## 5 Conclusions  
The absence of yield differences between treatments supports the different fertilization strategies based on N criteria (mineral or SNC). The advantages of SS use (following N or P criteria) can be justified by the higher Cu, Fe and Zn soil availability, which is an agronomic advantage in calcareous soils. In the SNC, a higher Cr grain concentration than in the SPC can be also advantageous for animal feeding or/and in the development of new functional foods. However, from the environmental aspect, the SPC treatment appears as a sounder option to prevent available P becoming built up quickly, as well as for reducing cob Cdextractions (vs. MIN) using maize. In this highly productive maize system, the potential interaction of N vs. S in grain extractions requires further attention, as does the potential N mining effect in the MIN treatment. Conceptualization, F.C.-S., F.D.-O. and A.D.B.-S.; methodology, F.C.-S. and A.D.B.-S.; investigation, A.D.C.-A. ; formal analysis, A.D.C.-A. and A.D.B.-S.; data curation, A.D.C.-A. and M.M.B.-B. ; writing--original draft preparation, M.M.B.-B. ; writing--review and editing, A.D.B.-S.; project administration, F.C.-S.; funding acquisition, F.C.-S. and F.D.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the Spanish National Institute for Agricultural Research and Experimentation (MINECO-INIA) through the project RTA2017-88-C3-3. The experimental site maintenance was funded by IRTA-Mas Badia and the Department of Climate Action, Food and Rural Agenda from Generalitat de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain. Not applicable. The data presented in this study are available upon its reasonable request from the corresponding author. The authors thank [PERSON] for field support and [PERSON] and [PERSON] for their laboratory support. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fe (Grain)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fe (Cob)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fe (Plant)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mn (Grain)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mn (Cob)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mn (Plant)**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) \\ \hline FT & 2 & 137,678,135 & 0.01 & 32,487,362 & 0.69 & 6,143,637,854 & 0.07 & 845,844 & 0.18 & 1,971,321 & 0.03 & 794,809,440 & 0.25 \\ Block & 3 & 122,150,343 & 0.04 & 119,603,932 & 0.46 & 609,140,208 & 0.84 & 1,023,623 & 0.23 & 1,003,678 & 0.20 & 242,565,589 & 0.79 \\ Error & 6 & 31,904,124 & - & 242,419,913 & - & 4,427,044,422 & - & 1,083,892 & - & 935,025 & - & 1,363,654,625 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Analysis of variance of S (mg kg\({}^{-1}\)) and Cu (ug kg\({}^{-1}\)) in three parts of maize plants and for the fertilization treatments (FTs). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sc (Grain)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sc (Cob)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sc (Plant)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cu (Grain)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cu (Cob)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cu (Plant)**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) & **SS** & \(p\) \\ \hline FT & 2 & 12,141 & 0.17 & 697.6 & 0.32 & 217,687 & 0.55 & 0.00006470 & 0.583 & 0.00000086 & 0.678 & 0.062 & 0.35 \\ Block & 3 & 44,910 & 0.04 & 2437.8 & 0.10 & 167,888 & 0.80 & 0.00219073 & 0.005 & 0.00003411 & 0.008 & 0.037 & 0.69 \\ Error & 6 & 11,979 & - & 1522.6 & - & 1,000,876 & - & 0.00032780 & - & 0.00000621 & - & 0.147 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Analysis of variance of Zn (g ha\({}^{-1}\)) in 3 parts of maize and for the fertilization treatments.