variety testing and liming research in wheat-legume rotations · pdf filevariety testing and...

Variety Testing and Liming Research in Wheat-Legume Rotations

Dr. Kurtis L. SchroederThursday, January 28, 2016

North Idaho Variety Testing Goals

• Test new releases and advanced breeding lines

for their relative performance in Idaho’s diverse

climates

• Accelerate the adoption of improved varieties

by increasing the visibility and exposure

• Increase economic returns and maintain

competitiveness of Idaho producers

• Provide objective and statistically sound

evaluations of variety performance

North Idaho Extension

Cereal Nurseries

Tensed WW

Moscow WW

Bonners Ferry WW & WB

Genesee WW

Nezperce WWCraigmont SW & SB

Bonners Ferry SW & SB

Genesee SW & SB

Tammany WW

Winter wheat

• 3 conv. tillage

• 3 direct seeded

Spring wheat

and barley

• 2 conv. tillage

• 2 direct seeded

Moscow SW & SB

North Idaho Extension

Grain Legume Nurseries

Moscow WP

Craigmont SP, SL, CP

Ferdinand WP

Genesee SP, SL, CP

Winter pea

• 1 conv. tillage

• 1 direct seeded

Spring legumes

• All direct

seeded, except

spring lentil

and chickpea

at Moscow

Moscow SP, SL, CP

2014-2015 Temperatures at Porthill

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2014-2015

Average (1985-2015)

2014-2015 Precipitation at Porthill

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

inc

he

s)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2014-2015

Average (1985-2015)

Issues in 2014-2015• Dry seeding condition in fall 2014

• Cold snaps in November and December

– Resulted in winter injury in all winter

seeded plots

• Warm, dry spring followed by hot June

– Winter wheat in Tammany above normal

yields; other locations near or above

normal; Camas Prairie below normal,

delayed maturity, lack of moisture

– Winter pea yields substantially lower due

to heat damage to blossoms

7

8

Issues in 2014-2015• Warm, dry spring – early seeding

• Below normal rainfall, hot June and

early July

– Spring wheat – 25 bu/A below 3-year

– Spring barley – 16 bu/A below 3-year

– Pea – 1255 lb/A below 3-year

– Lentil – 360 lb/A below 3-year

– Chickpea – 1009 lb/A below 3-year

Fall Seeded Crop Yields

9

Location Crop

Number of

Entries

Average

Yield (bu/A)

Yield Range

(bu/A)

Bonners Ferry W. Wheat 60 101 71-125

Genesee W. Wheat 60 95 81-111

Moscow W. Wheat 60 108 90-128

Nezperce W. Wheat 60 58 40-70

Tammany W. Wheat 60 113 79-135

Tensed W. Wheat 60 106 63-128

Bonners Ferry W. Barley 16 105 44-144

(lb/A) (lb/A)

Ferdinand Winter Pea 20 1335 665-2024

Moscow Winter Pea 17 1412 297-3238

Spring Seeded Cereals

10

Location Crop

Number of

Entries

Average

Yield (bu/A)

Yield Range

(bu/A)

Bonners Ferry S. Wheat 38 45 29-57

Craigmont S. Wheat 38 35 27-42

Genesee S. Wheat 38 49 36-67

Moscow S. Wheat 38 54 48-61

Bonners Ferry S. Barley 28 75 35-85

Craigmont S. Barley 27 42 14-52

Genesee S. Barley 27 121 83-136

Moscow S. Barley 27 80 44-87

Average Heading Dates

11

Location Crop Heading

Date

Genesee SB 6/19

Moscow SB 7/1

Grangeville SB 7/1

Genesee SW 6/15

Moscow SW 6/21

Spring Seeded Grain Legumes

12

Location Crop

Number

of Entries

Average

Yield (lb/A)

Yield Range

(lb/A)

Craigmont Pea 21 1108 548-1680Genesee Pea 21 1809 1548-2302Moscow Pea 21 550 269-1064

Craigmont Lentil 18 Lost due to fire breakGenesee Lentil 18 1003 647-1316Moscow Lentil 18 Herbicide damage

Craigmont Chickpea 16 Lost due to fire breakGenesee Chickpea 16 1026 487-1523Moscow Chickpea 16 1212 948-1403

Physiological Leaf Spot (PLS)

D. Finkelnburg

Physiological Leaf Spot

Physiological Leaf Spot

Bill Pan, WSU

Dick Smiley, OSU

Physiological Leaf Spot

• Common disorder in the PNW

• More commonly observed on winter wheat

• Symptoms can vary with variety, crop management and season (yellow flecking to brown or red spots)

• Can be brought on by cool, cloudy, wet conditions followed by sunny, warm weather

Physiological Leaf Spot

• Confused with fungal diseases

• PLS usually entire leaf

• Fungal diseases usually restricted to lower canopy

• Chloride <10-20 lb/A (top 24 in) can result in symptoms of PLS on susceptible varieties

Tan Spot

V. Chapara et al., NDSU

Stripe rust– Favored by cool, wet weather

– In 2014-15, cold snaps reduced inoculum

and warm, dry spring not conducive

20

Photos courtesy of WSU

2016 Stripe Rust Forecast

• Jan 11, 2016 report

• Moderate epidemic risk

• Highly susceptible varieties – 30% loss

• Current varieties – 0 to 15% loss

• No need to fungicides at herbicide

application

• Updated forecast expected in March

21

22

Soil Acidification

23

Nitrification

•Ammonium fertilizer decreases soil

pH because of nitrification- bacterial

oxidation of NH4+ to nitrate (NO3

-)

NH4+ + 2O2 2H+ + NO3

- + H20

•Happens in well-aerated, moist, warm

soils

24

Mahler et al., 1985

Decline in soil pH in PNW

25

Critical pH for yield reductions(Mahler and McDole, 1987)

26

Problems with acid soils

•Potential toxicity from Al, Mn, other metals

•Lack of cationic nutrients: Ca, K, Mg

•Low P availability (Fe- and Al-phosphates)

•Toxicity to rhizobia in legumes

27

Root damage – aluminum toxicity

R2 = 0.664

Soil pH

4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0

Al

(pp

m,

KC

l)

0

20

40

60

80

29

Control options

Plant tolerant crop

(ie. Triticale, oats)

Tolerant wheat

(tolerance identified in PNW

spring and winter wheat)

Lime application

30

•Neutralize toxic elements: Al, Mn, H

•Improve overall nutrient availability

•Increase microbial activity

•Increase the percentage of non-acid

cations (Ca, Mg, K, Na)

•Improve Ca, Mg availability

Management solutions - liming

31

Lime Type

Source of

Lime

Dry

Matter

%

CaCO3

Equiv.

Fineness

Factor

Lime

Score

Moses Lake

Sugar Lime

Cascade

Agronomics92 84 85 to 98 65 to 75

Limestone

(Ground)

Pioneer

Enterprises99 95 80 75 to 89

NuCal

(liquid lime)

Columbia

River

Carbonates

99 98 100 97

Lime Sources

32

Liming source and rate studies

Plots established at:

Pullman, WA

Potlatch, ID

Winchester, ID

Applied lime at 500, 1000 and 2000 lb

calcium carbonate/A in the fall of 2013 and

incorporated 4 to 6 inches deep

Seeded to winter wheat and spring pea

Soil pH

4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

De

pth

(in

ch

es

)

0-3

3-6

6-9

9-12

No lime

Sugar beet lime

Ground limestone

NuCal (fluid lime)

NuCal + ground

Al (ppm, KCl)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Winchester, ID (2000 lb/A rates)

34

Winter Wheat (bu/A) Spring Pea (lb/A)

Treatment Potlatch Winchester Potlatch Winchester

No lime 42 42 2281 62

Sugar beet 500 37 42 2276 67

Sugar beet 1000 47 41 2426 49

Sugar beet 2000 48 40 2629 57

Ground 500 47 40 2242 42

Ground 1000 44 44 2314 46

Ground 2000 43 43 2405 41

NuCal 500 47 41 2393 59

NuCal 1000 44 38 2492 52

NuCal 2000 37 44 2234 52

Ground + NuCal 46 40 2251 45

Crop yield (2014)

35

Winter Wheat (bu/A) Spring Pea (lb/A)

Treatment Potlatch Winchester Potlatch Winchester

No lime 42 42 2281 62

Sugar beet 500 37 42 2276 67

Sugar beet 1000 47 41 2426 49

Sugar beet 2000 48 40 2629 57

Ground 500 47 40 2242 42

Ground 1000 44 44 2314 46

Ground 2000 43 43 2405 41

NuCal 500 47 41 2393 59

NuCal 1000 44 38 2492 52

NuCal 2000 37 44 2234 52

Ground + NuCal 46 40 2251 45

Crop yield (2014)

36

Winter Wheat (bu/A)

Treatment Potlatch Winchester Pullman

No lime 71 70 93

Sugar beet 500 88 66 97

Sugar beet 1000 83 65 96

Sugar beet 2000 86 67 103

Ground 500 73 63 97

Ground 1000 78 70 102

Ground 2000 84 68 95

NuCal 500 83 67 94

NuCal 1000 85 63 97

NuCal 2000 81 69 102

Ground + NuCal 83 68 96

Crop yield (2015)

37

Crop yield (2015)

Winter Wheat (bu/A)

Treatment Potlatch Winchester Pullman

No lime 71 70 93

Sugar beet 500 88 66 97

Sugar beet 1000 83 65 96

Sugar beet 2000 86 67 103

Ground 500 73 63 97

Ground 1000 78 70 102

Ground 2000 84 68 95

NuCal 500 83 67 94

NuCal 1000 85 63 97

NuCal 2000 81 69 102

Ground + NuCal 83 68 96

Liming costs per acre by rate and productRate Cost

Product

Pounds

CaCO3/A Units/A

Product

$/A

Application

$/A

Total

$/A

Sugar beet lime 500 651 lb $18 $11 $29

Sugar beet lime 1000 1302 lb $35 $11 $46

Sugar beet lime 2000 2604 lb $70 $11 $81

Ground limestone 500 532 lb $19 $13 $32

Ground limestone 1000 1064 lb $37 $13 $50

Ground limestone 2000 2128 lb $74 $13 $87

Liquid lime 500 41.67 gal $93 $15 $108

Liquid lime 1000 83.33 gal $187 $15 $202

Liquid lime 2000 166.67 gal $373 $15 $388

2015 costs for delivery to Moscow/Pullman area

Investment analysis of applying lime today to receive a 10-year stream of benefits

*Assumes an interest rate (discount rate) of 6% per year.

Product

Pounds

CaCO3/A +$5/Y +$15/Y +$25/Y +$50/Y

Sugar beet lime 2000 ($45) $27 $97 $270

Ground limestone 2000 ($50) $22 $91 $265

Liquid lime 2000 ($334) ($262) ($193) ($19)

Liming Trials (2015)

Treatment

Yield

(bu/A) +bu/A Return

Potlatch

No lime 71

500 lb/A CaCO3 81 10 $46.70

1000 lb/A CaCO3 82 11 $51.37

2000 lb/A CaCO3 84 13 $60.71

Pullman

No lime 93

500 lb/A CaCO3 96 3 $14.01

1000 lb/A CaCO3 98 5 $23.35

2000 lb/A CaCO3 99 6 $28.02

Identifying the Problem

•Sample from upper 6 inches for soil pH

•Test multiple samples from one field due to variability across landscape

•Interested in knowing quantity of KClextractable Al, CEC, base saturation in addition to soil pH

•Avoid tissue testing for Al

•Lime requirement tests

On Farm Testing

•Avoid applying lime to a field one end

to the other

•Flag out or mark strips that are not

limed

•Harvest these strips and weigh with a

weigh wagon to assess yield response

•Pull some soil tests from limed and

non-limed areas to compare the impact

of liming

Kurt Schroeder

kschroeder@uidaho.edu

208-885-5020

www.uidaho.edu/extension/cereals/nidaho