Number 308 July 22, 2011

Transcription

1 Number 308 July 22, Management options for drought-stressed soybeans 1 2. Huskie receives full registration for use in grain or forage sorghum 3 3. Irrigated corn: High heat may reduce yields 4 4. Irrigation capacity for extreme drought conditions 5 5. Crop insurance and drought-damaged crops 6 6. Emergency haying and grazing of CRP expanding to more Kansas counties 8 7. Management practices for emergency haying and grazing of CRP 9 8. Comparative Vegetation Condition Report: July Management options for drought-stressed soybeans Soybeans typically can withstand drought stress reasonably well in the vegetative stage. But the combination of drought and heat stress has been so extreme in some areas that soybean leaves have begun to curl or drop. In those cases, it s already time to consider whether to leave the soybeans in the field and hope for the best or cut them for hay. The decision depends on the stage of growth and condition of the plants. Drought symptoms appear early as leaf wilting and reduced growth. Nodule formation, development, and nitrogen fixation are reduced when soil temperatures rise above 90 degrees F. In general, soybeans can tolerate short periods of high temperatures if supplied with adequate moisture, but the crop cannot tolerate high temperatures indefinitely. The ideal temperature for soybean growth and development is around 86 degrees F. Temperatures above 95 degrees F can reduce seed set. Prolonged heat and drought stress causes considerable leaf loss and yield reduction in soybeans. If the crop is so drought-stressed that it s losing leaves or not setting pods, it may be time to cut it for hay. This might have particular appeal for livestock producers who are facing dry pastures and supplemental feed costs. Soybeans with 50 to 90 percent leaves and a good number of pods at R6 have a good chance of producing a decent crop if allowed to mature -- especially if timely rains occur. In that case, it would probably best to harvest the crop as normal, even though some of the leaves and flowers have dropped due to stress. This is still a gamble, and good yields are not guaranteed even if the plants are in good shape at R6. Stress during rapid pod growth reduces the number of beans per 1

2 pod and reduces bean size. Pod filling is the most susceptible time for drought injury to the soybean crop. If possible, it s best to hold off on making any decisions about cutting soybeans for hay until the plants are moving into seed fill (R5 to R6). Beginning seed fill (R5) is the optimal time to cut beans for hay in order to retain digestible nutrients. However, holding off until this stage of growth may not be possible if plants in the vegetative stage are dropping half or more of their leaves already. If too many leaves are dropped, the plants have reduced value as a hay crop. Producers may need to make the decision to cut for hay while the plants are still in the vegetative stage, before the R5 stage, and before the soybeans lose too many leaves. Soybean plants that still have 30 percent of their leaves can produce 0.75 to 1.25 tons (dry matter) of hay per acre, with about 13 percent protein and 48 percent in-vitro dry matter digestibility. The more leaves a plant has, the more hay tonnage it will produce. Like most legumes, soybean hay quality is fairly good, ranging from 15 to 20% protein. Soybean hay quality is roughly comparable to mature alfalfa. Once soybeans reach full pod and seeds begin to swell, quality begins to decrease because soon after this stage, leaf yellowing and leaf drop are initiated. In addition, the highest quality part of the plant is the leaf, and the least palatable portion is the stem, which will often be left as waste if fed directly to cattle in a bale. Grinding the hay or ensiling the soybean will increase the total dry matter consumed by the animal. The gray area is where there are plants with 30 to 50 percent of leaves still remaining. Those have the capability of filling pods if it rains and of making a soybean harvest that is worth more than the price of the hay. But that's a pretty big if in parts of Kansas this year, given how spotty the rains have been and how long the crop has been subjected to triple-digit temperatures. The producer s decision this year will depend partly on when the soybeans were planted. Soybeans that were planted June or early July are probably still young enough to withstand drought stress for several more weeks without dropping leaves. Soybeans planted in May or early June will be more vulnerable to rapid leaf loss at this time of year. By the early reproductive stage, the effects of prolonged heat and drought are critical. Under drought conditions, soybeans in early reproductive stages will have increased flower and pod abortion. In later reproductive stages, prolonged drought will cause pods to be small, with fewer and smaller (or shriveled) seeds than normal. Soybeans can tolerate short periods of heat and drought at this time by aborting flowers and forming more later. But the crop will not bloom indefinitely and under prolonged heat and drought may be unable to recover. Stress during flowering reduces the length of the flowering period. Determinate soybean varieties will normally bloom for 3 to 4 weeks or so under excellent conditions, and indeterminate varieties will bloom for 4 to 6 weeks, but these periods of bloom will be less than that under stress conditions. If no pods are set after the normal blooming period, it is possible that the crop will not set any pods or make any seed yield. If fields have no pods set at all by the time they have reached the end of their blooming period, the crop should be hayed. 2

3 Because of extremely high July temperatures, irrigated fields are not immune to the effects of drought stress. With numerous days over 100 degrees F, even irrigated plants can fail to set or fill pods. -- Kraig Roozeboom, Row Crop and Cropping Systems Specialist -- Doug Shoup, Southeast Area Crops and Soils Specialist 2. Huskie receives full registration for use in grain or forage sorghum Huskie herbicide is a prepackage mixture of pyrasulfotole and bromoxynil. It was developed by Bayer CropScience and initially registered for broadleaf weed control in wheat. Huskie will provide sorghum growers another opportunity to control broadleaf weeds. Pyrasulfotole is a herbicide in the HPPD inhibitor family which will help control ALS-, triazine-, PPO-, and glyphosate-resistant broadleaf weeds. In Kansas, research by K-State weed scientists has shown that Huskie controls kochia, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, tumble pigweed, velvetleaf, puncturevine, morningglory, and other broadleaf weeds. A timely application of Huskie to 2- to 4-inch weeds will provide the most consistent control. Later applications of Huskie to larger weeds often do not provide adequate weed control. Huskie should be applied at 12.8 to 16.0 fluid oz/acre to sorghum at the 3-leaf stage up to 12 inches tall. The addition of atrazine at 0.25 to 1.0 lb ai and AMS at 1 lb/acre is strongly encouraged to optimize Huskie activity. Huskie+atrazine may be tank-mixed with 2,4-D or dicamba to broaden the spectrum of weed control. Huskie should be applied in a minimum of 10 gallon spray solution/acre. Two applications may be applied per year, having at least 11 days between applications. Huskie will frequently cause transitory leaf burn, yellowing, and can cause stunting. Symptoms generally disappear by 21 to 28 days after treatment. Unacceptable crop response may occur if Huskie is applied to sorghum previously treated with herbicides containing mesotrione, such as Lumax or Lexar. Cautions to consider: Do not apply more than 32 oz of Huskie per acre per year Do not apply Huskie tank-mixed with Lorsban insecticide Aerial or chemigation application of Huskie is prohibited Do not graze or cut for forage for 7 days following a Huskie application Do not harvest grain or stover within 60 days of a Huskie application -- Curtis Thompson, Weed Management Specialist cthompso@ksu.edu -- Dallas Peterson, Weed Management Specialist dpeterso@ksu.edu 3

4 3. Irrigated corn: High heat may reduce yields Irrigated corn is not immune to the deleterious effects of the extended heat wave Kansas is experiencing this year. There are several reasons for potential yield reductions in irrigated corn due to extreme heat, and all of them are somewhat related: * High evapotranspiration (ET) rates during the vegetative stage. When temperatures are unusually high and the relative humidity is low, ET rates may be so high that most irrigation systems can t keep up. This puts the plants under stress. Stress from high ET can reduce yields in the vegetative stage, even before the crop has silked. Potential ear size is being determined before tassel. Stress during V8 to V11 can reduce row numbers on the ear. Stress during V12 to V17 (just prior to tasseling) can reduce the number of kernels per row. * Extreme heat during early grain fill. Research at Iowa State University has shown that extreme heat during grain fill reduces the rate of grain fill, and the duration of grain fill, even if moisture is not a limiting factor. The ideal temperature for grain fill in corn is about 72 degrees F. Field studies and observations indicate a yield loss can occur at higher temperatures. A growth chamber study at the University of Guelph compared a 77/59 degree (high/low) temperature scheme with a 95/59 degree scheme from 18 days after silking to maturity. With the higher temperature scheme, yields were reduced by 42 percent. At temperatures from about 80 to 95 degrees F, the rate of grain fill starts to slow down, even if roots are kept at normal soil temperatures from the shading of the canopy. At temperatures of about 105 to 110 degrees, the rate of grain fill and duration of grain fill are both reduced, resulting in yield losses. * Stalk rot. Fusarium is the primary type of stalk rot on irrigated corn in Kansas. Fusarium stalk rot incidence increases when the corn is subjected to stresses such as drought and poor fertility. Fusarium stalk rot interferes with water and nutrient movement within the plants, thus causing reductions in ear size as well as stalk lodging. * Stalk lodging. Although stalk rot is often present in corn that has lodged, the disease may or may not be the main reason for the lodging. Any factor that causes carbohydrate depletion in the stalk can predispose the plants to stalk weakening and potential lodging. Heat stress during grain fill, nutrient imbalances, hybrid characteristics, reduced photosynthetic capacity due to loss of leaf area from foliar diseases and spider mite infestations are other factors that may be involved. Keep in mind that with improved breeding for standability, plants infected with stalk rot may not lodge at all. -- Kraig Roozeboom, Cropping Systems and Row Crop Production Specialist kraig@ksu.edu -- Curtis Thompson, Weed Management Specialist cthompso@ksu.edu -- Doug Jardine, Extension Plant Pathologist jardine@ksu.edu 4

5 4. Irrigation capacity for extreme drought conditions During a drought, irrigation can obviously help the crop avoid being stressed, but there are limits to how much irrigation can help. A portion of the crop water budget, even in irrigated fields in western Kansas, is expected to be met by precipitation or stored soil water accumulated from offseason precipitation or preirrigation. Irrigation systems are sized with this in mind. As a general rule, on soils with high water-holding capacity, such as silt loams, an irrigation capacity of about 0.25 inches/day is needed to have a reliable irrigation system. On soils with low water-holding capacity, 0.32 inches/day may be needed to achieve the same reliability. Typical peak crop water use rates average about 0.35 inches/day, so drawdown of the soil water content in the root zone is expected if irrigation is the only water source available for extended periods during the growing season -- without being occasionally supplemented by rainfall. Single daily crop water use rates can approach and occasionally exceed 0.50 inches/day. During drought periods, crop water use rates would be higher than normal. Many irrigated producers are experiencing the double jeopardy of decreased rainfall and higherthan-normal crop water use caused by high heat and dry winds. In some fields the crop may have already depleted the entire available root zone soil water reserve. What irrigation options are available in those situations to minimize crop yield loss? Increasing the flow rate (irrigation capacity) to a crop is generally not an option because the source of supply is a well with a fixed flow rate. The only practical but painful option is to abandon some acreage and concentrate the water on the remaining acreage. The most likely scenario is that the soil water reserves are already depleted, so the area to try to salvage should allow an irrigation capacity of 0.32 in/day or greater. Irrigation capacity (IC) is determined by dividing the system flow rate in gallons per minute (GPM) by 450 (450 GPM = 1 ac-in/hr), then multiplying that rate by the number of hours of daily pumping, and then dividing by the number of irrigated acres. This is the gross irrigation capacity. Multiply the gross irrigation capacity by the system efficiency to obtain the net IC. The number of acres that can be irrigated for an irrigation capacity that will support crop growth can be calculated as follows: Irrigated acres = System GPM/450 x 24 hrs/day Gross IC x Efficiency Example: To determine how many acres can be irrigated for a target IC of 0.35 in/day, with a system flow rate of 600 GPM and an irrigation system efficiency of 90 percent: Irrigated acres = 600 GPM/450 x 24 hrs/day = 102 acres 0.35 in/day x 0.9 Approximately 102 acres of a crop currently experiencing water stress might be able to be salvaged in this scenario. Three software tools may also be of help to decide the best course of action. These include: 5

6 1. KanSched: an ET-based irrigation scheduling tool (see download link at 2. Crop Yield Prediction ( 3. Crop Water Allocator ( These tools were not designed specifically to look at the question of diverting water from one portion of the field to another, but could provide some insight about different scenarios by examining output for multiple runs with different assumptions. However, selecting the number of acres to water in salvage should be based on estimated crop water use and irrigation capacity as described above. Before making any decisions about changing irrigation practices, please read the following article (No. 5) on crop insurance-related concerns. -- Danny Rogers, Extension Agricultural Engineer, Irrigation -- Kraig Roozeboom, Cropping Systems and Row Crop Production Specialist 5. Crop insurance and drought-damaged crops (Editor s Note: The following information is from a July 2011 report from the Topeka Regional Office of the USDA s Risk Management Agency.) * What Should A Policyholder Do When Crops Are Drought-Damaged? The policyholder should contact the crop insurance company that sold the policy prior to putting their spring-planted crop acres to another use by harvesting for silage, diverting irrigation from the crops or by abandoning the acres. A damage notice is to be given within 72 hours of the initial discovery of damage or loss of production, but not later than 15 days after the end of the insurance period, even if the crop has not been harvested. A notice may be made by telephone or in person to the company but must be confirmed in writing within 15 days. It is very important that the policyholder work closely with the company before making any changes to the care of the crop. The company must have a chance to appraise and release the acres before the crop is destroyed or abandoned. If the company cannot make an accurate appraisal, or the producer disagrees with the appraisal at the time the acreage is to be destroyed or no longer cared for, the company and producer can work out representative sample areas to be left intact for future appraisal purposes. For more information on duties in the event of damage, loss, abandonment, destruction, or alternative use of the crop or acreage consult Section 14 of the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (11-br) Policy. * Should I Continue To Care For Drought-Damaged Crops? Crops that have been damaged and will be taken to harvest must be continued to be cared for and maintained. Many producers have asked about the degree of maintenance required in such cases. Producers are required to continue to care for the crop, following generally recognized practices. They may seek advice from ag experts in the area as to what, how much, and when to spray to maintain the production that is currently in the field and protect the crop from further damage. Producers that destroy or abandon the crop and leave representative samples with the agreement of the insurance company, must maintain the samples the same as if the entire crop was left. The 6

7 samples must be maintained until the company conducts a final inspection and releases the representative sample areas. Failure to maintain the crop following damage could result in a determination that the cause of loss was not covered and therefore, no claims payment was due. * Can Irrigation Water Be Diverted? Under extreme high temperatures and wind conditions, it may be advisable for a farmer to divert irrigation water away from some crop acres to adequately provide water to the remaining crop. For example, irrigation could be stopped over the entire pivot to crops that would not survive and instead apply that water to crops in the rest of that pivot. This could prevent the loss of the entire crop by providing enough water to the remaining crop to provide for normal plant growth. The farmer harvests the crop and receives a claims payment for the rest. It is important to notify the company as soon as possible when considering diversion. * Do I Need To Wait To Divert Water Until Instructed To Do So By The Company? Although it is preferred that the policyholder notify the company in advance of any diversion, failure to do so will not, in itself, prevent a loss determination. However, advance notification allows the company the opportunity to verify the appropriateness of such diversion at the same time that the grower makes the decision to divert the water. There may be situations, however, in which the company determines that the farmer should have, but did not, divert water or divert the recommended amount of water to acreage insured under the irrigated practice. In such cases it may be appropriate for the company to assess an appraisal for uninsured causes, unless it can be documented that justifiable circumstances prevented such diversion (e.g., multiple water sources or great distances between acreage, made diversion of water impractical or impossible). If the policyholder chooses to make the diversion before talking with the company, all possible documentation to show that diverting the water is appropriate should be maintained. Recommendations from local Cooperative Extension System (CES) or USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (or other source recognized by CES, or NRCS to be an expert in this area) should be used to document this decision. * Is There RMA Claims Adjustment Procedure Regarding Water Diversion? RMA procedures provide that when water diversion is within a single crop, and all involved acreage is eligible for the irrigated practice, the company is to: 1. Verify that a water shortage exists or whether wind and extreme heat conditions have caused evaporation of the irrigation water before the water can reach all areas of the crop, thus, creating a need to irrigate only a portion of the crop that initially was being irrigated (e.g., instead of irrigating the entire pivot which is not receiving enough water to survive, irrigate only half of the crop so that at least this part will survive). Also, verify whether recommendations from the local CES or NRCS (or other source recognized by CES, or NRCS to be an expert in this area) agree with the insured's intentions or actions taken. 2. Determine that such diversion is appropriate. Recommendations from local CES or NRCS (or other source recognized by CES, or NRCS to be an expert in this area) should be used to document this determination. 3. Document the policyholder's intention or action taken to divert water on the affected acreage. Include the circumstances affecting the determinations. 4. If the determination to divert water was not appropriate, to consider this as a failure to carry out a good irrigation practice for the insured crop, and assess any appropriate appraisal(s) representing the additional indemnification anticipated as a result of the diversion. The insurance company is to use appraised and/or harvested production figures, APH yields, etc., of the acreage or units involved as a guide to establish any appropriate uninsured-cause 7

8 appraisals that may be necessary to assess against the acreage or unit from which the water was diverted. 5. Inspect any acreage involved in the diversion and appraise any insured acreage that is not to be harvested. 6. Defer the final settlement of claims of this type until total production on all involved acreage can be verified or determined. When water diversion is from one crop insured under the irrigated practice to another crop(s) insured under the irrigated practice, the company is to document the policyholder's intention or action taken to divert water on the affected acreage and include the circumstances affecting the determinations. This fact sheet gives only a general overview of crop insurance draught information and is not a complete policy. For further information Producers should read the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (11-br) Policy and their Special Provisions of Insurance for further details. -- Rebecca Davis, Director, Topeka Regional Office, USDA Risk Management Agency rebecca.davis@rma.usda.gov 6. Emergency haying and grazing of CRP expanding to more Kansas counties Emergency haying of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage has been approved for three more Kansas counties, Hodgeman, Ness, and Trego, according to a July 20 announcement by Adrian J. Polansky, State Executive Director of USDA s Farm Service Agency (FSA) in Kansas. Counties previously approved for CRP emergency haying include: Barber, Barton, Clark, Comanche, Edwards, Finney, Ford, Grant, Gray, Harper, Harvey, Haskell, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, McPherson, Meade, Morton, Pawnee, Pratt, Reno, Rice, Sedgwick, Seward, Stafford, Stanton, and Stevens. Counties previously approved for CRP emergency grazing include: Barber, Barton, Clark, Comanche, Edwards, Ellis, Ellsworth, Finney, Ford, Gove, Graham, Grant, Gray, Hamilton, Harper, Harvey, Haskell, Hodgeman, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, Marion, McPherson, Meade, Morton, Ness, Pawnee, Pratt, Reno, Rice, Rush, Scott, Seward, Stafford, Stanton, Stevens, Trego, Wallace, and Wichita. Emergency grazing in approved counties is allowed through September 30, Participants shall leave at least 25 percent of each field or contiguous CRP fields ungrazed for wildlife, or graze not more than 75 percent of the stocking rate. All livestock must be removed by the end of this grazing period. Emergency haying in approved counties is allowed through August 31, Participants must leave at least 50 percent of each field or contiguous fields unhayed for wildlife. Hay must be removed from the field within 30 days from end of the haying period. Emergency haying and grazing is not allowed on the same acreage, and any other approved CRP haying or grazing is not allowed on the same acreage. 8

9 CRP participants in approved counties shall contact the local FSA county office to request emergency haying or grazing on an individual contract basis prior to haying or grazing. Participants will work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop a forage management plan. If the CRP cover is destroyed, the practice must be re-established at their own expense to remain in compliance with the CRP contract. Participants must also accept a 25 percent reduction in the annual rental payment for the acres actually hayed or grazed. -- Trish Halstead, Communications Coordinator, Kansas USDA-FSA Trish.halstead@ks.usda.gov 7. Management practices for emergency haying and grazing of CRP Prairie hay is being harvested throughout the state at this time. Emergency haying of CRP is also an option in some counties. If you haven t cut your hay yet, I would encourage you to do so soon. Harvest date is the most important management decision affecting hay production. Timing affects production, quality, composition, amount of regrowth, and subsequent plant vigor. Consider raising the cutter bar to leave at least a 3-inch stubble. Maximum yield of native hay generally occurs in August, but waiting until that time results in lower quality hay, less regrowth, and can alter the composition and vigor of stands if done repeatedly over a number of years. Peak yield may have already occurred in drought-stricken counties this year. Crude protein declines about 1 percentage unit every two weeks during the month of July, and will be no higher than 5 percent by late August when maximum yield occurs. Repeated mowing around September 1 can change a bluestem-dominated hay meadow to a stand dominated by broadleaf species. The change in composition occurs because the grasses do not have a sufficient time period to replenish food reserves before frost occurs. Heavy grazing in the late summer can be detrimental to next year s production. The key is still stocking rate. We need to leave enough leaf area so the plants can continue to carry out photosynthesis and store food reserves going into the winter. How much is enough? In CRP stands planted with mid and tall grasses, a 6- to 8-inch average stubble height (about lbs/acre) would be optimum. Forage quality will also be low in the late season and livestock producers may want to consider their culling practices, early weaning, and so forth. -- Walt Fick, Range and Pasture Management Specialist whfick@ksu.edu 9

10 8. Comparative Vegetation Condition Report: July 5 18 K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory (EASAL) produces weekly Vegetation Condition Report maps. These maps can be a valuable tool for making crop selection and marketing decisions. Two short videos of Dr. Kevin Price explaining the development of these maps can be viewed on YouTube at: The objective of these reports is to provide users with a means of assessing the relative condition of crops and grassland. The maps can be used to assess current plant growth rates, as well as comparisons to the previous year and relative to the 21-year average. The report is used by individual farmers and ranchers, the commodities market, and political leaders for assessing factors such as production potential and drought impact across their state. The maps below show the current vegetation conditions in Kansas, the Corn Belt, and the continental U.S, with comments from Mary Knapp, state climatologist: 10

11 Map 1. The Vegetation Condition Report for Kansas for July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that, as might be expected, the level of photosynthetic activity continues to lessen in the western third of the state. This decreased photosynthetic activity can also be seen in southeast Kansas. There is a little more activity in Cowley and Chautauqua counties, where some favorable moisture was received during the middle of the period. 11

12 Map 2. Compared to the previous year at this time for Kansas, the current Vegetation Condition Report for July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that only a few places in northeast Kansas are ahead of last year s level of photosynthetic activity. Most of the state has experienced significant reduction in photosynthetic activity. The southern two-thirds of the state are in moderate to exceptional drought status, and this map reflects that status. 12

13 Map 3. Compared to the 22-year average at this time for Kansas, this year s Vegetation Condition Report for July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that most of the area of the state north of I-70 has experienced favorable moisture. Particularly noteworthy is the switch from fairly high level of photosynthetic activity in Sheridan County to the much-below-average photosynthetic activity in Graham County. 13

14 Map 4. The Vegetation Condition Report for the Corn Belt for July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that much of the Corn Belt has recovered from previously saturated soils and cooler-than-average temperatures. Very high levels of photosynthetic activity can be seen in the northern areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Upper Michigan. The area of very low photosynthetic activity continues to expand in western and south central Kansas. 14

15 Map 5. The comparison to last year in the Corn Belt for the period July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that despite the high level of photosynthetic activity seen this year, the level of photosynthetic activity is actually below last year s level for much of the Corn Belt. The exceptions can be seen in the Upper Plains, Virginia, and Eastern Ohio. 15

16 Map 6. Compared to the 22-year average at this time for the Corn Belt, this year s Vegetation Condition Report for July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows the highly favorable conditions in the Upper Plains. The drought conditions are making notable expansion into southeast Kansas and southwest Missouri. Reports in that area include stressed corn, soybeans, and pastures. 16

17 Map 7. The Vegetation Condition Report for the U.S. for July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that western and southwestern portions of the U.S. are experiencing little photosynthetic activity. In Wyoming, much of this is due to the persistent snowpack and flooding. In southwest Kansas into Texas, the problem is continuing heat and lack of rainfall. 17

18 Map 8. The U.S. comparison to last year at this time for the period July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows that the southern half of the country is much below last year s level of photosynthetic activity. Compared to last year, the Southern Plains drought and the Southeast drought are very visible. Also notable are the lingering effects of the flooding in the Mississippi River basin. 18

19 Map 9. The U.S. comparison to the 22-year average for the period July 5 18 from K-State s Ecology and Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory shows the dividing line between the wet conditions in the Northern Plains and the drought in the Southern Plains. This map also shows the balance of the near normal productivity in the western portions of the Southwest, where monsoon activity has begun. In contrast, the slow start to the season in eastern New Mexico has resulted in conditions more in line with Texas. Note to readers: The maps above represent a subset of the maps available from the EASAL group. If you d like digital copies of the entire map series please contact us at kpprice@ksu.edu and we can place you on our list to receive the entire dataset each week as they are produced. The maps are normally first available on Wednesday of each week, unless there is a delay in the posting of the data by EROS Data Center where we obtain the raw data used to make the maps. These maps are provided for free as a service of the Department of Agronomy and K-State Research and Extension. -- Mary Knapp, State Climatologist mknapp@ksu.edu -- Kevin Price, Agronomy and Geography, Remote Sensing, Natural Resources, GIS kpprice@ksu.edu -- Nan An, Graduate Research Assistant, Ecology & Agriculture Spatial Analysis Laboratory (EASAL) nanan@ksu.edu These e-updates are a regular weekly item from K-State Extension Agronomy and Steve Watson, Agronomy e-update Editor. All of the Research and Extension faculty in Agronomy will be involved as sources from time to time. If you have any questions or suggestions for topics you'd like to have us address in this weekly update, contact Steve Watson, swatson@ksu.edu, or Jim Shroyer, Research and Extension Crop Production Specialist and State Extension Agronomy Leader jshroyer@ksu.edu 19