EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE, FERTILIZER RATE, AND SEEDING RATE ON SPRING BARLEY PERFORMANCE. Frederick J. Crowe, Rod Brevig, and Steven R.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE, FERTILIZER RATE, AND SEEDING RATE ON SPRING BARLEY PERFORMANCE. Frederick J. Crowe, Rod Brevig, and Steven R."

Coleen Berry
5 years ago
Views:

1 EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE, FERTILIZER RATE, AND SEEDING RATE ON SPRING BARLEY PERFORMANCE Frederick J. Crowe, Rod Brevig, and Steven R. James ' ABSTRACT 'Steptoe', 'Gustoe,' and 'Kombar' barleys were compared at different planting dates, seeding rates, and fertility rates. The seeding rates chosen (8 and 12 lbs/ac) did not influence performance. 'Steptoe' lodged extensively at high and low fertilizer rates for the earliest planting dates (March 2, 1985). Lodging in 'Steptoe' was extensive for later planting dates at only the 12 lb N/Ac fertility rate, but was minimal at the 8 lb N/Ac fertility rate. 'Gustoe' and 'Kombar' did not lodge. Yield was generally highest for 'Steptoe' and lowest for 'Kombar', although 'Gustoe' yielded as well as 'Steptoe' at higher fertilizer rates. 'Kombar' test weights were significantly lower than test weights for 'Gustoe' and 'Steptoe.' These data may assist central Oregon barley producers in selecting varieties and management levels. Spring barley performance is known to be greatly influenced by variety, fertility, and planting date, and also is thought to be affected by seeding rate. For the popular variety 'Steptoe,' lodging is a problem, but this is less of a problem with some of the newer varieties such as 'Gustoe' and 'Kombar,' which may yield less than 'Steptoe.' This trial was designed to investigate the responses of these varieties to several management factors in a single irrigated field. Materials and Methods Plots, 5 feet wide x 2 feet long at the Central Oregon Experiment Station Madras field, were planted with a plot planter and harvested with a plot combine. Planting dates, fertilizer application rates, and varieties are as listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Seeding rates were 8 and 12 lbs/ac. Residual nitrogen in the soil was about 8 lbs N/Ac. Fertilizer was applied before planting with the first 8 lbs N/Ac as 16-2, and the next 4 lbs N/Ac (if applied) as ammonium nitrate. The first irrigation was on April 18, 1985 and the last irrigation was on July 4, Harvest was on August 8, 1985 for the 3/2, 4/1 and 4/3 planting dates, and harvest was on August 2 for the 5/1 planting date. Within planting 1 First and third authors are superintendent/associate professor and research assistant, respectively, Central Oregon Experiment Station, P.O. Box 246, Redmond, OR 97756; and biology technician, Central Oregon Experiment Station, Madras, OR

2 dates, all other combinations of treatments were in a randomized block design with four replications. Analysis of variance was used to compare treatments within planting date. Planting dates were not replicated. Results Tables 1, 2, and 3 show results for fertilizer rate and variety effects on yield, test weight, and lodging. There were no statistically significant differences (P =.5) between seeding rates of 8 and 12 lbs/ac, so data for these treatments are combined. Yields of all varieties generally decreased with later planting date, as expected. 'Kombar' and 'Gustoe' did not lodge in this trial, but 'Steptoe' lodged extensively with high fertilizer rate, and even with low fertilizer rate at the earliest (March 2) planting date. Yields were consistently higher with 'Steptoe' over 'Gustoe' and 'Kombar'; 'Gustoe' outyielded 'Kombar' with increasing differences at later planting dates. 'Steptoe' and 'Gustoe' had comparable test weights, but 'Kombar' was consistently and substantially lower than the other two varieties. Discussion This trial was designed to test several factors influencing spring barley performance. These multiple comparisons often are not tested within the same experiment, because the tests become rather large and unmanageable. Test levels utilized were those believed to be those in common practice. The seeding rates we selected showed no differences in performance but perhaps these results might be different for other seeding rates. The data do suggest some management guidelines. In particular, 1. The differences in lodging by 'Steptoe' were great after the early planting with respect to nitrogen fertilization. 'Steptoe' should not be fertilized heavily, and perhaps not even planted in soils with substantial residual nitrogen. 2. In comparing 'Steptoe' with 8 lbs N/Ac with "Gustoe' with 8 or 12 lbs N/Ac, 'Gustoe' might perform as well or better depending on the cost of nitrogen chosen and required. 3. 'Kombar's low test weights (and lower yields at later planting dates) made its performance in 1985 poorer than 'Gustoe' or 'Steptoe'. 4. Seeding rate may be less important than the other' management factors tested. Perhaps some cost savings might be gained by reducing seeding rates for these varieties within the 8-12 lb/ac range we tested. 24

3 Table 1. Yields (bu/ac) of three spring barley varieties planted at various dates, seeding rates* and fertilizer rates at Madras 1985 Planting Fertilizer Variety Date (lbs N/Ac) Steptoe Gustoe Kombar Mean 3/2/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 6.1; among variety means = NS; between fertilizer rate means = 3.5 4/1/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 8.; among variety means = 5.6; between fertilizer rate means = 4.6 4/3/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 6.5; among variety means = 4.6; between fertilizer rate means = 3.7 5/1/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 8.9; among variety means = 6.3; between fertilizer rate means = 5.1 * Seeding rates proved not to influence yields, so data for the 8 and 12 lbs seed/ac rates are averaged together and not shown. NS = not significant. 25

4 Table 2. Test weights (lbs/bu) of three spring barley varieties planted at various dates, seeding rates,* and fertilizer rates at Madras, 1985 Planting Fertilizer Variety Date (lbs N/Ac) Steptoe Gustoe Kombar Mean 3/2/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries =.5; among variety means =.4; between fertilizer rate means = NS 4/1/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 5.2; among variety means = 3.7; between fertilizer rate means = NS 4/3/ ,3 Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 1.1; among variety means =.8; between fertilizer rate means = NS 5/1/ Mean LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 2.6; among variety means = 1.8; between fertilizer rate means = NS * Seeding rates proved not to influence yields, so data for the 8 and 12 lbs seed/ac rates are averaged together and not shown. NS not significant. 26

5 Table 3. Lodging (.) of three spring barley varieties planted at various dates, seeding rates,* and fertilizer rates at Madras 1985 Planting Date Fertilizer (lbs N/Ac) Variety Steptoe Gustoe Kombar Mean 3/2/ Mean 26. LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 12.9; among variety means = 9.1; between fertilizer rate means = NS 4/1/ Mean 23. LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 1.4; among variety means = 7.4; between fertilizer rate means = 6.; Fertilizer x variety interaction was significant (P=.5) 4/ 3/ Mean 18.8 LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 1.8; among variety means = 7.6; between fertilizer rate means = 6.2; Fertilizer x variety interaction was significant (P=.5) 5/1/ Mean 9.5 LSD.5 among non-mean table entries = 7.6; among variety means = 5.3; between fertilizer rate means = NS Seeding rates proved not to influence yields, so data for the 8 and 12 lbs seed/ac are averaged together and not shown. NS = not significant. 27

INFLUENCE OF FERTILIZER RATE AND TIMING ON YIELD, TEST WEIGHT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT OF THREE IRRIGATED HARD RED SPRING WHEAT VARIETIES

INFLUENCE OF FERTILIZER RATE AND TIMING ON YIELD, TEST WEIGHT, AND PROTEIN CONTENT OF THREE IRRIGATED HARD RED SPRING WHEAT VARIETIES Frederick J. Crowe, Rod Brevig, and Steven R. James 1 ABSTRACT With