Soybean Seed Yield Tillage Yield Yield Yield /8/2016. Soybean Productivity on Raised Seedbeds

Transcription

1 Soybean Productivity on Raised Seedbeds Soybean Research Update Hans Kandel, Extension Agronomist Soybean Productivity on Raised Seedbeds Soybean Productivity on Raised Seedbeds Evaluate soybean yield and response when grown on raised seedbeds compared with conventional tillage in flat land areas prone to soil water logging. Tillage Yield 0 Yield 03 Yield 04 Bu/acre Bu/acre Bu/acre Flat Raised bed LSD NS.0.8 Soybean Productivity on Raised Seedbeds Averaged across 5 locations. Averaged across 3 locations: tile and no tile in Fargo, and Casselton.

2 Soybean Stand, Vigor and Yield Tillage Stand Vigor Yield 3 4 Raised Bed Study, No Tile and Tiled Plant/acre ( 9) [ 9= best] Bu/acre Flat 05,650b 4.4b 40.4b Raised bed 34,050a 5.9a 43.0a Averaged across 6 environments: tile and no tile in Fargo, and Casselton Summary Study Tile 6.3 % higher than no tile, including two dry years. Summary Study Tile 6.3 % higher than no le, including two dry years. Raised Beds: Higher plant density, higher vigor score, taller plants, resulting in 6.4 % yield advantage. Conceptual framework: yield potential, farm yield, and yield gaps Crop Yield (Mg/ha) Determined by: Light Temperature Carbon dioxide Cultivar choice Yield gap Limited by: Water Poor Fertility Insects, weeds diseases Poor management Yield Potential Farm yield Modified from van Ittersum and Rabbinge (997)

3 Soybean yield (bu/ac) Example: Yield and Planting Date in Nebraska Dashed line indicates the fitted boundary function using quantile regression Southern Nebraska Northern Nebraska Boundary function Boundary function 80 slope = -/ bu / ac / day 80 slope = -3/4 bu / ac / day Irrigated 0 Each data point represents Dryland an individual field year May May May SOUTH NORTH observation Planting date (days after May st ) Grassini et al., Field Crops Research (05) Visual Ratings for Iron Deficiency Chlorosis (Dr. T. Helms) Iron Chlorosis score 4 Iron Chlorosis score 5 Source: Dr. Jay Goos CLICK HERE 3

4 Table NDSU Roundup Ready Soybean Iron-deficiency Chlorosis Trial 3-site 3-site Mean Mean Company Variety IDC Company Variety IDC LS- Dyna-Gro S008RY43.4 Legacy 065RR.7 Channel 005R.4 Mustang REA 6G.4 Mustang Hefty H007Y.5 Mycogen 5B0R.7 IDC score: green, 5 dead tissue IDC Visual Score 05, 57 Entries IDC score was -5 scale with -green, 5- dead. Table 5 RR IDC Trial 05 IDC 05 Seed Yield Company Brand Variety Maturity Score Hunter Leonard Average (date) ( 5) (bu/a) Asgrow AG / Integra 0775N 9/ Dyna gro S08RY76 9/ Syngenta NKS09 V8 9/ Table 5 RR IDC Trial 05 IDC 05 Seed Yield Company Brand Variety Maturity Score Hunter Leonard Average (date) ( 5) (bu/a) Asgrow AG / Integra 0775N 9/ Dyna gro S08RY76 9/ Syngenta NKS09 V8 9/ IDC and Yield NDSU Trial 05 IDC and Yield NDSU Trial 05 Bushel per acre Bushel per acre IDC: green, 5 dead tissue IDC: green, 5 dead tissue 4

5 Seeding Date, Maturity, and Location influence on Soybean Yield (Dr. B. Johnson) Six seeding dates from May 3 to July 0 (about 0 day intervals) Three maturity groups 00.9, 0.7,.4 Locations: Carrington, Prosper, and Lisbon Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 5

6 Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Carrington 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Prosper 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Prosper 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Prosper 04 Soybean Yield in bu/a Prosper 04 6

7 Soybean Yield in bu/a Prosper 04 Soybean Establishment Studies, CREC, 0-: SEED YIELD WITH EARLY PLANTING DATES bushels/a * * 37.6 * early normal 0 0 Carrington 0 Carrington 0 New Rockford 0 Wishek 0 May 5/9 Apr 30/May 5 May /7 Apr 4/May 6 Extension Publication A78 7

8 87% 8% 87% 8% Bushel per acre 05 Soybean Density Study in Minot R² = Established plant density plants/ acre Source Minot REC 8

9 Row Spacing Yield 008- /acre Row Spacing Yield 008- /acre 4 inch 49.9a inch 48.5b 485 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds 4 inch 49.9a inch 48.5b 485 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds Planting Rate Yield 008- /acre Live seeds/acre 50, b , a 43 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds Planting Rate Yield 008- /acre Live seeds/acre 50, b , a 43 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds 9

10 Planting Rate Yield 008- $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds /acre Live seeds/acre 50, b , a 43 Foliar Inputs Yield 008- /acre Yes 50.3a 466 No 48.b 48 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds; $5/a application and $3 foliar input cost. Foliar Inputs Yield 008- /acre Foliar Inputs Yield 008- /acre Yes 50.3a 466 No 48.b 48 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds; $5/a application and $3 foliar input cost. Yes 50.3a 466 No 48.b 48 $0/bu market price and $0.30/,000 seeds; $5/a application and $3 foliar input cost. 0

11 Nodulation Problems Old source of inoculum- Seed mixing and handling Seed treatments can hinder- Depends on Fungicide Root rot problems Wet, saturated soils High ph or high in salts Cold soils Dry soils Carrington REC commercial soybean seed inoculant yield compared with untreated check The Carrington REC The 3-year average shows a significant. bushel per acre and a 0.9% protein advantage with inoculation compared with the untreated check. The inoculant average for each year includes numerous inoculation treatments. The majority of trials were conducted on ground without prior soybean production. Source: Greg Endres, Carrington REC. Within years a significant difference is indicated with a *. Soybean yield response to seed inoculation with prior production history, Wishek, 4-year average (00, 0-3 and 05)* Soybean Yield With and Without N, * 4% increase Bu per acre *One year between soybean production; granular inoculant Source: Greg Endres

12 Soybean Response to Nitrogen Inputs under Tile Drained Conditions Measurements taken Stand count Early and late vigor score IDC score Visual greenness score Plant height Yield Soybean IDC across varieties N applied IDC Lbs/acre ( 5) [ = green 5 = dead tissue] 0 (control).d 5 5(as urea) split.6b 50 (as urea).8a 50 (as ESN).3c 50 (as urea) at R.d 75 (as urea).9a Soybean IDC across varieties N applied IDC Lbs/acre ( 5) [ = green 5 = dead tissue] 0(control).d 5 5(as urea) split.6b 50 (as urea).8a 50 (as ESN).3c 50 (as urea) at R.d 75 (as urea).9a Soybean IDC across varieties N applied IDC Lbs/acre ( 5) [ = green 5 = dead tissue] 0(control).d 5 5(as urea) split.6b 50 (as urea).8a 50 (as ESN).3c 50 (as urea) at R.d 75 (as urea).9a LSD=.05 0 lb/ac 50 Emergence 04 NW soybean N treatment yield (bu/ac) c ab ab b a ab R 5 lb/ac 5 50 lb/ac ESN Emergence 3 Emergence

13 Soybean Yield across varieties N applied Yield Lbs/acre Bu/acre 0 (control) 4.8b 5 5(as urea) split 45.3a 50 (as urea) 45.0a 50 (as ESN) 44.3a 50 (as urea) at R 44.a 75 (as urea) 45.a Means in column with different letter are significantly different at P 0.0. Soybean Yield across varieties N applied Yield Lbs/acre Bu/acre 0(control) 4.8b 5 5(as urea) split 45.3a 50 (as urea) 45.0a 50 (as ESN) 44.3a 50 (as urea) at R 44.a 75 (as urea) 45.a Means in column with different letter are significantly different at P 0.0. Soybean Yield over 5 N Rates, 05 Soybean Yield over 5 N Rates, 05 Yield (bu/a) N Rate (lbs/a) Yield (bu/a) Increased yield did not pay for additional fertilizer cost N Rate (lbs/a) N application and Nodulation, 05 N(as Urea) In lb/acre Nodules Percent large nodules O 4 45 N application and Nodulation, 05 N(as Urea) In lb/acre Nodules per root Percent large nodules O

14 N application and Nodulation, 05 N(as Urea) In lb/acre Nodules per root Percent large nodules O N application and Nodulation, 05 N(as Urea) In lb/acre Nodules per root Percent large nodules O 4a 45a 5 30b 5b 50 6b 8b Conclusions N application Fertilizer N application increased IDC. N application decreased nodulation Yields increased modestly 4% (009 ) 5% (03 04) and 6% {with 75 lb N} in 05. No N treatments provided a positive net return compared with the control. 4