Master of Science in Agronomy Program. Javier E. Padilla March 2011

Transcription

1 Master of Science in Agronomy Program Javier E. Padilla March 2011

2 Overview Background Introduction/Project creation SDI systems review Objectives Materials and methods Results and discussion Summary

3 Background Born and raised in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Graduated from the University of San Luis Potosi in plant science. Started the masters degree program in 2007 Pioneer Puerto Vallarta 2006 Pioneer Woodland maps&safe=active&um=1&ie=utf-8&hq=&hnear=mexico&gl=us&ei=krm9tcvqao_pgaes1ptmca&sa=x&oi=geocode_result& ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0cbeq8gewaa

4 San Luis Potosi

5 Puerto Vallarta

6 Woodland, CA Dani Javi Mariana l Woodland Research Station

7 Introduc7on Why this Project? Irrigation Background Drought stress is an important trail for the seed industry Drought stress represents 40% from global yield loss Drip irrigation is a yearly input for the center (management) Woodland is one of the two managed stress facilities in Pioneer

8 Woodland It is located in Yolo county 17 miles north west of Sacramento Elevation 13 ft. Annual rainfall is 16 to 22 inches Soils Yolo Brentwood series. Sandy loams to clay loams Well to poorly drained soil Slopes 0 to 2 % Source: NCRS,

9 Drought stress Two type of stress conditions to simulate Grain filling Kernel size is being determined and potential yield looses can equal three bushels per acre. Flowering stress When kernel number is being determined and potential losses can equal six bushels per acre per day. (Butzen and Schussler, 2006)

10 Irriga2on system Main components: Pump, filters, chemical injectors, main lines, sub- main lines, valves, manifold, drip lines, flushing devices Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI): Application of water below the soil Pros Save money Multiple years Less evaporation Cons Root intrusions and clogging Could produce soil compaction Difficult to monitor (Lamm et al, 2009)

11 Objec7ves Determine if the use of a single line of drip tape per bed produces similar irrigation management as two drip tape lines per bed, to achieve drought stress conditions and produce similar grain yields. Determine if differences exist between normal drip irrigation and SDI irrigation to achieve drought stress conditions and similar grain yields.

12 Setups Treatment Shallow single Shallow double Deep single Deep double Two different tapes Low flow emission tape 0.51 liters per hour per emitter every 12 T- Tape Mid flow emission tape 1.1 liters per hour per emitter every 12 Netafim streamline Five hybrids with different drought tolerance rate (2 tolerant, 3 susceptible)

13 Opera7onal ac7vi7es

14 Irriga7on setup

15 Data Physiological and yield traits Stand count GDU to silking were taken at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the plants of each plot were silking. (when any silk is outside the husk). GDU to tassel were taken also at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the plants of each plots were tasseling. (when the last branch of the tassel emerged). Plot harvest weight Plot grain moisture. Plant height. Vegetative plant biomass (VPB) in cm 3 were collected. Stand counts were determined at corn developmental stage V3 after thinning plots below 48 plants per single plot where discarded.

16 Experimental design Split plot design For location 1 and 2, each of the 20 whole plots (4 treatments x 5 hybrids) and 9 replicates 9 replicates for the whole plot level 45 for the sub- plot level For location 3, there were 20 whole plots (4 treatments x 5 hybrids) and 8 replicates 8 replicates for the whole plot level 40 replicates to the sub- plot level

17 Results: Yields Both locations have similar yields among treatments. Deep tape treatments yielded more than shallow tape treatments. The corn hybrid grain yields behaved according to the drought ratings given by Pioneer with Hybrids A and B being more drought tolerant than C, D, and E.

18 Results (cont.): Boxplot for average corn grain yield for four irrigation treatments across two locations in Woodland, CA. 200 Boxplot of yield bu/ac 150 yield bu/ac Double deep Double shallow Single deep Treatment Single shallow * Outlier in data

19 Results (cont.): Yield ad VPB Differences. Tests of Hypotheses Using the Type III MS for Loc*Treatment as an Error Term Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment No significant differences for yield grain (P< 0.05) Tests of Hypotheses Using the Type III MS for Loc*Treatment as an Error Term Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment No significant differences for VPB (P< 0.05)

20 Results (cont.) Comparision between normal prac7ce and 3 different treatments Treatment Yield/ac LSMEAN LSMEAN Number Double deep Double shallow Single deep Single shallow Least Squares Means for effect Treatment Pr > t for H0: LSMean(i)=LSMean(j) Dependent Variable: yield/ac i/j *< < *< *< *< < < < *significant different (P< 0.05)

21 Results (cont.) Objec7ve one 120 Interval Plot of yield bu/ac 95% CI for the Mean yield bu/ac Double tape Single Source DF SS MS F P tape Error Total S = R-Sq = 2.24% R-Sq(adj) = 1.91%

22 Results (cont.) Grain Yield means 120 Interval Plot of yield bu/ac 95% CI for the Mean yield bu/ac depth deep shallow deep Loc YL019 Grain yield means with 95% CI for two locations with two different depths of drip tape. YL029 shallow

23 Results (cont.) GDU at flowering stage Treatment 25% silk 50% silk 75% silk 25% tassel 50% tassel 75% tassel Double Deep * Single Deep * * * Single Shallow * GDU flowering LS mean comparisons between double shallow treatment and the three different treatments. (P< 0.05) *significant different (P< 0.05)

24 Results (cont.) comparison of silking in 4 different irriga7on treatments Line Plot of Mean( GDU SLK 25%, GDU SLK 50%, GDUSLK 75% ) Treatment Double deep Double shallow Single deep Single shallow GDUs GDU SLK 25% GDU SLK 50% GDUSLK 75%

25 Results (cont.) comparison of tasseling in 4 different irriga7on treatments Line Plot of Mean( GDU SHD25%, GDU SHD 50%, GDU SHD 75% ) Treatment Double deep Double shallow Mean GDU and 95% CI for silking at 25, 50 and 75% in four different drip tape treatments. Single deep Single shallow 1140 GDUs GDU SHD25% GDU SHD 50% GDU SHD 75%

26 Summary and Conclusions There are differences in grain yield among single and double treatments Single treatments yielded higher than double treatments Flow Single and double treatments yielded according to the desired targets.

27 Summary and Conclusions (cont) Deep treatments yielded higher than shallow treatments Evaporation rates Silking and tasseling matched better in the single deep treatments Better pollination Factors that will affect yield in the treatments are: Roots depth, texture and water holding capacity Management = success

28 Contribu7ons Renee Lafitte Eduardo Traut Neil Hausmann Andres Reyes Herb Millang Heriberto Heredia Woodland operations team Acknowledgment Thanks to Pioneer Hi- bred for their support in this work