Table 1. Cultural practices and site description for studies in 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Similar documents
Evaluating Corn Row Spacing and Plant Population in thetexas Panhandle

Effect of Crop Stand Loss and Spring Nitrogen on Wheat Yield Components. Shawn P. Conley

Evaluation of Foliar-Applied Insecticides in Soybean

2001 Texas Panhandle Irrigated Sorghum SilageTrial

Effect of Crop Stand Loss and Spring Nitrogen on Wheat Yield Components. Shawn P. Conley Cropping Systems Specialist University of Missouri, Columbia

EVALUATION OF COMMON BEAN GERMPLASM COLLECTED FROM THE NEGLECTED POCKETS OF NORTHWEST PAKISTAN AT KALAM (SWAT)

CORN & SOYBEAN AGRONOMY UPDATES. Angela McClure December 2015

Bruce Potter, Jeff Irlbeck and Jodie Getting, University of Minnesota Department of Entomology and Southwest Research and Outreach Center

ARKANSAS WHEAT Jason Kelley - Wheat and Feed Grains Extension Agronomist September 13, 2017

SPRING FEED & MALT BARLEY & SPRING OATS VARIETY TRIAL DATA

2018 Soybean Planting Date x Variety Trial

Wheat Variety Trials in the Texas Panhandle. Brent Bean 1

THE PRODUCTION OF SORGHUM IN WATER- RESTRICTED CROP SYSTEMS IN THE USA

United States Department of Agriculture. Executive Summary 8:30 AM NOVEMBER 9, 2011

Peanut Irrigation/Precision Agriculture Study at AG-CARES. Lamesa, Texas 2002.

University of Illinois Crop Sciences Department ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF FUNGICIDES ON CORN YIELD AND DISEASE

Introduction. Materials and Methods

Final Report to Delaware Soybean Board

2015 SOYBEAN VARIETY TRIAL REPORT ROUNDUP READY, CONVENTIONAL AND LIBERTYLINK VARIETY TRIALS

Top Strip-Till Practices for Corn and Soybean

EVALUATION OF COVER CROP TERMINATION METHODS IN CORN PRODUCTION

OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE CORN PERFORMANCE TRIALS, 2007

Cover Crops Strategies After Short Season Crops

WEED CONTROL AND CROP RESPONSE WITH OPTION HERBICIDE APPLIED IN FIELD CORN

Do Winter Canola Hybrids and Open-Pollinated Varieties Respond Differently to Seeding Rate?

daily water use Practically Heat Stress weakened

2012 Organic Soybean Variety Trial

Risk vs. Reward: Can We Resolve Row Spacing and Seeding Rate Questions in Soybean?

2008 Vermont Food Grade Soybean Performance Trial Results

RURAL CONSERVATION CLUBS PROGRAM CHARING CROSS CONSERVATION CORPORATION "Manure Management in High Residue Applications" FINAL REPORT

Purpose and Introduction:

2008 Vermont Food Grade Soybean Performance Trial Results

OKLAHOMA CORN PERFORMANCE TRIALS, 2009

THE 2014 OHIO SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIALS

OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE CORN PERFORMANCE TRIALS, 2005

Fertilizer Placement Options Demonstration

The Amazing 2018 Soybean Season: Lessons for ISA Webinar

Corn Variety Trial 2012, Pershing County

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profi t Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Crop Enterprises

2015 Tillage Radish Planting Date x Seeding Rate Trial

Carinata Fit into SE Cropping Systems

2016 Virginia Grain Sorghum Performance Tests

Foliar Nitrogen Fertilization of Irrigated Maize University of Nebraska South Central Agricultural Laboratory

ARKANSAS CORN AND GRAIN SORGHUM PROMOTION BOARD PROGRESS REPORT - November 2008

2007 ARKANSAS CORN AND GRAIN SORGHUM RESEARCH VERIFICATION PROGRAM

On-Farm Comparison Results Mulliken

Success With Cover Crops

Agronomy notes. Greg Schwab, Lloyd Murdock, Jim Herbek, Chad Lee, and David Van Sanford

OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE CORN PERFORMANCE TRIALS, 2008

2017 Soybean Planting Date x Variety Trial

2005 New Kent Wheat Strip Trial L. C. Davis Sons, New Kent

Non-irrigated Irrigated Difference. Early 27.1 bushels per acre 33.8 bushels per acre 6.7 bushels per acre

Evaluation of Fertilizer Additives for Enhanced Nitrogen Efficiency in Corn. Final Project Report (2013 and 2014)

Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Variety Trial 2012

INFLUENCE OF NOZZLE PLACEMENT ON CORN GRAIN YIELD, SOIL MOISTURE AND RUNOFF UNDER CENTER PIVOT IRRIGATION

Broadleaf Herbicides. Rotation Restrictions

CRDP FINAL Report Understanding Nitrogen Dynamics in Cabbage April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015

PERFORMANCE OF AROMATIC RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.) VARIETIES AND THEIR F 1 HYBRIDS UNDER LOWLAND AND UPLAND ENVIRONMENTS

RESPONSE OF DRILLED EARLY CORN TO SEVERAL PLANT POPULATIONS

CROP ADVANCES Field Crop Reports

Limited Water Options For Tough Times. Joel P. Schneekloth Regional Water Specialist Colorado State University

MISSISSIPPI SOYBEAN PROMOTION BOARD PROJECT NO (YEAR 2) 2013 Annual Report

Split N Application for Corn and Wheat: Where, When, How and What to Expect

Effects of Twin-Row Spacing on Corn Silage Growth Development and Yield in the Shenandoah Valley

DOES GLYPHOSATE PLUS STAPLE OR ENVOKE APPLIED TOPICALLY TO ROUNDUP READY COTTON IMPACT FRUIT SET OR SEED YIELD?

High Rainfall Canola Production Strategies

Table 1. Application timing, plant stages, environmental conditions Date 5/5 5/25 6/1 6/12 Treatment POST II (C) PRE (A) POST I (B)

Alfalfa Weed Control Options

COMPARISON OF SDI AND SIMULATED LEPA SPRINKLER IRRIGATION FOR CORN

Arkansas Corn and Grain Sorghum News

Demonstrating Inoculant Requirements and Foliar Fungicide Effects on Soybeans Project # ADOPT 2015

Effect of a rye cover crop and crop residue removal on corn nitrogen fertilization

2015 South Dakota Sorghum Variety Trial Results

Replicated Dryland Transgenic Cotton Variety Demonstration

Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Trials TX. Submitted: March 2015

Drilled Soybeans in Missouri

Trends for Arkansas Field Crop Yields, AG-1299

Objectives: Background:

WEED CONTROL IN TOMATOES RESEARCH RESULTS 2009 PREPARED BY DARREN ROBINSON, RIDGETOWN COLLEGE FOR THE ONTARIO TOMATO RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Incorporating Annual Forages into Crop-Forage-Livestock Systems

ECONOMICS OF WEED CONTROL AND NITROGEN RATE DECISIONS FOR CORN

THE 2016 OHIO SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIALS

Rick Mascagni and Kylie Cater

2014 Executive Summary

Response of Sunflower to Deficit Irrigation

UTILITY OF POLYMER-COATED UREA AS A FALL-APPLIED N FERTILIZER OPTION FOR CORN AND WHEAT

Grain producers often express concern

2010 Vermont Organic Grain Corn Performance Trial Results

Bourgault Agronomy Trials March 13, 2017 Bourgault Industries Ltd Curtis de Gooijer PAg, CCA

UC-ANR 2017 Field Research on Sorghum Grain Hybrids for California

CORN AND SOYBEAN UPDATES FOR Angela McClure Corn and Soybean Specialist

sorghum MISSOURI CROP PERFORMANCE Wiebold, Mason, Knerr, Schwab, Schelp, Stanek, Grissum and Cravens MU Variety Testing Program January 2017

Site and application information. 1 of 10 8/5/2010 8:46 AM. Trial: SBAseedearl, SBAseedlate

High-Yielding Soybean: Genetic Gain Fertilizer Nitrogen Interaction

CROP ADVANCES Field Crop Reports

Making Better Decisions

CORN & SOYBEAN AGRONOMIC UPDATES. Angela McClure December 2014

WATER SUPPLY & DEMAND DAN KRIEG CROP PHYSIOLOGIST

RESULTS OF AGRONOMIC AND WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SOUTH CENTRAL MONTANA

RESULTS OF AGRONOMIC AND WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SOUTH CENTRAL MONTANA

Transcription:

Effect of and on Soybean Yield in the Texas High Plains Brent Bean, Extension Specialist; 806-359-5401, b-bean@tamu.edu Matt Rowland, Extension Assistant; 806-354-5821, m-rowland@tamu.edu Jonny Simmons, Roger Cassens, Erica Cox, Tommy Moore, Curtis Schwertner; Research Technicians at Bushland & Etter Summary On average the mid IV was the highest yielding soybean in two of three years. Coupling this variety with a planting date before the second week in June appears to be the best option for soybeans in the High Plains. Introduction Over the last few years producer interest in soybeans has broadened in the Texas High Plains. Producers are interested in soybeans as an alternative crop to corn or grain sorghum due to their ability to provide soil nitrogen, fewer insect pest problems, or to help clean up weedy fields by the use of Roundup Ready soybeans. Soybeans can be planted in a number of different schemes from an early planted full-season crop to a short-season crop behind winter wheat. Due to the relative inexperience of soybean producers in the High Plains, two questions usually arise pertaining to planting soybeans: What maturity group do I plant and when do I plant it? Therefore, a three year study was implemented to attempt to answer these questions. Materials and Methods Beginning in 1999 studies were conducted to evaluate six different soybean maturity groups planted on five different dates. In 1999 the study was conducted near Bushland on the Texas Ag Experiment Station. In 2000 and 2001 the studies were conducted near Etter on the North Plains Research Field. The maturity groups were a mid III, late III, early IV, mid IV, late IV, and mid V. The same Pioneer varieties were planted each year for consistency, though in 2001 the mid III and mid V varieties were changed due to availability. Targeted dates of planting for each year were May 1, May 15, June 1, June 15, and July 1. Actual planting dates may have varied slightly due to weather or other circumstances. All studies were designed as a randomized block and statistical analysis was performed using a two-factor (planting date by maturity group) analysis of variance. Cultural practices and specifics for each study are listed in table 1. Harvesting dates varied in each study due to the various maturity groups and planting dates. Table 1. Cultural practices and site description for studies in 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Site Description 1999 2000 2001 Location Bushland; TAES Etter; NPRF Etter; NPRF Soil Type Pullman Silty Clay Loam; ph 7.1; OM 1.1 Sherman Silty Clay Loam; ph 8.0; OM 1.4 Sherman Silty Clay Loam; ph 8.0; OM 1.4 Plot Description 7.5' by 100'; 3 reps 30' by 150'; 3 reps 30' by 150'; 3 reps Row Spacing 30 inches 30 inches 30 inches Planter JD 1700 MaxEmerge Plus JD 7100 MaxEmerge JD 1700 MaxEmerge Plus Varieties (early to late) 93B51, 9396, 94B01, 94B81, 9492, 95B41 93B51, 9396, 94B01, 94B81, 9492, 95B41 93B53, 9396, 94B01, 94B81, 9492, 95B53 Actual Planting Dates May 11, May 25, June 8, June 28, July 7 May 5, May 19, June 2, June 15, July 5 May 8, May23, June 6, June 19, July 3 Seeding Rate 120,000 sds/ac 150,000 sds/ac 150,000 sds/ac Herbicides Roundup post @ 1.0 qt/ac Inoculation Nitragin granular; 5 lbs/ac in-furrow Treflan ppi @ 1.5 pt/ac; Roundup post @ 1.0 qt/ac Nitragin granular; 6.5 lbs/ac in-furrow Treflan ppi @ 1.5 pt/ac; Roundup post @ 1.0 qt/ac Nitragin granular; 6.5 lbs/ac in-furrow Irrigation (furrow), Amount (in) All dates received 15 inches total, Amount (in) May 5, 15.7 May 19, 15.9 June 2, 8.2 June 15, 9.9 July 5, 9.9, Amount (in) May 8, 14.0 May 23, 14.0 June 6, 14.0 June 19, 10.5 July 3, 10.5 Rainfall 13.4 inches total (May - October) 10.95 inches total (May - November) 9.49 inches total (May - October) Harvest Dates October 11 & 26 Sep 21, Oct 2, Nov 21 October 3 & 22

Results and Discussion 1999. Variety selection (maturity group) did not have a significant effect on yield, nor was there an interaction between variety and planting date. However, planting date had a significant effect on yield regardless of the variety planted (Table 2). There was only a 2.4 bushel difference in average yield between soybeans planted on May 11 and June 8. However, between June 8 and June 28 there was a 9.1 bu/acre drop in yield followed by another 6 bu/acre drop when planted on July 7. This data would suggest that no appreciable loss in yield would be expected as long as soybeans are planted prior to June 8. Although this was true in 1999, this conclusion may not hold true in other years with different weather conditions. In 1999, May weather was unseasonably wet and cool. As a result soybeans did not grow well most of the month. If weather conditions would have been more normal soybeans would have likely benefitted from the earlier planting. In addition, there seemed to be some advantage in planting longer maturing soybeans (mid IV, late IV, and mid V) on May 11. This advantage may very well have been significant if better growing conditions had been present in May. There was no advantage in planting a short maturing variety late in the season. The mid IV soybean variety was the highest yielding variety when planted on June 8, June 28, and July 7. Table 2. 1999 soybean yield means (bu/ac) at Bushland. Variety May 11 May 25 June 8 June 28 July 7 93B51 Mid III 32.9 e-l 1 43.0 a-f 44.4 a-d 30.1 h-l 27.3 jkl 35.5 a 9396 Late III 37.9 a-j 35.4 c-k 45.1 abc 30.6 h-l 28.3 jkl 35.4 a 94B01 Early IV 37.2 b-j 49.1 a 43.7 a-e 33.1 d-l 29.0 i-l 38.4 a 94B81 Mid IV 42.7 a-f 39.8 a-i 46.2 abc 40.3 a-i 31.2 g-l 40.0 a 9492 Late IV 44.0 a-e 41.4 a-h 37.0 b-k 35.1 c-l 23.9 l 36.3 a 95B41 Mid V 47.2 ab 42.1 a-g 40.1 a-i 32.1 f-l 25.6 kl 37.5 a Average 3 40.3 a 41.8 a 42.7 a 33.6 b 27.6 c 1 - means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05. 2 - average across planting dates within each group. 3 - average across groups within each planting date. 2000. Both variety selection and planting date had significant impacts on yield in 2000. A significant interaction between varieties and planting date also existed. The significant interaction was largely due to inconsistency and generally poor results obtained with the group V soybean 95B41 (Table 3). Highest average yield of 35.9 bu/acre was obtained on the earliest planting date (May 5). For approximately every 14 days that planting was delayed from May 5 to June 15 yield was reduced an average of 3.7 bu/acre. Yield was reduced 7.7 bu/acre when planted on July 5 compared to June 15. Best yielding varieties across all planting dates were mid III, late III, and early IV varieties. This was likely due to the extremely dry, hot weather

experienced from July 1 through harvest. These weather conditions tended to favor the earlier maturing varieties. Trouble with an irrigation well late in the season may also have caused the later maturing varieties, especially when planted late, to not yield as well as they may have otherwise. In summary, with the weather conditions present in 2000, planting an early maturing variety as early as possible would have provided the best yield potential with the least amount of risk. Additionally, height to first pod was measured in 2000 (appendix table 5). Interestingly, the later the soybeans were planted, the lower on the plant the first pods were set. Also, the shorter maturing soybeans set pods lower on the plant. Though the majority of yield is found in the middle to lower part of the plant, pods too close to the ground can hinder efficient harvesting. Table 3. 2000 soybean yield means (bu/ac) at Etter. Variety May 5 May 19 June 2 June 15 July 5 93B51 Mid III 41.7 ab 1 38.9 abc 31.4 e-h 25.7 i-l 20.8 lmn 31.7 ab 9396 Late III 39.8 ab 40.1 ab 30.6 ghi 29.8 g-j 23.4 klm 32.7 a 94B01 Early IV 38.3 a-d 36.7 b-e 31.1 f-i 28.7 g-k 18.5 mn 30.6 ab 94B81 Mid IV 36.3 b-f 33.1 d-g 24.7 jkl 27.2 h-k 16.6 no 27.6 b 9492 Late IV 42.7 a 33.6 c-g 28.4 g-k 26.6 h-k 16.4 no 29.5 b 95B41 Mid V 16.7 no 5.7 q 17.3 no 11.9 op 8.1 pq 11.9 c Average 3 35.9 a 31.3 b 27.2 c 25.0 c 17.3 d 1 - means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05. 2 - average across planting dates within each group. 3 - average across groups within each planting date. 2001. In 2001 both planting date and maturity group had a significant effect on yield. There was also a significant planting date by maturity group interaction. The highest averaging yield of 28.6 bu/ac was obtained from the June 19 planting date (Table 4). The late IV group (9492) had the highest average yield among all groups at 27.5 bu/ac. In 2001 any group could be planted until May 23 with no significant difference in yield. If planting after the beginning of June it appeared that using a group later than a late IV would cause a reduction in yield. The mid V planted on July 3 in this study did not even have time to mature before the first killing freeze. On average in 2001, planting after June 19 appeared to cause a reduction in yield as did planting a group later than a late IV. Table 4. 2001 soybean yield means (bu/ac) at Etter.

Variety May 8 May 23 June 6 June 19 July 3 93B53 Mid III 22.3 h-k 1 21.7 jk 31.0 abc 29.3 a-e 21.3 jk 25.1 a 9396 Late III 24.0 e-k 22.3 h-k 27.3 a-i 32.3 a 26.3 b-j 26.5 a 94B01 Early IV 22.3 h-k 23.3 g-k 29.7 a-d 29.0 a-f 25.7 c-j 26.0 a 94B81 Mid IV 27.7 a-h 25.7 c-j 27.7 a-h 29.7 a-d 25.0 d-j 27.1 a 9492 Late IV 28.0 a-g 23.3 g-k 31.3 ab 32.7 a 22.0 ijk 27.5 a 95B53 Mid V 31.7 ab 21.7 jk 23.7 f-k 18.7 k 0.0 L 19.1 b Average 3 26.0 ab 23.0 bc 28.4 a 28.6 a 20.1 c 1 - means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05. 2 - average across planting dates within each group. 3 - average across groups within each planting date. 4 - no data was collected from this treatment; soybeans did not mature. Conclusions In two out of three years planting after the second week in June drastically reduced yields. In all years planting in July resulted in lower yields on average. When deciding on a maturity group it appears that conditions throughout the growing season will have a major impact on which one will perform best. In 1999 we saw that the longer maturing groups appeared to have an advantage while in 2000 the opposite was true. To make matters more confusing, in 2001 it appeared that you could just about plant any group any time of the year. Two out of three years the exception was the mid V soybean which did not perform well at all and can probably be ruled out for areas north of Amarillo. On average the mid IV was the highest yielding soybean in two of three years. Coupling this variety with a planting date before the second week in June appears to be a fail-safe option for soybeans in the High Plains. In spite of this, the data show that other options exist as well. Additionally, two out of three years the late III, early IV, and mid IV soybeans yielded better than the mid III when planted in July. This would suggest that there is no advantage to planting a maturity group shorter than a late III when planting late as would be the case behind wheat. The longer maturity groups should have a higher yield potential and will be less likely to set pods close to the ground which could make harvest difficult (Appendix Table 5).

Appendix Table 5. Soybean pod height in centimeters. 2000. Variety May 5 May 19 June 2 June 15 July 5 93B51 Mid III 5.3 j 1 6.0 j 6.7 ij 5.3 j 7.0 hij 6.1 d 9396 Late III 12.3 e-h 9.3 f-j 6.0 j 8.0 hij 7.0 hij 8.5 d 94B01 Early IV 8.0 hij 9.0 f-j 9.3 f-j 8.0 hij 12.0 e-i 9.3 c 94B81 Mid IV 18.7 cd 15.7 cde 15.3 cde 15.3 cde 11.7 e-i 15.3 b 9492 Late IV 14.0 d-g 13.7 d-g 14.3 c-f 8.7 g-j 5.0 j 11.1 c 95B41 Mid V 33.3 a 34.7 a 34.7 a 19.7 c 26.0 b 29.7 a Average 3 15.3 a 14.7 a 14.4 a 10.8 b 11.4 b 1 - means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05. 2 - average across planting dates within each group. 3 - average across groups within each planting date.