@article{lyons_arnall_ashford-kornburger_brouder_christian_dobermann_haefele_haegele_helmers_jin_et al._2024, title={Field trial guidelines for evaluating enhanced efficiency fertilizers}, volume={10}, ISSN={["1435-0661"]}, DOI={10.1002/saj2.20787}, abstractNote={Abstract There are many fertilizer additives and alternatives that aim to increase plant nutrient use efficiency and reduce nutrient losses to the environment, here referred to collectively as enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs). However, there is often insufficient published scientific field trial results across a variety of locations, climates, soils, cropping systems, and management scenarios to prove their efficacy and conditions for use. Guidelines for common minimum datasets and data stewardship in evaluating the agronomic performance and environmental impact of EEFs are needed for researchers to follow. Such guidelines will improve hypothesis testing centered on product efficacy and provide producers with guidance on how these technologies function and perform when integrated with other management practices within the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Framework. A scientific committee was formed to develop a set of protocol guidelines for evaluating EEFs in replicated, plot‐based field trials on an international scale. The guidelines are composed of experimental design and core metadata, crop and soil analyses, environmental loss measurements, and data stewardship, and include both recommended and required components to allow for flexibility and adaptability depending on the trial location, objectives, infrastructure capacity, product type, and depth of understanding of the potential EEF efficacy. This approach will ensure consistency and compatibility in experimental design and data collection to support data integration, analysis, and reuse leading to large‐scale impact and end‐user confidence.}, journal={SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL}, author={Lyons, Sarah E. and Arnall, D. Brian and Ashford-Kornburger, Dana and Brouder, Sylvie M. and Christian, Erik and Dobermann, Achim and Haefele, Stephan M. and Haegele, Jason and Helmers, Matthew J. and Jin, Virginia L. and et al.}, year={2024}, month={Oct} } @article{lyons_clark_osmond_parvej_pearce_slaton_spargo_2023, title={Current status of US soil test phosphorus and potassium recommendations and analytical methods}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1435-0661"]}, DOI={10.1002/saj2.20536}, abstractNote={AbstractSoil testing is the foundation of fertilizer recommendations in the United States. Fertilizer recommendations have primarily been developed by land‐grant universities with limited coordination among programs. The individual state approach to develop fertilizer recommendations has resulted in discrepancies in recommended soil sampling protocols, soil analysis methods, and fertilizer recommendations at similar soil nutrient levels. A national survey was developed to summarize the status of soil testing and fertility work in the United States to inform future collaborative efforts among states and regions and identify opportunities to harmonize recommendation guidelines. Topics included relevant funding, multi‐state collaborations, state soil‐test recommendations and related data, fertilization philosophies, and analytical and soil sampling methods. Responses from 48 states and Puerto Rico showed inconsistencies across state boundaries in every category. The number of faculty full‐time equivalents working in soil fertility now averages 1.3 per state, a 21.5% decrease every 10 years since the 1950s. Land‐grant university soil‐test‐based phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) recommendation philosophies were categorized as Sufficiency (37%), Build and Maintain (19%), hybrid (20%), or multiple philosophies for which recommendations are provided (20%). Respondents in two states did not know the recommendation philosophy (4%). Fertilizer‐P and K recommendations for corn (Zea mays L.) were based on eight different extractants with differences across and within regions. While there have been some successful regional efforts in the past, additional multi‐state collaborative efforts are needed to identify research gaps and develop comprehensive strategies to update soil‐test correlation and calibration data to address modern agronomic, economic, and environmental concerns.}, journal={SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL}, author={Lyons, Sarah E. and Clark, Jason D. and Osmond, Deanna L. and Parvej, M. D. Rasel and Pearce, Austin W. and Slaton, Nathan A. and Spargo, John T.}, year={2023}, month={Apr} } @article{pearce_slaton_lyons_bolster_bruulsema_grove_jones_mcgrath_miguez_nelson_et al._2022, title={Defining relative yield for soil test correlation and calibration trials in the fertilizer recommendation support tool}, volume={8}, ISSN={["1435-0661"]}, DOI={10.1002/saj2.20450}, abstractNote={AbstractThe Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool (FRST) will perform correlations between soil nutrient concentrations and crop response to fertilization from user‐selected datasets in the FRST national database. Yield response for the nutrient of interest in a particular site‐year is presented as relative yield (RY), a ratio of unfertilized yield to the maximum attainable yield (A). Several methods exist in the literature for estimating A and calculating RY but the effect of method choice on soil test correlation outcomes is undocumented. We used six published methods to calculate RY from site‐year yield data for five published correlation datasets, and fit a generalized linear plateau (LP) model to each. The critical soil test value (at the LP join point) and RY intercept coefficients were not significantly affected by RY method for any of the datasets, and RY plateau was significantly affected by method for only one dataset. The top options after robust group discussions were the so‐called MAX and FITMAX methods. We selected the MAX method, which defines A as the numerically highest treatment yield mean, as the most appropriate method for FRST because MAX represents maximal yield in responsive sites, is inclusive of trial data having a range of treatment numbers, limits RY to 100% (which allows options for transforming data), and is simpler to implement than FITMAX, which requires a decision tree to calculate RY for diverse trials.}, journal={SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL}, author={Pearce, Austin W. and Slaton, Nathan A. and Lyons, Sarah E. and Bolster, Carl H. and Bruulsema, Tom W. and Grove, John H. and Jones, John D. and McGrath, Josh M. and Miguez, Fernando E. and Nelson, Nathan O. and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Aug} } @article{lyons_arthur_slaton_pearce_spargo_osmond_kleinman_2021, title={Development of a soil test correlation and calibration database for the USA}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2471-9625"]}, DOI={10.1002/ael2.20058}, abstractNote={AbstractAs part of the Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool (FRST) project, the FRST database was developed to consolidate and preserve U.S. soil test correlation and calibration data. Legacy phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) soil test data that met a minimum requirement were included in the database. The FRST database initially included over 1,200 individual trials from a range of years, cropping systems, geographic regions, and management practices. The FRST database is being migrated from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to a relational database format housed within the USDA‐ARS Agricultural Collaborative Research Outcomes System (AgCROS) to be accessed via the online FRST decision support tool. Data will be continually added to the FRST database through an online submission form following peer review by the FRST team. The FRST database and associated decision support tool will aid researchers, extension associates, consultants, and farmers in improving fertilizer recommendations for crops across the United States.}, number={4}, journal={AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL LETTERS}, author={Lyons, Sarah E. and Arthur, Dan K. and Slaton, Nathan A. and Pearce, Austin W. and Spargo, John T. and Osmond, Deanna L. and Kleinman, Peter J. A.}, year={2021} } @article{slaton_lyons_osmond_brouder_culman_drescher_gatiboni_hoben_kleinman_mcgrath_et al._2021, title={Minimum dataset and metadata guidelines for soil-test correlation and calibration research}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1435-0661"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20338}, DOI={10.1002/saj2.20338}, abstractNote={AbstractSoil‐test correlation and calibration data are essential to modern agriculture, and their continued relevance is underscored by the expansion of precision farming and the persistence of sustainable soil management priorities. In support of transparent, science‐based fertilizer recommendations, we seek to establish a core set of required and recommended information for soil‐test P and K correlation and calibration studies, a minimum dataset, building on previous research. The Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool (FRST) project team and collaborators are developing a national database that will support a soil‐test‐based nutrient management decision aid tool. The FRST team includes over 80 scientists from 37 land‐grant universities, two state universities, one private university, three federal agencies, two private not‐for‐profit organizations, and one state department of agriculture. The minimum dataset committee developed and vetted a robust set of factors fo minimum dataset consideration that includes information on soil sample collection and processing, soil chemical and physical properties, experimental design and statistical analyses, and metadata about the trial, production system, and field management. The minimum dataset provides guidelines for essential information to meet the primary objective of knowledge synthesis, including meta‐analysis and systemic reviews, but permits researchers the flexibility to satisfy local, state, and regional objectives. Ultimately, this consensus‐driven effort seeks to establish a standard that ensures the maximum utility and impact of modern correlation and calibration studies for developing crop nutrition recommendations that improve productivity and profitability for the crop producer, while reducing environmental impacts of nutrient losses.}, journal={SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Slaton, Nathan A. and Lyons, Sarah E. and Osmond, Deanna L. and Brouder, Sylvie M. and Culman, Steve W. and Drescher, Gerson and Gatiboni, Luciano C. and Hoben, John and Kleinman, Peter J. A. and McGrath, Joshua M. and et al.}, year={2021}, month={Nov} } @article{lyons_osmond_slaton_spargo_kleinman_arthur_mcgrath_2020, title={FRST: A national soil testing database to improve fertility recommendations}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2471-9625"]}, DOI={10.1002/ael2.20008}, abstractNote={AbstractSoil testing is an important practice for nutrient management in agricultural production systems. In the United States, soil‐test methods and interpretations vary across state lines, making institutional collaborations challenging and crop fertilization guidelines inconsistent. Uniformity and transparency in P and K soil fertility testing and fertilizer recommendations are needed to enhance end‐user adoption. The Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool (FRST) project is developing a comprehensive database of P and K correlation–calibration results that can be accessed through an online tool for use in research and fertilizer recommendation development. This collaborative project, which includes over 30 land‐grant universities, the USDA‐ARS, the USDA‐NRCS, and several not‐for‐profit organizations, contains a national survey describing the current status of soil testing, minimum requirements for correlation–calibration data inclusion, and database population and creating FRST as a user‐friendly online decision support tool. The FRST project will provide more consistent, transparent, and science‐based information for crop nutrient recommendations across the United States.}, number={1}, journal={AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL LETTERS}, author={Lyons, Sarah E. and Osmond, Deanna L. and Slaton, Nathan A. and Spargo, John T. and Kleinman, Peter J. A. and Arthur, Dan K. and McGrath, Joshua M.}, year={2020} }