayler S, Gerardeaux E, Giner M, Grant B, Hoogenboom G, Ibrahim ES, Kamali B, Kersebaum KC, Kim SH, van der Laan M, Leroux L, Lizaso JI, Maestrini B, Meier EA, Mequanint F, Ndoli A, Porter CH, Priesack E, Ripoche D, Sida TS, Singh U, Smith WN, Srivastava A, Sinha S, Tao FL, Thorburn PJ, Timlin D, Traore B, Twine T, Webber H. Modelling climate change impacts on maize yields under low nitrogen input conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Change Biol. 2020;26(10):942–5964. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hunter MC, Kemanian AR, Mortensen DA. Cover crop effects on maize drought stress and yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;311:107294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107294.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Liang S, Li YF, Zhang XB, Sun ZG, Sun N, Duan YH, Xu MG, Wu LH. Response of crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency for wheat-maize cropping system to future climate change in northern China. Agric For Meteorol. 2018;262:310–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.07.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hurisso TT, Davis JG, Chala A, Getachew A, Wolde-Meskel E. Impacts of grinding and acidification of animal bones with coffee wastewater on plant dry matter yield and recovery of phosphorus. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2021;52(10):1076–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2021.1872603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Racz D, Szoke L, Toth B, Kovacs B, Horvath E, Zagyi P, Duzs L. Szeles AExamination of the productivity and physiological responses of maize (Zea mays L) to Nitrapyrin and Foliar Fertilizer Treatments. Plants. 2021;10(11):2426. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112426.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Ren H, Li ZH, Cheng Y, Zhang JB, Liu P, Li RF, Yang QL, Dong ST, Zhang JW, Zhao B. Narrowing Yield Gaps and Enhancing Nitrogen Utilization for Summer Maize (Zea mays L) by Combining the Effects of Varying Nitrogen Fertilizer Input and Planting Density in DSSAT Simulations. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:560466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.560466.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Tovihoudji PG, Akponikpe PBI, Adjogboto A, Djenontin JA, Agbossou EK, Bielders CL. Combining hill-placed manure and mineral fertilizer enhances maize productivity and profitability in northern Benin. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2018;110(3):375–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9872-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Saleh GB, Min TD, Noordin WD, Halim RA, Anuar AR. Spatial variability of soil and plant nutrients and their influence on maize grain yield. J Food Agric Environ. 2010;8(3–4):1313–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Jat RD, Jat HS, Nanwal RK, Yadav AK, Bana A, Choudhary KM, Kakraliya SK, Sutaliya JM, Sapkota TB, Jat ML. Conservation agriculture and precision nutrient management practices in maize-wheat system: Effects on crop and water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crop Res. 2018;222:111–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.03.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sapkota TB, Jat ML, Rana DS, Khatri-Chhetri A, Jat HS, Bijarniya D, Sutaliya JM, Kumar M, Singh LK, Jat RK, Kalvaniya K, Prasad G, Sidhu HS, Rai M, Satyanarayana T. Majumdar K Crop nutrient management using Nutrient Expert improves yield, increases farmers’ income and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79883-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Waqas MA, Li Y, Lal R, Wang XH, Sh SW, Zhu YC, Li JL, Xu MG, Wan YF, Qin XB, Gao QZ, Liu S. When does nutrient management sequester more carbon in soils and produce high and stable grain yields in China? Land Degrad Dev. 2020;31(15):1926–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Waqas M.A, Li Y, Smith P, Wang XH, Ashraf MN, Noor MA, Amou M, Shi SW, Zhu YC, Li JL, Wan YF, Qin XB, Gao QZ, Liu S. The influence of nutrient management on soil organic carbon storage, crop production, and yield stability varies under different climates. J Cleaner Prod. 2020;268:121922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121922.

  65. Danso I, Webber H, Bourgault M, Ewert F, Naab JB, Gaiser T. Crop management adaptations to improve and stabilize crop yields under low-yielding conditions in the Sudan Savanna of West Africa. Eur J Agron. 2018;101:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. De Sanctis G, Roggero PP, Seddaiu G, Orsini R, Porter CH, Jones JW. Long-term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal systems in a Mediterranean area. Eur J Agron. 2012;40:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Feng XM, Gao HJ, La, R, Zhu P, Peng C, Deng AX, Zheng CY, Song ZW, Zhang WJ. Nitrous oxide emission, global warming potential, and denitrifier abundances as affected by long-term fertilization on Mollisols of Northeastern China. Archives Agron Soil Sci. 2019;65(13):1831–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1578959.

  68. Maris SC, Capra F, Ardenti F, Chiodini ME, Boselli R, Taskin E, Puglisi E, Bertora C, Poggianella L, Amaducci S, Tabaglio V, Fiorini A. Reducing N fertilization without yield penalties in maize with a commercially available seed dressing. Agronomy. 2021;11(3):407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030407.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Aguegue MR, Adjovi NRA, Agbodjato NA, Noumavo PA, Assogba S, Salami H, SalakoVK, Ramon R, Baba-Moussa F, Adjanohoun A, Kakai RG, Baba-moussa L. Efficacy of native strains of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on maize productivity on ferralitic soil in Benin. Agric Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-021-00602-7.

  70. Partey ST, Thevathasan NV, Zougmore RB, Preziosi RF. Improving maize production through nitrogen supply from ten rarely-used organic resources in Ghana. Agrofor Syst. 2018;92(2):375–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0035-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Salazar O, Diaz R, Nario A, Videla X, Alonso-Ayuso M, Quemada M. Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency determined by the n-15 dilution technique in maize followed or not by a cover crop in Mediterranean Chile. Agriculture. 2021;11(8):721. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080721.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Yan L, Zhang ZD, Zhang JJ, Gao Q, Feng GZ, Abelrahman AM, Chen Y. Effects of improving nitrogen management on nitrogen utilization, nitrogen balance, and reactive nitrogen losses in a Mollisol with maize monoculture in Northeast China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23(5):4576–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5684-z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Dawar K, Sardar K, Zaman M, Muller C, Sanz-Cobena A, Khan A, Borzouei A. Perez-Castillo AGEffects of the nitrification inhibitor nitrapyrin and the plant growth regulator gibberellic acid on yield-scale nitrous oxide emission in maize fields under hot climatic conditions. Pedosphere. 2021;31(2):323–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(20)60076-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Nayak HS, Meena BR, Kumar B, Parihar MD, Jat ML. Differential response from nitrogen sources with and without residue management under conservation agriculture on crop yields, water-use and economics in maize-based rotations. Field Crop Res. 2019;236:96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Guo JJ, Fan JL, Xiang YZ, Zhang FC, Zheng J, Yan S, Yan FL, Hou XH, Li YP, Yang L. Effects of nitrogen type on rainfed maize nutrient uptake and grain yield. Agron J. 2021;113(6):5454–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20811.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Parihar CM, Jat SL, Singh AK, Ghosh A, Rathore NS, Kumar B, Pradhan S, Majumdar K, Satyanarayana T, Jat ML, Saharawat YS, Kuri BR, Saveipune D. Effects of precision conservation agriculture in a maize-wheat-mungbean rotation on crop yield, water-use and radiation conversion under a semiarid agro-ecosystem. Agric Water Manag. 2017;192:306–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.07.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Feng WY, Yang F, Cen R, Liu J, Qu ZY, Miao QF, Chen HY. Effects of straw biochar application on soil temperature, available nitrogen and growth of corn. J Environ Manag. 2021;277:111331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111331.

  78. Mosharrof M, Uddin MK, Sulaiman MF, Mia S, Shamsuzzaman SM, Haque ANA. Combined Application of Rice Husk Biochar and Lime Increases Phosphorus Availability and Maize Yield in an Acidic Soil. Agriculture. 2021;11(8):793. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080793.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Srinivasarao C, Kundu S, Kumpawat BS, Kothari AK, Sodani SN, Sharma SK, Abrol V, Chary GR, Thakur PB, Yashavanth BS. Soil organic carbon dynamics crop yields of maize (Zea mays)-black gram (Vigna mungo) rotation-based long term manurial experimental system in semi-arid Vertisols of western India. Trop Ecol. 2019;60(3):433–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-019-00044-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Allende-Montalban R, Martin-Lammerding D, Delgado MD, Porcel MA, Gabriel JL. Urease inhibitors effects on the nitrogen use efficiency in a maize-wheat rotation with or without water deficit. Agriculture-Basel. 2021;11(7):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070684.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Mo F, Wang JY, Zhou H, Luo CL, Zhang, XF, Li XY, Li FM, Xiong LB, Kavagi L, Nguluu SN, Xiong YC. Ridge-furrow plastic-mulching with balanced fertilization in rainfed maize (Zea mays L.): An adaptive management in East African Plateau. J Environ Manag. 2017;236:100–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.01.014.

  82. Belcher K, Boehm M, Fulton M. An agroecosystem scale evaluation of the sustainability implications of carbon tax and carbon credit policies. J Sustain Agric. 2003;22(2):75–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n02_06.

  83. Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, Chikowo R, Giller KE. Comparative assessment of maize, finger millet and sorghum for household food security in the face of increasing climatic risk. Eur J Agron. 2014;55:2941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.12.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Gornott C, Hattermann F, Wechsung F. Yield gap analysis for Tanzania - The impacts of climate, management and socio-economic impacts on maize yields. Agriculture and Climate Change - Adapting Crops to Increased Uncertainty Agri. 2015;29:231–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Zhang JT, Yang J, An PL, Ren W, Pan ZH, Dong ZQ, Han GL, Pan YY, Pan SF, Tian HQ. Enhancing soil drought induced by climate change and agricultural practices: Observational and experimental evidence from the semiarid area of northern China. Agric Forest Meteor. 2017;243:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.05.008.

  86. Deng X, Huang Y, Qin ZC. Soil indigenous nutrients increase the resilience of maize yield to climatic warming in China. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(9):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Chisanga CB, Phiri E, Chinene VRN, Chabala LM. Projecting maize yield under local-scale climate change scenarios using crop models: Sensitivity to sowing dates, cultivar, and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Food Energy Secur. 2020;9(4):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Amouzou KA, Lamers JPA, Naab JB, Borgemeister C, Vlek PLG, Becker M. Climate change impact on water- and nitrogen-use efficiencies and yields of maize and sorghum in the northern Benin dry savanna. Field Crop Res. 2019;235:104–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Naab JB, Mahama GY, Koo J, Jones JW, Boote KJ. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization with crop residue retention enhances crop productivity, soil organic carbon, and total soil nitrogen concentrations in sandy-loam soils in Ghana. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2015;102(1):33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9675-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Liu HT, Li J, Li X, Zheng YH, Feng SF, Jiang GM. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through replacement of chemical fertilizer with organic manure in a temperate farmland. Science Bulletin. 2015;60(6):598–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0679-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Hou PF, Chang YT, Lai JM, Chou KL, Tai SF, Tseng KC, Chow CN, Jeng SL, Huang HJ, Chang WC. Long-term effects of fertilizers with regional climate variability on yield trends of sweet corn. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3528. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ghosh D, Brahmachari K, Das A, Hassan MM, Mukherjee PK, Sarkar S, Dinda NK, Pramanick B, Moulick D, Maitra S, Hossain A. Assessment of energy budgeting and its indicator for sustainable nutrient and weed management in a rice-maize-green gram cropping system. Agronomy. 2021;11(1):166. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Atakora WK, Kwakye K, Weymann D, Bruggemann N. Stimulus of nitrogen fertilizers and soil characteristics on maize yield and nitrous oxide emission from Ferric Luvisol in the Guinea Savanna agro-ecological zone of Ghana. Sci Afr. 2019;6:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Alibu S, Neuhoff D, Senthilkumar K, Becker M, Kopke U. Potential of cultivating dry season maize along a hydrological gradient of an inland valley in Uganda. Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(10):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100606.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Debrecen. Also, support from Project no. TKP2021-NKTA-32 implemented with the support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary from the National Research, Development, and Innovation Fund financed under the TKP2021-NKTA funding scheme. 

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Land Use, Engineering and Precision Farming Technology, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, 138 Böszörményi Street, 4032, Debrecen, Hungary

    Akasairi Ocwa, Endre Harsanyi, Adrienn Széles, Tamás Rátonyi & Safwan Mohammed

  2. Department of Agriculture Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyambogo University, Kyambogo, P. O. B. 1, Kampala, Uganda

    Akasairi Ocwa

  3. Eötvös Loránd Research Network (ELKH), Centre for Agricultural Research, Budapest, Hungary

    Imre János Holb

  4. Institute of Horticulture, University of Debrecen, 138 Böszörményi Street, 4032, Debrecen, Hungary

    Imre János Holb

  5. Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Debrecen, 4032, Debrecen, Hungary

    Szilárd Szabó

Authors
  1. Akasairi Ocwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Endre Harsanyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adrienn Széles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Imre János Holb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Szilárd Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tamás Rátonyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Safwan Mohammed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Literature search, data analysis, and drafting the first manuscript: AO; critical review: EH, AS, IJH, SS, and TR; conceptualization and methodology, SM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akasairi Ocwa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This section is not applicable.

Consent for publication

This section is not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ocwa, A., Harsanyi, E., Széles, A. et al. A bibliographic review of climate change and fertilization as the main drivers of maize yield: implications for food security. Agric & Food Secur 12, 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00419-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00419-3

Keywords

Agriculture & Food Security

ISSN: 2048-7010