Conducting Sound On- Farm Research Dr. Pierce A. Paul The Ohio State University/OARDC Department of...

Conducting Sound On-Conducting Sound On-Farm ResearchFarm Research

Dr. Pierce A. Paul The Ohio State University/OARDC

Department of Plant Pathology

2013 Agronomic Crops In-Service

OutlineOutlineDesigning an On-Farm Trial

Experimental design• CRD, RCBD, Split-plot• Data Analysis• Interpreting Results

Case Study – Fungicide Effect on YieldField trials

• Analyzing data and interpreting resultsBaseline yield and foliar disease effectEconomic analysis


Experimental Design and Layout


Research QuestionDecide on treatments and check(s)

o Non-”treated” check

o Universal resistant/susceptible variety/hybrid

Experimental design and layout

oReplication (n) and randomization

Data Collection and analysis

Interpretation of results

Presentation of findings

Designing An On-Farm TrialDesigning An On-Farm Trial

Experimental Design, Experimental Design, Measurement ScaleMeasurement Scale

• 1-way• 2-way factorial• Split plot• Repeated measures

• Continuous• Discrete (count)• Binary (0, 1)• Ordinal (ordered

categories)

Layouts Measurement scales

The experiment design and measurement scale affect the type of analysis that can and should be done.


One-way Layout One-way Layout Complete Randomized Design

C_3 B_2 A_2 C_1 A_3 B_1 C_2 A_1 B_3


One-way Layout One-way Layout Randomized Complete Block Design

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

A_1 B_1 C_1 A_2 C_2 B_2 C_3 A_3 B_3




Left Side Right Side

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Field 101 - Snyder Farm Wooster, Ohio

SR25

0

GradientCenter-left Center-right



Left Side Center-left Center-right Right Side

Field 101 - Snyder Farm Wooster, Ohio

SR25

0

Gradient



Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Wooster

Van Wert

Defiance

Columbus



Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Chec

k

Trea

ted

Wooster 2003

Wooster 2004

Wooster 2010

Wooster 2012



What are Blocks (blocking factors)?Locations within a field

o Soil type, moisture gradient, Microclimate

etc.

Varieties/hybrids within a field

Fields within a county/state/country

Time - Year/Growing season

Combinations of the aboveUniformity/homogeneity within blocks

Two factors (treatments)Variety (three levels)

o Green, Red and BlueFungicide (three levels)o Check, horizontal, and verticalNINE treatment combinations

ONE BLOCK OF AN EXPERIMENT

FIELD EXPERIMENT

Two-way FactorialTwo-way Factorial


65 ft

30 ft30 ft

15 ft

ONE BLOCK OF AN EXPERIMENT

FIELD EXPERIMENT

Split-plot LayoutSplit-plot Layout

Two factors (treatments)Variety (three levels)

o Green, Red and BlueFungicide (three levels)o Check, horizontal, and verticalNINE treatment combinations


Split-plot Data Analysis Split-plot Data Analysis

What if I did not realize or ignored the fact that the experiment was a split plot

proc mixed data=Demo; title2 'Incorrect model specification'; class Variety Block Fungicide; model Yield = Variety Fungicide Variaty*Fungicide;run;

I know that the experiment was a split plotproc mixed data=Demo; title2 'Correct model specification'; class Variety Block Fungicide; model Yield = Variety Fungicide Variaty*Fungicide; random Block(Variety);run;


Effect DF DF F Value Pr > FVariety 3 8 1.94 0.2015Fungicide 3 24 3.39 0.0345Variety*Fungicide 9 24 0.81 0.6125

Effect DF DF F Value Pr > FVariety 3 32 4.78 0.0073Fungicide 3 32 1.73 0.1797Variety*Fungicide 9 32 0.41 0.9178

What if I did not realize or ignored the fact that the experiment was a split plot

Split-plot Data Analysis Split-plot Data Analysis

I know that the experiment was a split plot


Inter-plot InterferenceInter-plot Interference

SpraySpray How do we deal with it? Leave untreated strip (border)

between plots

Leave wide space between

plots

Remove outer rows and collect

data on center rows only

Adjust the spray boom?

SEEK HELP:BEFORE you conduct your experiment, not after you

collect data!!

Presenting and Interpreting Results


Treatments

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Check

Gra

in Y

ield

(b

u/A

cre)

176

178

180

182

184

Interpreting Graphs Interpreting Graphs


Treatments

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Check

Gra

in Y

ield

(b

u/A

cre)

0

50

100

150

200



Treatments

Check Treatment 1 Treatment 2

Gra

in Y

ield

(b

u/a

cre)

0

50

100

150

200

250 B A B A



Trial Location

South Charleston Apple Creek Wooster

Per

cen

t Y

ield

Incr

ease

Ove

r th

e C

hec

k

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

(Check 230 bu/Acre) (Check 180 bu/Acre) (Check 150 bu/Acre)



Trial Location

South Charleston Apple Creek Wooster

Yie

ld In

crea

se o

ver

the

Ch

eck

(bu

/Acr

e)

0

5

10

15

20

25

(Check 230 bu/Acre) (Check 180 bu/Acre) (Check 150 bu/Acre)


A CASE STUDY: Corn Yield Response to Foliar

Fungicides

Widely Marketed Fungicides for field corn


Evaluating Yield ResponseEvaluating Yield Response

Cost and Benefits of using foliar fungicides


IntroductionIntroduction

Why use foliar fungicides (Benefits)? Disease control Yield increase

o Disease control without yield increaseo Yield increase with little or no disease

Cost of using foliar fungicide Financial - Product and application costs

o Benefits do not always offset costs Fungicide resistance

o Loss of efficacy against diseases

In 2006-2007 ~ 1.6 million acres sprayed

Application Cost: $23.00= $36,800,000.00

Corn price: $3.30/buBreakeven: 7bu/A



Concerns/Questions Increased production cost

Fungicide resistance concerns

Environment, health and safety concerns

Yield and economic benefits of foliar fungicides Is there a positive yield response? Under what conditions is a positive response most likely? Is the response sufficient to offset application cost?




Raw data from fungicide research and on-farm trials Data from published foliar fungicide trials

Fungicide and Nematicide Tests (F&N Tests) Plant Disease Management Reports (PDMR)

A total of 212 studies from 14 states (RCBD) 187 as raw data and 25 as F&N/PDMR summaries

Fungicides (3-6 replicate blocks) Headline (23.6% pyraclostrobin ) Stratego (11.4% propiconazole + 11.4% trifloxystrobin) Quilt (7% azoxystrobin + 11.7% propiconazole) Quadris (22.9% azoxystrobin)

Foliar fungicide trials



Evaluating Yield ResponseEvaluating Yield ResponseFoliar fungicide trials – Average Yield

250

150

200220

180200

290

150160

YieldDiff (D) = YieldTreated − YieldCheck

2i

2ii

ii

sσ1

w , w

DwD

+==

∑∑

Meta-analysis: Essentially a method of obtaining weighted averages of yield difference

A measure of fungicide effect on yield

Research Synthesis – Integrating Results



Variable Yield Response to Foliar Variable Yield Response to Foliar FungicidesFungicides

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100105110115120125130135140145150155160165170

Yie

ld d

iffe

ren

ce (

bu

sh

els/

A)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

An = 172Headline

Bn = 72Stratego

Dn = 25Quadris

Study number (sorted)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Cn = 61Quilt

2013 Agronomic Crops In-ServiceTrial

0 10 20 30 40 50

Yie

ld D

iffe

ren

ce (

bu

/A)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Mean Yield Response to Foliar Mean Yield Response to Foliar FungicidesFungicides

Headline Stratego Quilt Quadris

Yie

ld d

iffe

ren

ce (

D, b

ush

els/

acre

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

D = 4.08P = <0.001

D = 6.22P = <0.001

D = 5.27P = 0.001

D = 3.67P = 0.036


Why such high variability?Why such high variability?

Different

Disease (pest) pressure

Soil type (fertility)

Weather conditions

Hybrid

Yield potential and Resistance

Other factors 2013 Agronomic Crops In-Service

Why such high variability?Why such high variability?

1.Weather2.Nitrogen3.Hybrid - Genetics4.Previous crop5.Plant Population6.Tillage7.Growth Regulator

- StrobilurinsFrom Dr. Fred Below,

http://cropsci.illinois.edu/directory/fbelow

http://cropsci.illinois.edu/directory/fbelow

Trials grouped by yield

Less than 145 bu/A Between 145 and 190 bu/A Greater than 190 bu/A

Hybrid Baseline Yield EffectHybrid Baseline Yield Effect

Baseline (actual) yield affected by:

Genetics Soil and Weather conditions - fertility Pest and disease pressure


Hybrid Baseline Yield EffectHybrid Baseline Yield Effect

YLD_>190 bu/A

YLD_145-190 bu/A

YLD_< 145 bu/A

OverallHeadline(n = 172)

(n = 57)

(n = 61)

(n = 54)

Mean Yield Difference (D, bu/A)-5 0 5 10 15 20

YLD_>190 bu/A

YLD_<190 bu/A

Overall

Quilt(n = 61)

(n = 28)

(n = 33)

Stratego(n = 72)

(n = 18)

(n = 17)

(n = 37)

-5 0 5 10 15 20

(n = 25)

(n = 12)

(n = 13)

Quadris


Trials grouped by Ear Leaf Disease Severity (GLS, NCLB, Rust) at R4/R5

Less than 5% Severity Greater than 5% Severity

Foliar Diseases Affect:

Crop Growth and Development Green leaf area - photosynthesis Stalk strength Effect depends on disease level

Foliar Disease EffectFoliar Disease Effect


Foliar Disease EffectFoliar Disease Effect

No Dis Data

DIS_> 5%

DIS_< 5%

Overall(n = 172)

(n = 65)

(n = 36)

(n = 67)

Headline (n = 72)

(n = 28)

(n = 31)

(n = 12)

Stratego

-5 0 5 10 15 20

No Dis Data

DIS_> 5%

DIS_< 5%

Overall(n = 61)

(n = 15)

(n = 22)

(n = 20)

Quilt

Mean Yield Difference (D, bu/A)

-5 0 5 10 15 20

(n = 26)

(n = 7)

(n = 14)

(n = 5)

Quadris

9.67 bu

3.3 bu


/)( Bbe YLDDp

What is the chance (probability) of the yield response being sufficient to cover the cost of

fungicide application?

Chance of Recovering Fungicide Chance of Recovering Fungicide and Application Costand Application Cost

Breakeven yield

Average yield

difference2013 Agronomic Crops In-Service

52.6/)3.63.3( bep


If application cost is $25/acre andGrain price is $4/bushelThen, YLDB = 6.3 bushels

When Disease < 5%D = 3.30 bu/A

When Disease > 5%D = 9.67 bu/A

52.6/)3.667.9( bep

33.0bep 70.0bep




Chan

ce o

f bre

akev

en

Grain price $4/bu vs. $7/bu



Chan

ce o

f bre

akev

en

Disease < 5% vs. > 5%



Chan

ce o

f bre

akev

en

Grain price $7/bu + Disease > 5%

Grain price $4/bu + Disease < 5%



GLS < 5%

Application Cost ($/Acre)

15 20 25 30 35 40

Pro

bab

ility

of

bre

ak e

ven

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

$2/bu $3/bu $4/bu $5/bu $6/bu $7/bu

GLS >5%

Application Cost ($/Acre)

15 20 25 30 35 40



$3 $5 $7 $3 $5 $7

Ch

ance

of

Rec

ove

rin

g C

ost

(%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Foliar Disease < 5% Foliar Disease > 5%


OKAY!!!

IS THERE AN APP FOR THIS STUFF?

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

L. V. Madden, The Ohio State University/OARDC C. A. Bradley, University of IllinoisA. E. Robertson, Iowa State UniversityP. D. Esker, University of Wisconsin G. P. Munkvold, Iowa State University G. Shaner, Purdue UniversityK. A. Wise, Purdue UniversityD. K. Malvick, University of MinnesotaT. W. Allen, Mississippi State University/DREC•Grybauskas, University of MarylandP. Vincelli, University of Kentucky


AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

• We gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the financial support for this project from: (1) USDA-NIFA Project No. 2008-34103-19449 (“Development of IPM-Based Corn Fungicide Guidelines for the North Central States”) and (2) USDA-NIFA Project No. 2009-51101-05820 (“Sustainable Disease Management on Field Corn in the U.S. Corn Belt”)


Conducting Sound On- Farm Research Dr. Pierce A. Paul The Ohio State University/OARDC Department of...

Documents

Transcript of Conducting Sound On- Farm Research Dr. Pierce A. Paul The Ohio State University/OARDC Department of...