agronomy update meetingsagronomy update meetings corn...

Agronomy Update MeetingsAgronomy Update MeetingsCorn Observations For 2001

• Late planting was the majorLate planting was the major story.

• Window for corn planting in late April. Good shape if planted p p pbefore May 2. Wet and cool planting conditions during early May caused reduced stands.

• Late-planting and drought conditions for eastern WI reduced yields ~50%.

• Good yields with low moisture in• Good yields with low moisture in southern WI. Variable yield with higher than normal grain moisture in northern WI.

• Timing of silage harvest was ‘normal’.

• Uneven development within

Lauer, © 1994-2002University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

pfields.

University of Wisconsin

Corn Grain Hybrid Performance TrialsPerformance Trials

University of WisconsinUniversity of WisconsinCorn Agronomy ProgramAshland

Spooner

Chippewa FallsWhite Lake

Chippewa Falls

Marshfield Seymour

ValdersHancock

Galesville

Fond du LacFond du Lac

Arlington

JanesvilleLancaster

2001 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials -2001 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials Grain Summary

1991-2000 2001 PercentLocation N Yield N Yield ChangeArlington 1809 194 170 220 + 13Janesville 1809 184 170 219 + 19Lancaster 1809 177 170 185 + 5Fond du Lac 1592 169 155 156 - 5Galesville 1592 160 155 206 + 29Hancock 1591 181 155 214 + 13Chippewa Falls 1472 149 145 153 + 3Marshfield 1062 149 137 147 - 1Seymour 972 150 145 152 + 1Valders 1472 152 145 75 - 51Ashland 161 129 16 143 +11Spooner 1887 127 159 150 +18White Lake 630 94 53 100 + 6


Note: Seymour average includes New London 1991-1992.

Frequency of Specialty Hybrids YieldingFrequency of Specialty Hybrids Yielding Above Average in the 2001 WI Hybrid Trials

86100 Frequency above trial average

50

7266 70

cy (%

)

50 48 47 4433

4850

Freq

uenc

01998

(n=1611)1999

(n=1390)2000

(n=1361)2001

(n=1266)Bt

(n=261)Bt,LL

(n=74)Bt,RR (n=10)

IMI (n=12)

LL (n=7) RR (n=135)


Normal Dent

Computer Software for pChoosing Crop Varieties

http //corn.agronomy.wisc.edu


University of Wisconsin

Corn Silage Hybrid Performance Trials

2001 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials -2001 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials Silage Summary

1991 2000 2001 Percent1991-2000 2001 PercentLocation N Yield N Yield Change

T/A T/AArlington 463 9.5 75 10.5 + 11Lancaster 386 7.8 75 8.0 + 3

Fond du Lac 352 8.6 68 8.2 - 5Galesville 352 8 3 68 9 6 + 16Galesville 352 8.3 68 9.6 + 16

Marshfield 428 6.8 55 7.3 + 7Valders 387 6.7 57 4.1 - 39

Ashland 125 6 8 16 7 3 + 7Lauer, © 1994-2002

University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Ashland 125 6.8 16 7.3 + 7

D d il CRM?Do we need a silage CRM?

• RM historically based on grain moisture.• How would we assign RM values for corn silage?g g

Grain is not usually mature at silage harvestMilk2000 takes silage moisture into accountgUse kernel milkline?Use whole-plant silage moisture?p g


Average response of three corn hybrids toAverage response of three corn hybrids to cutting height at during 2001 at Arlington

100

105

(%)

Yield Milk per Ton Milk per Acre

95

100

axim

um

90

nt o

f ma

85

Perc

en

806 inches 24 inches

Cutting height


Cutting height

Corn hybrid dNDF (CWD) response to cuttingCorn hybrid dNDF (CWD) response to cutting height during 2001 at Arlington

50

526 inches 24 inches

48

WD

(%)

LSD(0.10)= 1.1

44

46

DF

or C

W

42

44

dND

40CF657 NK48V8 P35R57


Wh Sh ld T i l B R j t d?When Should Trials Be Rejected?

• Hi t i l f j ti t i l• Historical reasons for rejecting a trialDisturbance (biological or physical) that compromises the integrity of a trial.

• At Marshfield 46% of plots below ½ stand therefore rejectData analysis gives no evidence that hybrid means can be separated.separated.Some statistical measure suggests that a trial gives imprecise hybrid averages.

• Procedure• ProcedureCheck CVs to spot problem plots. Can we explain?Analysis of variance. Range must be within 3x of minimum.y g

• Criticism: Yield spread between top- and bottom-yielding hybrid.


Grain yield difference between highest andGrain yield difference between highest and lowest corn hybrid in UW trials since 1973

/A) number of trials= 535

Minimum difference = 23 bu/A - HAN73140

ence

(bu/

u d e e ce 3 bu/ 3Average difference = 68 bu/AMaximum difference = 165 bu/A - JAN96

100

d di

ffere

60

rain

yie

ld

202001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1994 1992 1992 1991 1990 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1981 1979 1977 1976 1973

Gr


2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1994 1992 1992 1991 1990 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1981 1979 1977 1976 1973

R d R d C H b id P fRound-up Ready Corn Hybrid Performance Evaluation in the U.S.

Joe LauerCorn Agronomist


Round-up Ready Corn PerformanceRound up Ready Corn Performance Evaluation - Background

• JustificationSome farmers perceive that herbicide resistant crops are

• ObjectivesTo determine if Round-up Ready genes suppress yieldherbicide resistant crops are

inherently lower yielding than conventional hybrids due to yield drag or yield

Ready genes suppress yieldTo determine the effect of Round-up Ultra on Round-

R d h b iddue to yield drag or yield lag.To develop a new model for

up Ready hybrids

testing corn hybrids quickly collecting meaningful unbiased data (Based on (the WAPAC model)

• No funding


M t i l d M th dMaterials and Methods

1999 H b id (GA21 t)1999 Hybrids (GA21 event):• Early DeKalb (94-106 RM):

DK448RR and DK448

1999 Herbicide StudyMP: Herbicide

• Round-up UltraDK493RR and DK493DK512RR and DK512DK566RR and DK566

Round up Ultra• Conventional herbicides

SP: RR Hybrids

• Medium DeKalb (108-112 RM): DK580RR and DK580DK626RR and DK626

• L t D K lb (114 RM)

2001 Hybrids (NK603 - CP4 EPSPS event):• Late DeKalb (114 RM)

DK642RR and DK642• NC+ (100, 107, 111 RM)

NC 2019R

EPSPS event):DKC39-45/ 47RRDKC46-26/ 28RRDKC53 7/ 33RRNC+2019R

NC+4339RNC+5029R

• Used conventional herbicides

DKC53-7/ 33RRDKC57-38/ 40RRDKC58-5/ 53RRDKC60 15/ 17RR


• Used conventional herbicides DKC60-15/ 17RR

M t i l d M th dMaterials and Methods

1999 Locations1. Arlington, WI2 Wooster OH

2001 Locations1. Arlington, WI2 North Platte NE2. Wooster, OH

3. Charleston, OH4. University Park, PA

2. North Platte, NE3. Lincoln, NE4. Columbia, MOy ,

5. Lamberton, MN6. Waseca, MN

,5. Novelty, MO6. Wooster, OH

7. Clay Center, NE8. Lincoln, NE9 North Platte NE

7. University Park, PA8. IA9 MI9. North Platte, NE 9. MI10.ND


Corn hybrid grain yield for conventional v. R d R d (GA21) i li t iRound-up Ready (GA21) isolines at nine

locations during 1999 180 Conventional isoline Round-up Ready

LSD= NS

170

(bu/

A)

in Y

ield

(

160

Gra

150Earl Medi m Late


Early Medium Late

Grain yield of RR corn hybrids (GA21) grown using ti l d R d h bi id t iconventional and Round-up herbicides at nine

locations during 1999C ti l h bi id R d Ult190 Conventional herbicide Round-up Ultra

LSD= NS

180

(bu/

A)

170

in Y

ield

(

160

Gra

150Earl DK Medi m DK Late DK NC+


Early DK Medium DK Late DK NC+

Corn hybrid grain yield for conventional v. R d R d (Nk603 t) i li t 10Round-up Ready (Nk603 event) isolines at 10

locations during 2001C ti l i li R d R d

160

170 Conventional isoline Round-up Ready

150

160

(bu/

A)

140in Y

ield

130

Gra

12039-45/ 47RR

46-26/ 28RR

53-7/ 33RR 57-38/ 40RR

58-5/ 53RR 60-15/ 17RR

Average


47RR 28RR 40RR 17RR

Corn grain yield for conventional versus R d R d i li V lRound-up Ready isolines. Values are

averaged across locations and hybrids.180 C ti l R d

170

180 Conventional Round-up NS

NS

160

(bu/

A)

NS

140

150

rain

Yie

ld

130

140

Gr

120Conventional hybrid isolines

versus hybrids of GA21 event -Conventional hybrid isolines

versus hybrids of Nk603 event GA21 hybrids tested in

conventional and Round-up


1999 - 2001 herbicide systems - 1999

Corn hybrid grain yield for conventional v. R d R d (Nk603 t) i liRound-up Ready (Nk603 event) isolines

during 2001 in WisconsinC ti l i li R d R d

220

230 Conventional isoline Round-up Ready

200

210

d (b

u/A

)

180

190

ain

Yiel

d

160

170Gra

150

160

39-45/ 47RR

46-26/ 28RR

53-7/ 33RR 57-38/ 40RR

58-5/ 53RR 60-15/ 17RR

Average


47RR 28RR 40RR 17RR

C l iConclusions

• The Round-up Ready gene or its insertion did not affect yield.

• Glyphosate (Roundup Ultra) had no effect on glyphosate resistant hybridsglyphosate resistant hybrids.

• There is no evidence of yield suppression yassociated with Round-up Ready corn technology


With-in Row Plant Spacing in Corn

Joe LauerCorn Agronomist


B k dBackground

• Recent interest in the grain yield response of corn to plant spacing variability.

Planter “tuning” services offered• Some advertisements in popular press claim up to p p p p

20% yield increases with properly tuned planters.• Pioneer agronomists estimate yield advantages ofPioneer agronomists estimate yield advantages of

between 5 and 10 bushels/A in uniformly spaced corn stands over non-uniform spacing.corn stands over non uniform spacing.


Obj tiObjective

• To determine the relationship between corn yield response and plant spacing variability.response and plant spacing variability.


Previous Research on Corn Grain YieldPrevious Research on Corn Grain Yield Response to Plant Spacing Variation

• I N i ifi 6 • O t i N i ifi t• Iowa: Non significant up to 6 inches standard deviation

Erbach et al. (1972)

• Ontario: Non significantDaynard et al. (1983, 1981, 1979)

• K Si ifi t( )

• Illinois: Non significantJohnson and Mulvaney (1980)D t l (1958) hill

• Kansas: Significant Krall et al. (1977): 3.4 bu/A decrease for each inch increase standard de iationDungan et al., (1958): hills

• Indiana: Non significant and Significant (web)

increase standard deviationVanderlip et al (1988): grain yield decreased when standard deviation values were greater

Nielsen (1997)Nielsen (web): Grain yield decreases 2.5 bu/A for each inch

deviation values were greater than 2.4 inches

• Nebraska: Non significant in hillsdecreases 2.5 bu/A for each inch

standard deviation > 2 incheshills

Kiesselbach and Weihing (1933)


Stand Characteristics of WI Corn FieldsStand Characteristics of WI Corn Fields Evaluated for Stand Uniformity (n= 127)

AverageMinimum -Maximum

St d d d i ti (i h ) 3 3 1 9 6 8Standard deviation (inches) 3.3 1.9 – 6.8Doubles per 50 ft. (<2”) 5.4 0.1 – 25.9Gaps per 50 ft. (>12”) 7.0 1.0 – 16.9Average spacing (inches) 7.2 4.7 – 14.8Planting rate (plants/A) 30,553 21,000 – 42,000Actual plant density (plants/A) 29,727 21,916 – 44,605p y (p )Stand as % planted 97 78 - 121Rankin, 2000


Rankin, 2000

Corn Plant Spacing Variability 1999 20011999-2001

Materials and Methods• Target plant population

7 inches (30,000 plants/A)1999: 14 inches (15,000 plants/A)

• Target standard deviationg0 to 12 inches

• HybridChippewa Falls

Marshfield SeymourHybridP35R57: ARL, JAN, LANC4111: FON GAL HAN

Marshfield Seymour

ValdersHancockGalesville

C4111: FON, GAL, HANN3030Bt: CHI, MAR, SEY, VAL

Fond du LacArlington

JanesvilleLancaster


Plant Spacing Variability Treatments 1999Plant Spacing Variability Treatments 1999 (2-Plant Pattern)

98 30000 l t /A C t l 15000 l t /A

84

98

es)

30000 plants/A Control 15000 plants/A

56

70

g (in

che

42

56

t spa

cing

14

28

Pla

nt

0

Standard deviation (inches)0 1 2 3 4 5 0 4 8 12


Standard deviation (inches)

Corn yield response to plant spacing variabilityCorn yield response to plant spacing variability treatments during 1999.

200

210

220

A)

30,000 plants/A

15 000 plants/A

180

190

200

eld

(bu/

A 15,000 plants/ALSD(0.05) = 4

160

170

180

Gra

in y

ie

140

150

160G

LSD(0.05) = NS

1400 2 4 6 8 10 12

Actual Plant Standard Deviation (inches)



Significance of corn plant spacing variabilitySignificance of corn plant spacing variability treatments during 1999

30,000 plants/A Location

Grain yield

Grain moisture Lodging

Grain test weight

Arlington NS NS NS NSgJanesville NS NS NS NS Lancaster NS NS NS NS Fond du Lac * NS NS NS Galesville NS * NS NS Hancock NS NS NS NSHancock NS NS NS NS Chippewa Falls NS NS NS NS Marshfield NS NS NS NSMarshfield NS NS NS NSSeymour NS NS NS NS Valders NS NS NS NS

** * and † indicates significance at P < 0 01 0 05 and 0 10Lauer, © 1994-2002


**, *, and † indicates significance at P < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10



Grainyield

Grain moisture Lodging

Grain test weight

Arlington NS NS NS NSgJanesville NS NS NS NS Lancaster NS NS NS NS Fond du Lac NS NS † NS Galesville † NS NS NS Hancock NS NS NS NSHancock NS NS NS NS Chippewa Falls NS NS NS NS Marshfield NS NS NS †Marshfield NS NS NS †Seymour * NS NS NS Valders NS NS NS NS

** * and † indicates significance at P < 0 01 0 05 and 0 10Lauer, © 1994-2002



Corn harvest plant density of spacing i bilit t t t d i 1999 V lvariability treatments during 1999. Values are

averaged across all locations.

34000

38000

70

84

/ A)

es)

30000 plants/A 15000 plants/A

3000056

(pla

nts

/

g (in

che

22000

26000

28

42

dens

ity

t spa

cing

18000

22000

14

28

Pla

nt

Pla

nt

140000


LSD(0 05) = 1000LSD(0 05) 500Lauer, © 1994-2002


Standard deviation (inches) LSD(0.05) = 1000LSD(0.05) = 500

Expected corn yield changes (%) for variousExpected corn yield changes (%) for various plant densities in Wisconsin

Plants / Acre Northern Southern36,000 100 9934,000 99 10032,000 98 10030,000 97 10028,000 95 99,26,000 93 9724 000 91 9524,000 91 9522,000 89 9220 000 86 89


20,000 86 89

Plant spacing variability treatments for 2000-Plant spacing variability treatments for 20002001. Plant density = 30,000 plants/a

84

98

es)

Control 2-plant 4-plant 8-plant

56

70

g (in

che

42

56

t spa

cing

14

28

Pla

nt

0



Standard deviation (inches)

Corn yield response to plant spacing variation d i 2000 V l d llduring 2000. Values averaged across all

locations.190

180

190

)

Control 2-plant 4-plant 8-plant

170

d (b

u/A

)

150

160

rain

yie

l

140

Gr

LSD(0.05) = 7

1300 2 4 6 8 10 12





Grainyield

Grainmoisture Lodging

Graintest weight

Arlington ** NS † NSg †Janesville NS NS NS NS Lancaster † NS NS NS Fond du Lac * NS NS NS Galesville ** NS NS NS Hancock ** NS NS †Hancock NS NS † Chippewa Falls NS NS † NS Marshfield ** NS NS NSMarshfield NS NS NSSeymour ** NS NS NS Valders ** NS NS NS

** * d † i di t i ifi t P < 0 01 0 05 d 0 10Lauer, © 1994-2002



Corn harvest plant density of spacing i bilit t t t d i 2000 V lvariability treatments during 2000. Values are

averaged across all locations.C t l 2 l t 4 l t 8 l t Pl t / A

34000

38000

70

84

/ A)

es)

Control 2-plant 4-plant 8-plant Plants / A

3000056

(pla

nts

/

g (in

che

22000

26000

28

42

dens

ity

t spa

cing

18000

22000

14

28

Pla

nt

Pla

nt

140000


LSD(0 05) = 1200


Standard deviation (inches) LSD(0.05) = 1200

SSummary

• G i i ld d d i 4 d 8 l t tt• Grain yield decreased in 4- and 8-plant patterns where standard deviation of plant spacing treatments was greater than 7 inchestreatments was greater than 7 inches.

Possibly due to competition and/or a population decrease (plant death)decrease (plant death)

• In most agronomic situations, plant spacing variation has no effect on grain yield or othervariation has no effect on grain yield or other agronomic measures as long as population is not affected.

Do planters need to be tuned?Other types of plant variability?


Funded by the yWisconsin Corn Promotion Board


agronomy update meetingsagronomy update meetings corn...

Documents