The Effect of Residue Management, Row Spacing, …...Six Kansas locations Randomized split block...
1
Six Kansas locations Randomized split block design with planting equipment as a split in each block and three replicates Plot size 9 m x 183 m Planted in wheat or corn residue Sept-3-2014 to Sept-22-2014 based on geographical area Producer at Andale, KS location burned residue prior to planting Producer treatments at Andale, KS John Deere 0.76-m row crop planter Producer preferred seeding rate Less 0.2 kg/ha of base rate Plus 0.2 kg/ha of base rate Cooperator preferred row spacing AGCO treatments at Andale, KS AGCO Corp. planter with innovative residue management system 0.5, 0.76-m row 250,000, 370,000, and 495,000 seeds/ha Fall and spring stands recorded in four, 1-m lengths of row per plot Winter survival was calculated as spring plant stand/fall plant stand Plots were swathed on June-21-2015 and combined on June-25-2015 using commercial equipment Data analyzed with PROC MIXED in SAS 9.2, α = 0.1 The Effect of Residue Management, Row Spacing, and Seeding Rate on Winter Canola Establishment and Survival B. Showalter 1 , K.L. Roozeboom 1 , S.J Dooley 1 , M.J Stamm 1 , and R. Figger 2 1 Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506 2 AGCO Corporation, Hesston, KS 67062 bc b a d c b e e de 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 *low med high low med high low med high plants/ha x 1000 AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing Fall plant densities were greater than targeted seeding rates a b c c c c b b b 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 low med high low med high low med high WS % Winter survival decreased with increasing seeding rate, perhaps due to greater plant-to-plant competition with greater seeding rates and wider row spacing AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing Introduction a abc abcd abcd d bcd abcd cd ab 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 low med high low med high low med high kg/ha Although non-uniform stand loss increased yield variability, yields were greatest in 0.5-m rows with reduced seeding rates and in producer treatments with highest seeding rate AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing a b c d d d d d d 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 low med high low med high low med high plants/ha x 1000 AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing Objectives Winter survival of canola (Brassica napus L.) is a major challenge for producers using high-residue no-tillage systems. Large amounts of crop residue left in the seed row elevates the plant crown above the soil surface, decreasing chances of winter survival. Planters equipped with residue management systems can be a means of mitigating the effect of residue on winter survival and yield. Determine the effect of row spacing and seeding density on stand establishment, winter survival, and yield. Compare AGCO Corps’ innovative residue management system to canola producers’ existing no-till residue management system. Materials and Methods Narrow row spacing paired with reduced seeding rates maximized winter survival and yield with the AGCO residue management system. AGCO residue management system with narrower row spacing and reduced seeding rates produced as good or better winter survival and yield when compared to producer residue burning practice. Canola planted with any residue management practice can be susceptible to winter kill if the plants are exposed to extreme weather events. Conclusions Figure 2. Fall plant stands at Andale, KS Figure 6. Percent winter survival at Andale, KS Figure 7. Grain yield at Andale, KS Figure 5. Spring stands Andale, KS *AGCO Low=247,000 Medium=371,000 High=494,000 seeds/ha *Farmer Low=415,000 Medium=465,000 High=539,000 seeds/ha Producer AGCO Results Results cont. Five of the six locations were abandoned due to a rapid drop in temperature occurring in November after a period of above- normal fall temperatures. AGCO residue management system effectively cleared standing wheat residue from the seed row Spring plant densities were greater in the 0.5-m rows and reflected increments noted in the fall plant densities Montezuma Concordia Kiowa Yoder Hesston Andale Figure 1. Wheat residue at Kiowa, KS Figure 3. Fall plant stands producer vs. AGCO at Andale, KS Figure 4. Spring plant stands at Kiowa, KS Vigorous fall growth in AGCO treatments
Transcript of The Effect of Residue Management, Row Spacing, …...Six Kansas locations Randomized split block...
Six Kansas locations
Randomized split block design with planting equipment as a
split in each block and three replicates
Plot size 9 m x 183 m
Planted in wheat or corn residue
Sept-3-2014 to Sept-22-2014 based on geographical area
Producer at Andale, KS location burned residue prior to
planting
Producer treatments at Andale, KS
John Deere 0.76-m row crop planter
Producer preferred seeding rate
Less 0.2 kg/ha of base rate
Plus 0.2 kg/ha of base rate
Cooperator preferred row spacing
AGCO treatments at Andale, KS
AGCO Corp. planter with innovative residue management system
0.5, 0.76-m row
250,000, 370,000, and 495,000 seeds/ha
Fall and spring stands recorded in four, 1-m lengths of row
per plot
Winter survival was calculated as spring plant stand/fall plant
stand
Plots were swathed on June-21-2015 and combined on
June-25-2015 using commercial equipment
Data analyzed with PROC MIXED in SAS 9.2, α = 0.1
The Effect of Residue Management, Row Spacing, and Seeding Rate on Winter Canola Establishment and Survival
B. Showalter1, K.L. Roozeboom1, S.J Dooley1, M.J Stamm1, and R. Figger2
1Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 665062AGCO Corporation, Hesston, KS 67062
bcb
a
d
cb
e e de
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
*low med high low med high low med high
pla
nts
/ha
x 1
00
0
AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing
Fall plant densities were greater thantargeted seeding rates
a
b
c cc c
bb b
0102030405060708090
100
low med high low med high low med high
WS
%
Winter survival decreased with increasing seedingrate, perhaps due to greater plant-to-plantcompetition with greater seeding rates and widerrow spacing
AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing
Introduction
a abc abcd abcdd bcd abcd cd
ab
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
low med high low med high low med high
kg/h
a
Although non-uniform stand loss increased yieldvariability, yields were greatest in 0.5-m rows withreduced seeding rates and in producer treatments withhighest seeding rate
AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing
ab
cd d d d d d
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
low med high low med high low med high
pla
nts
/ha
x 1
00
0
AGCO 0.5-m row spacing AGCO 0.76-m row spacing Producer 0.76-m row spacing
Objectives
Winter survival of canola (Brassica napus L.) is a major
challenge for producers using high-residue no-tillage
systems.
Large amounts of crop residue left in the seed row elevates
the plant crown above the soil surface, decreasing chances
of winter survival.
Planters equipped with residue management systems can be
a means of mitigating the effect of residue on winter survival
and yield.
Determine the effect of row spacing and seeding density on
stand establishment, winter survival, and yield.
Compare AGCO Corps’ innovative residue management
system to canola producers’ existing no-till residue
management system.
Materials and Methods
Narrow row spacing paired with reduced seeding rates
maximized winter survival and yield with the AGCO residue
management system.
AGCO residue management system with narrower row
spacing and reduced seeding rates produced as good or
better winter survival and yield when compared to producer
residue burning practice.
Canola planted with any residue management practice can be
susceptible to winter kill if the plants are exposed to extreme
weather events.
Conclusions
Figure 2. Fall plant stands at Andale, KS Figure 6. Percent winter survival at Andale, KS
Figure 7. Grain yield at Andale, KS
Figure 5. Spring stands Andale, KS
*AGCO Low=247,000 Medium=371,000 High=494,000 seeds/ha*Farmer Low=415,000 Medium=465,000 High=539,000 seeds/ha
Producer AGCO
Results Results cont.
Five of the six locations were abandoned due to a rapid drop in temperature occurring in November after a period of above-normal fall temperatures.
AGCO residue management system effectively cleared standing wheat residue from the seed row
Spring plant densities were greater in the 0.5-m rowsand reflected increments noted in the fall plantdensities
Montezuma
Concordia
Kiowa
YoderHesston
Andale
Figure 1. Wheat residue at Kiowa, KS
Figure 3. Fall plant stands producer vs. AGCO at Andale, KS
Figure 4. Spring plant stands at Kiowa, KS
Vigorous fall growth in AGCO treatments
