high yield studies – a stepwise approach€¦ · high yield studies – a stepwise approach a...
TRANSCRIPT
Page | 1
High yield studies – a stepwise approach
A final progress report submitted to the MN Soybean Research and Promotion Council & MN Corn Research and Promotion Council
A 2004-2010 study at the University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN, examined the effect of crop rotation and management on corn and soybean yields. Intensively managed continuous corn (manure and high fertility and plant populations) out-yielded conventionally managed rotated and continuous corn but yielded less than intensively managed rotated corn. Both corn and soybean yields were increased by rotation but more than two years of corn were needed to produce a soybean yield response over an annual rotation. Corn appeared to respond to higher fertility and consistently responded to banded applications of sulfur with increased yield. Soybeans did not respond to direct fertilizer application but yields were higher where previous corn crops were intensively managed. This study provides evidence that sulfur can reduce yields if other parts of the system are limiting. Nitrates accumulate in the soil profile during corn production. Soybeans reduced residual soil nitrates when included in the rotation.
Prepared and submitted by Bruce Potter
1/25/2013
(507) 752-5066
Page | 2
High yield studies a stepwise approach
Contents
Background……………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………....... 4 Objective I. Soil and biotic changes resulting from various input strategies................... 5
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………... 5 Site description………………………………………………………………… 5 Rotations ……………………………………………………………….. ……… 6 Management system………………………………………………………….. 6 Soil fertility.................................................................................................... 8 Insect, weed and disease management ………………………………….. 8 Data collected………………………………………………………………….. 15
Results and discussion……………………………………………………………………….. 15 Weather effects on yield……………………………………………………………… 15 Management and rotation effect on yield………………………………………….. 21 Corn………………………………………………………………………………. 20 The role of sulfur in corn yields……………………………………. 22
Soybean …………………………………………………………………......... 26 The role of sulfur in soybean yields................................................. 27 The long term management effects on soybean yield.................... 29 The effect of management and rotation on biotic factors............. 33
Nematodes.................................................................................................. 33 Other biological observations.................................................................. 34
Management and rotation effect on soil test levels…………….............................. 35 Effect of management and rotation on residual nitrate levels..................... 39
Objective I. Summary and conclusions..................................................................... 40 Objective II. Initiate new long-term yield trials at multiple locations in MN......... 43 Objective III. Create a framework to identify input components for high yield... 45 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ 47
Appendix I. Figures.................................................................................................................. 48 Appendix II. Tables................................................................................................................... 49
Page | 3
High yield studies – a stepwise approach
Background Increasing crop yield per acre is a major component in grower profitability. Higher yield,
however, is most profitable when input costs produce a relatively predictable positive return.
Corn and soybean yields have both shown relatively constant and continuous historical
increases. Much of the real increase in yield can be attributed to improvements in genetics. In
the case of corn, breeding increased tolerance to interplant competition for light, water and
nitrogen are the apparent yield drivers. Additional yield increases can be attributed to cultural
methods such as improved drainage and fertilizer management, earlier planting, the narrowing
of row spacing and increased seeding rates (corn). Questions on relative increases from these
practices and the interactions between crop genetics and cultural practices persist. Finally,
increased yield stability in the presence of insect, disease and weed pests have resulted from
crop host plant resistance genes, transgenics in particular.
Numerous fertilizer products (e.g. seed applied zinc), growth regulators and prophylactic
pesticide applications (e.g. foliar fungicides) have been marketed as vital components for
producing high yields. Fitting new products into a production system is problematic from a
producer’s perspective. Experimentation and time will tell whether new techniques will enhance
the benefits of, or reduce the need for, tillage, crop rotation, host plant resistance and other
traditional agronomic tools.
At the same time that growers are driven by economics to produce higher yields, the non-
farming public is often critical of tillage, fertilizer and pesticide application methods.
Comprehensive data sets that would provide defense for high yield crop production systems are
lacking.
Yield research is often conducted on specific components (e.g. population, N rate, tillage
method) but how these components interact in a production setting is less often studied. As a
result, although Minnesota corn and soybean producers are quite capable of producing
excellent yields, they often struggle with putting together production systems that can
consistently maximize both yield and profitability. For example, simple and inexpensive
practices (e.g. plant population, cultivar selection) are often ignored while more costly and
inconsistent inputs (e.g. insurance pesticides) are applied. In short, a recipe for increased yield
Page | 4
has not been developed, nor has the research been conducted to determine the proper blend of
ingredients under diverse corn growing environments in Minnesota.
Objectives
We proposed long-term research trials designed to identify agronomic methods for intensively
managed and consistently high yielding corn and soybean production which are highly profitable
and pose limited environmental risks. We believe that long-term research that compares
current production methods to a high yield system(s) provides the best approach to ensure rapid
adoption. Both systems should be expected to evolve over time. We define current production
methods as crop production practices that are representative, to the extent possible, of a large
proportion of producers in a region. Alternatively, a high yield system could incorporate proven
components of high yield as a platform to test other management strategies. Finally, this type of
systems approach could generate data needed to determine the mechanisms responsible for
yield differences between conventionally and intensively managed production systems.
In designing this study, we operated under the assumption that most producers practice
individual parts of a high yield system but may be missing one or several pieces. We examined
the possibility that yield increases within a cropping system do not happen instantly but occur
over time. We looked for reductions in the rotation effect on corn yield from long-term intensive
management. This project examines several objectives:
I. Collect and analyze data on soil fertility and biotic changes in various input strategies from a
high yield study at the University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center.
Specifically we ask:
• Can yield be increased by higher management?
• Can higher management minimize the rotation effect for corn?
• Can extended rotations increase soybean yield?
II. Initiate new long-term high yield studies at multiple locations in Minnesota.
III. Create a framework to identify input components for high yield production systems
Agriculture production is constantly evolving and driven by complex biological and economic
interactions. This study represents an attempt to probe agronomic questions as part of an
Page | 5
evolving system over time. It was not intended as a fertilizer, seeding rate, crop rotation or pest
management experiment. It was intended to incorporate results from experiments of this type.
Objective I. Soil and biotic changes resulting from various input strategies
Methods
Researchers from the industry, academic and government sectors and local agricultural
professionals, including farmers, often repeat experiments across years or environments.
These types of replication are important to allow accurate interpretation of their observations.
However, the interpretation of experimental results is often based on short-term, single year
responses to treatments. These responses may change as biological based agricultural
systems react to a stimulus (management) over time. In fact, long-term responses may be
antithetical to initial observations.
This study was designed to add an additional treatment to the high yield system when there was
data suggesting it had a positive impact on yield.
The presentation of this experimental design and the results derived highlight their imperfect
nature; the difficulties in designing long-term agronomic experiments that reflect reality.
Site description
A high yield comparison study at the University of Minnesota Southwest Research and
Outreach Center at Lamberton, MN, was initiated in the fall of 2004. A related, but not identical,
study was placed at the University of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center, at
Waseca, MN. Funding was provided by the MCR&PC and MSR&PC from 2004-2006. These
data have been reported elsewhere. During 2007 and 2008, the Lamberton site was maintained
with limited data collection other than yield. MCR&PC and MSR&PC resumed funding of this
study in 2009. The study was discontinued after the 2010 growing season.
The site consists of Normania and Vess clay loam soils with high to very high phosphorus
fertility, high potassium fertility and high organic matter. The site had been in a corn-soybean
rotation for many years. The entire study area was planted to corn in 2003.
After the study was initiated we became aware that as a result of an old experiment, the north ½
of the study area was much lower in soil test phosphorus. The research area, particularly the
Page | 6
north 1/2, was not optimally tiled. Tile lines were spaced at 180 feet on the north while the
south 1/2 was spaced at 90 feet. Fortunately, both of these variables were accounted for when
replications (blocks) were assigned (Figure 1).
Research plots were established at the beginning of the study. The study contained three
rotation factors and two management factors arranged in a randomized block design with four
replications. The eight main plots were split several times during the course of the study to
explore management options, tillage, fertilizer and seed treatment chemicals. Randomized sub-
plot treatments (factors) were discontinued where no yield responses were observed. Sub-plot
treatments expected to have persistent effects (e.g. sulfur fertility) were kept at a constant
location for subsequent applications.
Figure 1. Plot diagram of the high yield study area showing initial (2003) soil test values. Dashed lines indicate drainage tile spaced at 90 or 180 feet east to west.
Rotations
The four rotations established for this study were: 1) Continuous Corn, 2) Corn-Corn-Soybean,
3) Corn-Soybean and 4) Soybean-Corn. Rotation 4 was included to ensure at least one
soybean crop was present each year. Unfortunately, space did not permit a cyclic counterpart
to treatment 2 and all rotational combinations for both crops are not present every year. These
rotations were selected to look at yield penalties for non-rotated corn and whether an extra year
of corn (rotation 2) would improve soybean yields over an annual rotation.
Management system
P - 15 ppm P - 17 ppm NK - 167 ppm K - 177 ppmpH - 5.7 pH - 5.9 W E
BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4 S
P - 47 ppm P - 54 ppmK - 168 ppm K - 161 ppmpH - 6.2 pH - 6.0
BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2
Wat
erw
ay
320'
180'
320'
180'
BO
RD
ER
BO
RD
ER
BO
RD
ER
Page | 7
A high yield or intensive management was compared to a management system more commonly
practiced by area farmers. Hereafter, these management schemes are referred to as “intensive
management” and “common practices management”. The resulting eight treatments are shown
in Figure 2.
Corn stalks were moldboard plowed in the fall of 2003 and subsequently in those plots that were
to be planted back to corn and or intensive managed soybeans. Additional information on
tillage treatments is shown in Table 1.
The intensive management corn treatment consists of: biennial manure (beef feedlot), higher
seeding rates (38,000 seeds/acre), and at-plant fertilizer (dry starter 2x2 2004, otherwise 10-34-
0 at-plant, in-row). Anhydrous ammonia was applied in the fall of 2004. All other spring or fall
broadcast N applications were urea. A post-emerge, side-dress application of 28% N at 4-6 leaf
corn was also made. We did not want nutrients to be limited in intensive management. This
study was not designed to determine fertilizer rates.
The common practices management treatments consist of the same rotations without manure,
pop-up and side dress fertilizer and a lower 33,000 seeds/acre seeding rate. N, P and K were
applied based on University recommendations at the time. Fertilizer application data are shown
in Table 2.
Over the course of the study, several management techniques were tried and abandoned due to
lack of significant yield response. These include soybean seed treatments, deep tillage and
direct sulfur application to soybean. This intent of this experiment was to include practices as
they were proven to increase yield rather than remove treatments as in a dropout experiment.
Removal of treatments ran counter to the experimental design and ceased after 2006.
Each year, corn and soybeans were planted as early in the spring as conditions allowed. Corn
was planted in 30-inch rows with a John Deere MaxEmerge four-row planter. The yield
response of soybeans to narrow rows had been well documented. During 2004 and 2009,
intensive management soybeans were planted in 15 inch rows by double planting with a 30 inch
planter. The common practices soybeans were planted in 30-inch rows. Unfortunately, wet
spring soils prevented narrow row seeding with this method other years. All other soybeans
were planted in 30-inch rows.
Page | 8
The corn hybrids and soybean varieties used were selected from those commonly planted in the
area. They were selected by examining yield trials from several sources and conferring with
seed company agronomists. The same hybrids and varieties were planted in both management
regimes and all rotations. Planting date and hybrid/variety information is presented in Table 3.
Soil fertility
Manure on a biennial basis (2003, 2005 and 2009) and higher rates of N were applied to the
intensive management plots. Mineralization of plant nutrients over multiple years was expected
to buffer any plant nutrient stresses for primary and micronutrients.
Moisture is often limiting during mid to late season at this location. A portion of the nitrogen
allocated for intensive managed corn was planned for fall. The intent was to provide some N
deeper in the profile if dry conditions occurred. Weather conditions did not allow this application
every fall. The location of N in the soil profile is discussed later. Side-dressed N in intensive
managed corn was intended to insure adequate N in the upper profile in the event of flooded or
wet soils.
Soil tests results revealed moderate but highly variable zinc levels. Some samples indicated the
potential for corn yield response to zinc application. This nutrient might have been handled as
annual banded or pop-up applications. Instead, it was decided to use an alternative approach.
Eight (8) pounds of zinc sulfate/acre were broadcast in the spring of 2005 to minimize yield
variability from zinc.
Several crop production retail agronomists and crop consultants were questioning whether
sulfur applications were increasing yields on fine textured soils. Intensive management plots
received approximately twenty-two pounds of sulfur/acre (110 pounds of broadcast calcium
sulfate/acre) applied to the west ½ of each plot of both crops in 2006. Twenty-eight
pounds/acre of sulfur (ammonium thiosulfate @ 10 gallons/acre) was applied with a 28% N
side-dress to corn in 2007, 2008, and 2009 as a split plot. To ensure that any yield response
was due to sulfur; the remaining ½ plot received an equivalent rate of N as 28% N. Fertilizer
and manure applications for the eight main plot treatments are shown in Table 2.
Insect, weed and disease management.
Page | 9
Soybean plots were split with fungicide/insecticide seed treatments in 2004 and 2005. This
study and additional small plot research trials at this location and elsewhere did not show a yield
response. It was assumed that these treatments did not have persistent effects and these
treatments were discontinued. Soybean plots were treated as single units for disease
management from 2006-2009.
European corn borer was controlled with Bt hybrids and was not a factor in corn yields. This
site had a history of extended diapause northern corn rootworm. Rootworm larvae were
controlled with Aztec insecticide during 2004 and 2005. YieldGard® Bt CB/RW hybrids were
used in 2006–2008 and a Herculex® XTRA Bt CB/RW hybrid was used in 2009.
Soybean cyst nematode were determined to be present but at very at low levels at the
beginning of this study. PI 88788 source SCN resistance varieties were used throughout the
study period.
Soybean aphids were controlled with foliar insecticides all years except 2004 when populations
did not exceed the economic threshold. Chlorpyifos (Lorsban 4E) or bifenthrin (Tundra), are
effective against two-spotted spider mite and soybean aphid and were applied when both pests
occurred.
Glyphosate tolerant corn and soybeans were used throughout the study providing good weed
control while minimizing chance of off target injury.
Brown stem rot was observed to be prevalent at this site. During 2010, the entire study was
planted to soybeans. Main plots were split between Asgrow AG 2107 and related AG2108
varieties, the latter brown stem rot resistant.
Insect weed and disease control practices are presented in Table 4.
Page | 10
Figure 2. Experimental design (Rotations and management levels) for high yield studies at Lamberton, 2004-2010.
Page | 11
Table 1. Tillage information. High yield studies at Lamberton, 2004-2010.
Treatment Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007
1 MB Plow Field Cultivator MB Plow Field Cultivator 2 Soil Saver Field Cultivator MB Plow Field Cultivator3 Soil Saver Field Cultivator V-Rip Field Cultivator4 Soil Saver Field Cultivator V-Rip Field Cultivator5 MB Plow Field Cultivator MB Plow Field Cultivator6 Soil Saver Field Cultivator MB Plow Field Cultivator7 Soil Saver Field Cultivator MB Plow Field Cultivator8 MB Plow Field Cultivator V-Rip Field Cultivator
Treatment Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009
1 MB Plow Field Cultivator MB Plow Disk Field cultivator2 In-Line Rip Field Cultivator In-Line Rip Disk Field cultivator3 In-Line Rip Field Cultivator In-Line Rip Disk Field cultivator4 In-Line Rip Field Cultivator In-Line Rip Disk Field cultivator5 MB Plow Field Cultivator MB Plow Disk Field cultivator6 MB Plow Field Cultivator In-Line Rip Disk Field cultivator7 In-Line Rip Field Cultivator In-Line Rip Disk Field cultivator8 MB Plow Field Cultivator In-Line Rip Disk Field cultivator
Treatment Fall 2009 Spring 2010
1 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X2 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X3 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X4 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X5 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X6 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X7 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X8 In-line Rip Field cultivator 2X
Page |
12
Table 2. Soil fertility information. Plant food applied expressed in pounds plant food/acre. Manure values estimated from % values of manure analysis.
Fertilizer applied (# plant food /acre)
Fall 2003 Spring 20004 Fall 2004 Spring 2005Broadcast Broadcast #/acre 28%
Treatment Urea as dry beef manure Dry Starter (2x2) Broadcast Sidedress (28%)
1 170 9-23-15-1(Zn) 170# Anhydrous 18-46-0-0-0(S) -8(Zn) 2 170 9-23-15-1(Zn) 18-46-0-0-0(S) -8(Zn) 3 170 9-23-15-1(Zn) 18-46-0-0-0(S) -8(Zn) 4 135# Anhydrous 18-46-0-0-0(S) -8(Zn) 5 85 47-41-41 9-23-15-1(Zn) 135# Anhydrous 38-50-50-25(S)-8(Zn) 40-0-06 85 47-41-41 9-23-15-1(Zn) 38-50-50-25(S)-8(Zn)7 85 47-41-41 9-23-15-1(Zn) 38-50-50-25(S)-8(Zn)8 47-41-41 135# Anhydrous 38-50-50-25(S)-8(Zn) 40-0-0
Fall 2005 Spring 2006Broadcast Broadcast #/acre 10 -34 -0 Gypsum 28%
Treatment Urea as dry beef manure pop-up Broadcast sidedress
1 170 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-02 135 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-03 135 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-04 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-05 135 35-32-29 5 -17-0-0-0 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-0 40-0-06 135 35-32-29 5 -17-0-0-0 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-0 40-0-07 135 35-32-29 5 -17-0-0-0 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-0 40-0-08 35-32-29 0-0-0-23S / 0-0-0-0
Fall 2006 Spring 2007Broadcast 10 -34 -0 28% N/28% N + ATS
Treatment Urea pop-up sidedress
1 none 170 12-0-0-28S/13-0-0-02 none 170 12-0-0-28S/13-0-0-03 none4 none 130 12-0-0-28S/13-0-0-05 none 170 5-17-0-0-0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-0-06 none 170 5-17-0-0-0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-0-07 none8 none 130 5 -17-0-0-0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-0-0
Fall 2007 Spring 2008#/acre Broadcast 10 -34 -0 28% N/28% N + ATS
Treatment as dry beef manure Urea pop-up sidedress
1 170-0-0 13-0-0-28S/14-0-0-023 130-0-0 13-0-0-28S/14-0-0-045 25-16-17 170-0-0 5- 17 - 0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-06 25-16-177 25-16-17 130-0-0 5 - 17 - 0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-08 25-16-17
Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010Broadcast 10 -34 -0 28% N + ATS
Treatment Urea + K20 pop-up sidedress
1 none 180-0-90 13-0-0-28S/13-0-0-0 none none2 none 130-0-90 13-0-0-28S/13-0-0-0 none none3 none 0-0-90 none none4 none 130-0-90 130-0-0-28S/13-0-0-0 none none5 none 180-0-90 6-20-0-0-0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-0-0 none none6 none 130-0-90 6-20-0-0-0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-0-0 none none7 none 0-0-90 none none8 none 130-0-90 6-20-0-0-0 40-0-0-28S/40-0-0-0 none none
Page |
13
Table 3. Variety and planting information. High yield studies at Lamberton, 2004-2010.
Variety and Planting information
2004 2005 2006Treatment Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate
1 DKC 5020 4/30/2004 33,000 DKC 52-47 4/30/2005 34,000 DKC 51-39 5/9/2006 34,0002 DKC 5020 4/30/2004 33,000 AG2107* 5/31/2005 168,000 DKC 51-39 5/9/2006 34,0003 DKC 5020 4/30/2004 33,000 AG2107* 5/31/2005 168,000 DKC 51-39 5/9/2006 34,0004 CropPlan RC2020* 5/5/2004 185,000 DKC 52-47 4/30/2005 34,000 AG2107* 5/23/2006 168,0005 DKC 5020 4/30/2004 38,000 DKC 52-47 4/30/2005 38,000 DKC 51-39 5/9/2006 38,0006 DKC 5020 4/30/2004 38,000 AG2107* 5/31/2005 168,000 DKC 51-39 5/9/2006 38,0007 DKC 5020 4/30/2004 38,000 AG2107* 5/31/2005 168,000 DKC 51-39 5/9/2006 38,0008 CropPlan RC2020* 5/5/2004 185,000 ** DKC 52-47 4/30/2005 38,000 AG2107* 5/23/2006 168,000
2007 2008 2009Treatment Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate
1 DKC 52-40 5/12/2007 34,000 PIO 37N16 5/20/2008 34,000 PIO 35F44 5/4/2009 34,0002 DKC 52-40 5/12/2007 34,000 AG2002 5/22/2008 167,000 PIO 35F44 5/4/2009 34,0003 AG2107 5/12/2007 167,000 PIO 37N16 5/20/2008 34,000 CropPlan2257RR 5/11/2009 170,0004 DKC 52-40 5/16/2007 34,000 AG2002 5/22/2008 167,000 PIO 35F44 5/4/2009 34,0005 DKC 52-40 5/12/2007 38,000 PIO 37N16 5/20/2008 38,000 PIO 35F44 5/4/2009 38,0006 DKC 52-40 5/12/2007 38,000 AG2002 5/22/2008 167,000 PIO 35F44 5/4/2009 38,0007 DKC 52-40 5/12/2007 167,000 PIO 37N16 5/20/2008 38,000 CropPlan2257RR 5/11/2009 170,000**8 AG2107 5/16/2007 38,000 AG2002 5/22/2008 167,000 PIO 35F44 5/4/2009 38,000
2010Treatment Hybrid/variety Planting date Seeding rate
1 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0002 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0003 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0004 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0005 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0006 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0007 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,0008 AG2107&AG2108 5/18/20010 167,000
* split plot CruiserMaxx ** 15 inch rows
Page |
14
Table 4. Weed, insect and disease control. High yield studies at Lamberton 2004-2009. Aztec insecticide rate is expressed in oz/1000 row ft. All other rates expressed as product /acre.
Insect weed and disease control
2004 2005Herbicide Insecticide/ Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide/Fungicide
Corn PRE 5/08 Dual II Magnum 2 pts T-BAND 4/30 Aztec 7 oz/1000 ft POST 6/09 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz T-BAND 4/30 Aztec 6oz/1000 ftPOST 6/22 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz POST 7/05 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz
Soybean PRE 5/08 Dual II Magnum 2 pts SEED 5/5 Cruiser Maxx 1/2 plot POST 6/09 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz SEED 5/31 Cruiser Maxx 1/2 plotPOST 6/22 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz POST 7/05 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz POST 7/29 Warrior 3 fl oz
2006 2007Herbicide Insecticide/Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide/Fungicide
Corn POST 6/13 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz PRE 5/12 Dual II Magnum 2.25 ptsPOST 6/13 Touchdown 24 fl oz
Soybean POST 6/13 Round-up WeatherMax 22 fl oz POST 7/28 Warrior 3 fl oz PRE 5/12 Dual II Magnum 2.25 pts POST 8/16 chlorpyrifos 1 ptPOST 7/5 Mirage 32 fl oz POST 6/13 Touchdown 24 fl oz
2008 2009Herbicide Insecticide/ Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide/Fungicide
Corn PPI 5/19 Outlook 1.3 pt PPI 5/02 Outlook 1.2 ptPOST 6/25 Cornerstone Plus 32 oz POST 6/11 Cornerstone Plus 24 fl oz
Soybean PPI 5/19 Outlook 1.3 pt POST 7/29 Warior 3 fl oz PPI 5/02 Outlook 1.2 pt POST 8/12 Tundra 5 fl ozPOST 6/25 Cornerstone Plus 32 oz POST 7/7 Cornerstone Plus 24 ozPOST 7/16 Cornerstone Plus 32 oz POST 7/22 Cornerstone Plus 32 oz
2010Herbicide Insecticide/ Fungicide
Corn
Soybean PPI 5/03 Outlook 1.2 pt POST 7/29 Tundra 5 fl ozPOST 6/17 Cornerstone Plus 32 oz, Fusilade 3 lf ozPOST 7/22 Cornerstone Plus 32 oz
Page | 15
Data collected
Yields were obtained with small plot combines and adjusted to 15.5% moisture for corn and
13% moisture for soybean. Stand counts and crop growth and plant pest notes obtained
several times each year.
Soil samples for plant nutrients were collected in the fall of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2010.
Twenty soil cores 0-6 inches deep were taken from each split-plot using a hand probe and
analyzed for nutrients. Soil samples to four-foot depth were obtained from each main plot with a
hydraulic probe during the fall of 2009. These were analyzed for nitrate nitrogen to examine the
long-term effects of rotation and management on nitrogen.
Most southern Minnesota crop producers understand the potential impact of soybean cyst
nematode (SCN) on soybean yields. Marketing from the crop protection chemical industry had
generated many grower questions about yield impacts from nematodes parasitic on corn roots.
To supplement other research dedicated to nematodes attacking corn, this study was used to
opportunistically search for treatment effects on nematode populations. Plots were sampled for
plant parasitic nematode and pathogen populations in the spring of 2009. The 0-6 inch soil
samples for nematodes were taken after seedbed preparation but before planting. Plant
parasitic nematodes were extracted at the University of Minnesota Plant Disease Clinic, St.
Paul, MN and nematodes counted by Dr. David MacDonald, University of Minnesota
Department of Plant Pathology. Soybean cyst nematode eggs were extracted from soil and
counted by the University of Minnesota Nematology Lab, Waseca, MN.
Twelve inch long samples of lower soybean stems were taken from each plot during fall 2010.
Stems were split and length of internal stem lesions from brown stem rot measured by Dr. Dean
Malvick, University of Minnesota Department of Plant Pathology.
Data were analyzed using Statistix 9 ©, Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL 32317.
Results and discussion
Weather effects on yield
Weather is an obvious driver of crop yield. The 2004, 2008 and 2009 growing seasons were
cooler than normal; accumulating 2268, 2407 and 2331 growing degree days (GDD base
Page | 16
50/86o F) respectively. The long-term historical average at this location is 2530 GDD. The
years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010 were slightly above average but only slightly so (Figure 3).
The study site has a long-term average growing season (May 1-Sepember 30) precipitation of
17.2 inches. Cumulative growing season precipitation was below average in 2007, 2008 and
2009.
Early season seed bed condition and planting date had an obvious impact on yield, corn in
particular, during the period of this study. Corn planting dates before May 5th resulted in higher
corn yields in the 2004, 2005 and 2009 season. Conversely, low yields were obtained in 2008
with a late planting date of May 20th. Soybean yields in 2005 and 2009 were high and were very
low in 2008, presumed related, in part, to planting date (Figure 6).
Inadequate tile drainage in the study area exacerbated delayed planting problems. Additionally,
early season wet soils reduced root and shoot growth in portions of some plots, particularly the
centers of plots and the northern two replications.
The 2004 and 2006 growing seasons were marked by heavy rainfall events in late May and
early June. 2005 was wet most of the first half of the growing season (Figure 4). Periods of wet
soil can be inferred from Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Early season growing conditions were excellent for the 2007 crop with excellent yield potential
until August. Unfortunately, soil moisture became limiting during the reproductive stages of both
corn and soybeans. Late season rains were too late to maintain yield on corn. Drought stress
on the high biomass, intensive management corn is suspected to be the reason for the poor
non-rotated intensive management corn yields, the only case where this treatment yielded less
than its common practices counterpart.
The late planting in 2008 has been discussed. The cool, dry 2008 combined with less than
optimum seedbeds impacted the yields of both corn and soybeans.
Corn and soybean yields in 2009 were very good. An October 9th frost killed corn before black
layer. As a result, test weights were low (51 lbs) and yields limited by lack of maturity. These
plots were harvested at very high moisture and combining losses are likely to have limited yield
as well. Moisture differences by treatment were not observed. The good 2009 yields are not
Page | 17
easily explainable by growing season GDDs or rainfall alone. However, the 2009 season did
start with early planting and good seedbed conditions.
Planting was delayed in 2010 and was characterized by two heavy rain events in September.
The 2010 soybean crop yielded remarkably well considering the late planting and wet pre-
harvest weather conditions. Corn was not planted in 2010.
Yield is the result of a combination of many genetic and environmental factors and their
interactions. Dry land corn and soybean producers have little direct control on environmental
effects other than modifying soil temperature and excess moisture with tillage and tile drainage.
As previously mentioned, inadequate drainage produced obvious stress symptoms at this site in
some years. Unfortunately, this study was not designed to directly measure weather
interactions with crop growth rates or pests.
Figure 3. 2004 - 2010 and historic growing degree day accumulations base 50o F. University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1
Cum
ulat
ive
Gro
win
g D
egre
e D
ays
(bas
e 50
o F
)
day of year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Historic GDD
Page | 18
Figure 4. Cumulative growing season (May-September) precipitation. University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN (2004-2010 and historic).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1
cum
mul
ativ
e pr
ecip
itatio
n (in
ches
)
day of year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Historic
Page | 19
Figure 5. Growing season soil moistures 2004-2010. University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN. Total inches of water available in the top five feet of the soil profile. Soil core samples were taken near the 1st and 15th of the month.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 historical
4/15 4.48 7.08 7.11 6.81 6.45 6.34 7.63 6.04
5/1 4.39 6.66 8.29 6.87 8.44 6.82 6.45 6.56
5/15 4.36 8.26 7.52 7.22 8.27 7.22 6.66 6.5
6/1 6.42 7.97 6.61 6.62 6.95 6.39 5.87 6.82
6/15 6.94 7.48 6.65 6.73 7.26 7.6 6.7 6.68
7/1 6.6 6.28 6.26 5.43 6.05 6.33 6.5 6.14
7/15 6.77 5.92 4.98 3.19 4.84 5.6 4.74 5.22
8/1 4.78 4.35 4.26 3.17 4.21 4.48 5.44 4.66
8/15 5.06 3.6 5.32 2.58 4.45 3.96 5.02 4.32
9/1 5.73 2.95 5.18 5.05 4.21 3.72 4.71 3.96
9/15 6.65 5.41 3.92 4.58 4.34 4.11 6.18 4.26
10/1 7.25 6.43 5.06 3.62 3.32 5.19 6.92 4.38
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9in
ches
of
wat
er 0
-5 f
oot
Page | 20
Figure 6. Corn and Soybean yields under two management systems (2004-2009).
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
bu
shel
s / a
cre
Year
Effect of management practice and rotation on corn yield
High yield continuous corn Common practices continuous corn
High yield rotated corn Common practices rotated corn
Drought stress
54.3
64.3
59.9
51.5
31.3
51.9
59.2
67.1
61.4
59.3
31.3
65.9
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bu
shel
s / a
cre
Year
Effect of two management systems* on soybean yield
Common practices High yield
* across tillage , rotation and disease control practices
Page | 21
Management and rotation effect on yield
Corn
Based on previous research, it was assumed that within reason, higher corn populations would
increase yield. 38,000 seeds per acre were planted in the intensive management plots. Other
research, conducted at the same time as this study, indicated that rates might have been
increased further without limiting yield but hybrids do not respond identically to plant population.
A somewhat conservative approach to seeding rates was used because the study design did
now allow multiple hybrids. Even so, the low yields in 2007 intensive managed continuous corn
may be due in part to moisture stress from high interplant competition.
Cropping year, management system and crop rotation influenced yield. There were significant
interactions between these three factors from 2005-2009 (Table 5). Yields were highest (over
206 bushels/acre) in 2005 and 2009, lower in 2006 (175 bushels), still lower in 2007 (164
bushels) and lowest in 2008 (129.8 bushels). This likely reflects adverse growing conditions
rather than other biological factors. Several weather related reasons (temperature, rainfall and
planting date) for yield in a given season have been previously discussed while others (solar
radiation, evapo-transpiration for example) have not. The data from this study only reinforce a
growing season’s significant, over-riding influence on yield.
Averaged across the period of the study, intensively managed corn significantly out-yielded the
common practices 183.9 to 168.8 bushels, an 8% average. The exception was the 2007 when
the intensively managed corn averaged 5 bushels less than common practices, still, however,
statistically equivalent. These differences were significantly higher in 2005, 2006, 2008 and
numerically higher in 2009. Unfortunately, the relative contribution of individual components of
the high yield system, nitrogen rate or placement, for example, cannot be evaluated with this
method.
Rotated corn out-yielded continuous corn by an average 181.1 bushels to 171.6 bushels, over
the same 2005-2009 period. Rotated corn out-yielded continuous corn except in 2009 when top
end yields were likely limited by an early frost and in 2008 when yields were suppressed;
rotated and non-rotated corn yields were equivalent in these cases.
Corn yields by year, management practice and crop rotation are presented in Table 6.
Page | 22
All combinations of the corn-corn-soybean rotation were not present each year and are not
included in the previous or subsequent rotation analyses. This was a flaw in the experimental
design necessitated by limited space. An additional three treatments would have been required
to completely balance the every third year soybean rotation. This would have required an
additional 75% land area if room to include split plots was maintained. Nonetheless, some
information on this rotation could be gleaned. When they occurred in the corn-corn soybean
rotation, corn yields after soybean mirrored corn in the corn-soybean rotation and the second
year of corn mirrored continuous corn plots.
The role of sulfur in corn yields
Although counter to the experimental design, sulfur treatments were applied as a query, before
yield responses on these soil types were well documented. The results indicate this was a
fortuitous rule violation.
Sulfur was first applied to intensive managed corn plots in the spring of 2005 as elemental
sulfur. No yield response was oberved in the fall corn or soybean crop and the form of sulfur
broadcast was changed to Gypsum (CaSO4) in 2006. A corn, but not soybean, yield response
was observed. Sulfur applications were changed to a side-dress band of ammonium thiosulfate
to corn in 2007-2009. An analysis of varience of corn yields from 2006-2009 including previous
sulfur application is shown in Table 7. While the sulfur treatment may have increased yields
(p= 0.0861), yields were reduced numerically in 2006 (year * sulfur interaction).
Removing the non-responding 2006 gypsum application year from the analysis revealed a
highly signicant sulfur on yield (p=0.0145) but the effect changed with mangement system and
rotation (Table 8). The year, management and rotation effects and interactions were not
changed. Yields by sulfur application, management and rotation are presented in Table 9.
Sulfur significantly increased corn yields, 170 bushels/acre compared to 163.4 bushels, across
management system and rotations in 2007- 2009. However, the relationship between yield and
sulfur was numerically inverted in the common practices continuous corn treatments. These
yield differences within a management and rotation were not significant at the 5% level.
Nonetheless, a potential for a yield depressive effect of sulfur in a lower yield environment is
curious but perhaps explainable.
Page | 23
Sulfur was always applied to same ½ plots and it cannot determined whether these sulfur
responses represent a transient or long-term effect . These data suggest 20 pounds/acre of
sulfur side-dressed as ammonium thio-sulfate can improve corn yield. Questions on optimal
sulfur rate, formulation and application method for corn yield responses are not answered. An
unfortunate shortcoming of this, and all long-term research plot design, is the inability to add
many additional treatments to answer questions as they arise. Land requirements and
statistical analysis complications get in the way.
Table 5. Factorial ANOVA for management system, two crop rotations and year (2005-2009) on corn yields.
Factor pmanagement 0.0000 ***rotation 0.0000 ***year 0.0000 ***management * rotation 0.0000 ***management * year 0.0000 ***rotation * year 0.0133 **management * rotation * year 0.0509 **
Page | 24
Table 6. Mean corn yield by management system, rotation and year on corn yields (2005-2009). Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.05).
Year Management Corn rotation Bushels/acre
2005 Intensive soybean‐corn 228.5 a
2005 Intensive non‐rotated 202.0 bc
2005 Common non‐rotated 199.2 bc
2005 Common soybean‐corn 196.5 bcd
2006 Intensive soybean‐corn 195.1 bcd
2006 Intensive non‐rotated 181.1 cde
2006 Common soybean‐corn 168.1 ef
2006 Common non‐rotated 155.9 fg
2007 Intensive soybean‐corn 177.9 de
2007 Intensive non‐rotated 144.3 gh
2007 Common soybean‐corn 171.0 ef
2007 Common non‐rotated 162.9 efg
2008 Intensive soybean‐corn 151.3 fgh
2008 Intensive non‐rotated 128.9 hi
2008 Common soybean‐corn 118.1 i
2008 Common non‐rotated 120.9 i
2009 Intensive non‐rotated 215.0 ab
2009 Intensive soybean‐corn 214.8 ab
2009 Common non‐rotated 206.2 abc
2009 Common soybean‐corn 189.4 bcde
Page | 25
Table 7. Factorial ANOVA for rotation, management system and sulfur application effect on corn yields (2006-2009).
Table 8. Factorial ANOVA for, management system, rotation and sulfur application effect on corn yields (2007-2009). These are sidedress ammonium thiosulfate data only.
Factor pmanagement 0.0000 ***rotation 0.0001 ***year 0.0000 ***sulfur 0.0861 *management * rotation 0.0002 ***management * year 0.0000 ***management * sulfur 0.5543rotation * year 0.0014 ***rotation * sulfur 0.3721year * sulfur 0.0268 **management * rotation * year 0.0576 *management * rotation * sulfur 0.1245management * year * sulfur 0.3529rotation * year * sulfur 0.6397management * rotation * year * sulfur 0.3645
Treatment pmanagement 0.0001 ***rotation 0.0060 ***year 0.0000 ***sulfur 0.0145 **management * rotation 0.0000 ***management * year 0.0000 ***management * sulfur 0.2399rotation * year 0.0002 ***rotation * sulfur 0.2830year * sulfur 0.3900management * rotation * year 0.7889management * rotation * sulfur 0.0495 **management * year * sulfur 0.5902rotation * year * sulfur 0.3833management * rotation * year * sulfur 0.9179
Page | 26
Table 9. Management system, rotation and sulfur application effect on corn yields (2007-2009). Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.05).
Soybean After the 2006 season, soybeans were not managed directly for high yield. Seed-applied
insecticides and fungicides had not produced a yield response or eliminated the need for foliar
insecticide treatments in 2004-2006. Elemental sulfur and Gypsum applications did not
produce a yield response in 2005 or 2006 respectively. Additionally, corn sulfur applications
were switched to post-emerge, side-dress, incompatible with soybean production, in 2007.
Direct sulfur applications were not made to soybeans after 2006.
Soybean yields in the corn-corn-soybean rotation only occurred in 2005 and 2008. These yields
were not different than in those from the corn-soybean rotation same years. These plots and
rotation were not included in the following analyses as variable.
With the exception of 2008, soybean yields were somewhat more stable than those of corn but
followed a similar annual pattern (Table 11). Soybean yields were highest in 2005 and lowest in
2008. The next highest yields in were obtained in 2006 and 2009. Penultimate yields were
obtained in 2007 and 2004.
Intensively managed soybeans yielded more than common practices, 57.3 bushels/acre and
52.2 bushels/acre respectively. However, in 2008 both management systems yielded similar
(Table 10, 12). The extreme uniformity of low 2008 soybean yields plot to plot may be a result
of a harvesting equipment problem.
Management Corn rotation Sulfur Bushels/acreIntensive soybean-corn yes 184.7 aIntensive soybean-corn no 178.0 abIntensive non-rotated yes 169.1 abcIntensive non-rotated no 156.4 ccommon soybean-corn yes 165.0 bccommon soybean-corn no 154.0 ccommon non-rotated yes 161.3 ccommon non-rotated no 165.4 bc
Page | 27
.
Table 10. Factorial ANOVA for managemnent system effect on soybean yields (2004-2009).
Table 11. Mean soybean yields by year. High yield study. Lamberton, MN 2004-2009. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.05).
Table 12. Year and management system effect on soybean yields (2004-2009). Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.05).
The role of sulfur in soybean yields
Sulfur effects on soybean are less clear than those on corn. The suspect 2008 yields are were
excluded from the analyses of sulfur effects on yield.
Factor pyear 0.0000***management 0.0000***year * management 0.0004***
Year Bushels2004 56.7 cd2005 65.7 a2006 60.6 b2007 55.4 d2008 31.3 e2009 58.9 bc
Yield Year Management Bushels/acre2004 intensive 59.2 cd
2004 common 54.3 de
2005 intensive 67.1 a
2005 common 64.3 abc
2006 intensive 61.4 abc
2006 common 59.9 bcd
2007 intensive 59.3 cd
2007 common 51.5 e
2008 intensive 31.3 f
2008 common 31.3 f
2009 intensive 65.9 ab
2009 common 51.9 e
Page | 28
Soybean yields form 2006, 2007 and 2009 were affected by year and management but previous
sulfur applications did not have not significant effect on soybean yields overall (Table 13). Year
and management effects on soybean yield were discussed previously.
When examining soybean yield responses by individual year, sulfur increased soybean yield
only in 2009. Previous sulfur application increased yield ( p=0.0806) in intensive management
soybeans by 6.5 bushels (69.5 bushels/acre compared to 63.0 bushels/acre). Previous sulfur
application did not affect yield in the lower yielding common practices management where
soybean yielded 51.4 bushels/acre and 52.3 bushels/acre with and without previous sulfur
respectively.
The transient 2009 response to sulfur in the intensively managed soybeans begs more detailed
investigation. Sulfur is a mobile nutrient and it is possible that the response may be related to
corn stover quantity or quality. It may also relate to less easily identified changes in soil
biological processes.
Similar to corn, sulfur numerically increased yield in the intensively management soybean but
decreased yield in common practices (Table 14). Strict statistical interpretation would indicate
these non- significant differences should be ignored. The same phenomonenon occurring in
corn indicates that additional research may be valuable.
These yield data contain manure applications in intensive management but cannot answer
questions on crop response to manure compared to other plant nutrient forms.
Table 13. Factorial ANOVA for rotation, management and sulfur application effect on soybean yields (2006-2009).
Factor pyear 0.0356 **
management 0.0045 ***
previous sulfur 0.9752management * sulfur 0.0495 **
manage* year 0.5569year* sulfur 0.5664year* management* sulfur 0.1662
Page | 29
Table 14. Management system and previous sulfur application effect on soybean yields (2006,2007 and 2009). Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.05).
Long term management and rotation effect on soybean yield
All plots were planted to soybean in the 2010 season. This provided intervals between soybean
crops of 0, 1, and 7 years. Unfortunately, the corn-corn-soybean rotation ended as a single
corn crop between soybean crops. The 2010 soybean yields were analyzed separately
because corn was not included and more than one variety was assessed (Table 15).
Similar to results obtained in previous years, management and rotation were highly significant
and affected soybean yields (Table 16). Soybeans in intensive management yielded more than
those under the common practices regimen, 61.9 bushels to 56.2 bushels/acre respectively.
Soybeans after seven years of corn had significantly higher yield (66.4 bushels/acre) than other
rotations. The corn - soybean rotation ending with consecutive soybean crops yielded
significantly less (53.0 bushels/acre) than all other rotations. The corn-soybean and corn-corn-
soybean (soybean-corn soybean from 2008-2010) rotations had intermediate and similar yields
of 58.1 and 59.4 bushels/acre respectively. One less soybean crop in the corn-corn- soybean
rotation over the period of the study did not significantly increase yield over the soybean–corn-
soybean rotations in this study.
In all rotations, intensive management soybeans numerically out-yielded their common practices
counterparts; significantly so with the single exception of the long-term continuous corn (Table
16). Perhaps, soil fertility was minimizing or compensating for the impact of disease in shorter
rotations. Compensation for reduced water and nutrient transport from root or vascular
pathogens immediately come to mind. Alternatively, higher soil fertility could be reducing
disease infection. For example, other research has correlated low pH and low soil potassium
levels with increased brown stem rot (Phialophora gregata) severity. It should be noted that
YieldManagement Previous sulfur bushels/acre
intensive yes 64.5 aintensive no 60.2 abcommon yes 53.6 bcommon no 58.0 ab
Page | 30
this site did not have a history of chronic low yield caused by disease or nematodes. These
data suggest several additional research studies to better understand this relationship.
Varieties yield differently (p < 0.10) but differences were affected by crop rotation. In spite of
Brown stem rot susceptibility, AG2107 had been a consistently high yielding variety for the area.
Asgrow AG2107 yielded 58.7 bushels/acre and Asgrow AG2108, the brown stem rot resistant
variety 59.8 bushels/acre. These differences may be due to the brown stem rot pathogen but
differences within rotation, and presumed disease severity, were not observed (Table 17).
These two varieties are sister lines with AG 2108 a later selection and perhaps with higher yield
potential.
When crop rotation effect on disease severity and yield are examined, part of the yield puzzle is
explained (Table 18). Brown stem rot severity declines in relation to the frequency and timing
of soybean crops. Soybeans after 7 years of corn had significantly shorter stem pith symptoms
than other rotations. The rotation with soybeans after soybeans had the longest stem
symptoms. Yields generally followed disease severity. Yield differences for the corn-corn-
soybean rotation and corn-soybean-rotation were not observed but the former had less brown
stem rot severity. This may indicate that the rotation effect is due to more than a single
pathogen, a most probable scenario.
Soybean health differences by management and rotation were easily observed at soybean
maturity. The short rotation, common practices plots were shortest and most advanced and the
continuous corn, intensive managed plots tallest and least mature.
Sulfur significantly reduced yield in the low yielding corn-soybean-soybean rotation. Sulfur
produced slight non-significant yield increases in other rotations (Table 19). This re-enforces
other observations of sulfur induced yield reductions in lower yield situations.
Page | 31
Table 15. The effect of management, rotation interval, previous sulfur applications, and implied BSR resistance (variety) on 2010 soybean yield. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Table 16. The effect of crop rotation and corn management on 2010 soybean yields. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s alpha = 0.10).
Factor pmanagement 0.0000 ***rotation 0.0000 ***previous sulfur 0.1123variety 0.0561 *management * rotation 0.0016 ***management * previous sulfur 0.4435management * variety 0.5092rotation * previous sulfur 0.0977 *rotation* variety 0.0784 *previous sulfur * variety 0.1524management * rotation * previous sulfur 0.7575management * rotation * variety 0.7094rotation * previous sulfur * variety 0.3562management * rotation * previous sulfur * variety 0.5209
Corn Management Rotation Bushels /acreIntensive C-C-C-C-C-C-C-S 67.9 aCommon practices C-C-C-C-C-C-C-S 65.0 abIntensive C-C-S-C-C-S-C-S 62.1 bCommon practices C-C-S-C-C-S-C-S 56.8 cIntensive C-S-C-S-C-S-C-S 62.6 bCommon practices C-S-C-S-C-S-C-S 53.6 cdIntensive C-C-S-C-S-C-S-S 54.9 cCommon practices C-C-S-C-S-C-S-S 51.1 d
Page | 32
.
Table 17. Rotation * brown stem rot resistance interaction. Influence on soybean yield. High yield study. Lamberton, MN 2010. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.10).
Table 18. The effect of soybean planting interval (rotation) on Brown Stem Rot (BSR) severity and soybean yield. High yield study. Lamberton, MN 2010. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD alpha=0.10).
Table 19. Rotation * sulfur interaction. Residual sulfur influence on soybean yield. High yield study. Lamberton, MN 2010. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s alpha=0.10).
Variety w/ BSR YieldRotation resistance Bushels /acreC-C-C-C-C-C-C-S Yes 67.7 aC-C-C-C-C-C-C-S No 65.2 aC-C-S-C-C-S-C-S Yes 59.7 bC-C-S-C-C-S-C-S No 59.1 bC-S-C-S-C-S-C-S Yes 57.5 bcC-S-C-S-C-S-C-S No 58.7 bC-C-S-C-S-C-S-S Yes 54.3 cdC-C-S-C-S-C-S-S No 51.7 d
% stem length YieldRotation w/ BSR symptoms (bushels/acre)C-C-S-C-S-C-S-S 55.3 a 53.0 cC-S-C-S-C-S-C-S 41.9 b 58.1 bC-C-S-C-C-S-C-S 20.9 c 59.4 bC-C-C-C-C-C-C-S 6.1 d 66.4 a
Sulfur applied to YieldRotation previous corn Bushels /acreC-C-C-C-C-C-C-S Yes 67.5 aC-C-C-C-C-C-C-S No 65.4 aC-C-S-C-C-S-C-S Yes 59.8 bC-C-S-C-C-S-C-S No 59.1 bC-S-C-S-C-S-C-S Yes 59.3 bC-S-C-S-C-S-C-S No 56.9 bcC-C-S-C-S-C-S-S Yes (none in 2009) 52.3 eC-C-S-C-S-C-S-S No 53.7 cd
Page | 33
The effect of management and rotation on biotic factors.
Plant parasitic nematode population assessment
Nematodes from the genera Pratylenchus, Helicotylenchus, Heterodera (eggs only) and
Xiphenema were observed in spring 2009 soil samples collected from this study. Continuous
corn plots had been in place for five years. The population densities of nematodes parasitic on
corn observed in this study were unlikely to cause yield loss.
Only Helicotylenchus (spiral) populations were affected by treatments in this study (Table 20).
Spiral nematodes were lowest in the high management system (Table 21). The difference
could be related to a manure history in these plots or another unknown biological factor
changed by management. Spiral nematodes at very high populations can cause yield loss in
some horticultural crops. They were least abundant in the continuous corn rotation and
populations increased by number and timing of soybean in the rotation (Table 22).
Pratylenchus (Lesion) nematodes were the most abundant. They are common corn parasitic
nematodes in fine textured soils and hurt yield when populations are high. Although numerically
slightly higher in plots where corn was grown in 2008, significant differences by crop rotation
history were not observed.
Xiphenema (dagger) nematodes were present but occurred in only a few plots but at very low
populations. Dagger nematodes are known to cause corn yield loss at high population densities
and are the most aggressive corn parasitic nematode genera sampled.
This study provides evidence that continuous corn is not at universal risk to yield reducing
populations of corn parasitic nematodes.
Soybean cyst nematode (SCN) egg populations ranged from 0 to 258 eggs/100 cc. These are
barely detectable populations of SCN. Population densities had not changed over the period of
the study. Management strategy or crop rotation did not affect SCN egg populations during the
study duration.
Page | 34
Table 20. The effect of management system and rotation on plant parasitic nematodes. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) p values.
Table 21. Management system effect on plant parasitic nematodes, spring 2009. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey HSD alpha = 0.10).
Table 22. Rotation effect on plant parasitic nematodes, spring 2009. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey HSD alpha = 0.10).
Other Biological observations
Late season corn diseases, common rust (Puccinia zea) and eyespot (Kabetiella zea) were
present in this study. Both became prevalent on the ear leaf and above during late dough stage
in 2009 but were present at very low levels other years. Stalk rot(s) were not prevalent during
any year although Fusarium stalk rots did reduce yield in nearby fields during 2007.
Soybean root necrosis from aerobic conditions and root diseases, primarily Fusarium spp.,
occurred after occasional periods of flooded soils. This root injury was related to landscape
position and drainage tile placement, not to rotation or fertility regime. Root regeneration
prevented mortality and stand losses were not detected in any of these events.
Brown stem rot was the most prevalent above ground soybean disease at this location and has
been previously discussed. Pod and stem blight (Diaporthae), and anthracnose
(Colletotrichum), were present at senescence all years. Bacterial blight (Psuedomonas), brown
Factor lesion dagger spiral SCN (eggs)management 0.2593 0.2593 0.0050 *** 0.7684rotation 0.3584 0.3584 0.0658 * 0.6081
Management lesion dagger spiral SCN (eggs)intensive management 32.2 a 0.4 a 22.5 b 101.7 acommon practices 38.2 a 3.1 a 67.2 a 85.3 a
Rotation lesion dagger spiral SCN (eggs)C-C-C-C-C-C 52.8 a 0.8 a 14.5 b 107.9 aC-C-S-C-C-S 27.5 a 5.5 a 39.5 ab 76.8 aC-C-S-C-S -C 39.5 a 0.0 a 55.1 ab 44.0 aC-S-C-S-C-S 21.1 a 0.8 a 70.4 a 145.4 a
Page | 35
spot (Septoria) and downy mildew (Peronospora) were additional soybean diseases present at
low levels during the period of the study.
While a foliar fungicide comparison would have been interesting and perhaps valuable, foliar
fungicides were not applied to either crop for three reasons. First, contemporary research did
not show significant or predictable yield improvement from foliar fungicides and one of the initial
premises of this study was to include yield-enhancing parameters as they were documented to
be effective. Secondly, the incidence and severity of diseases controllable by fungicides were
low. Finally, plot size prevented an additional split within existing plots and degrees of freedom
issues would have prevented accurate analysis of potential interactions, both not uncommon,
particularly long-term research designs.
Bird cherry-oat, Rhopalosiphum padi, while present at unusually high populations below the ear
leaf in 2007 corn, were not considered to be yield limiting. Two-spotted spider mite,
Tetranychus urticae, infestations were observed but remained very low in the canopy.
Soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, reached economic threshold in this study in all years except
2004 and were well controlled with a single foliar application of insecticide. The selection of
insecticides with miticidal properties in 2007 and 2009 prevented yield loss from either pest.
Northern corn rootworm, Diabrotica barberi, was the predominant rootworm species. Beetle
populations were very low during the study period never approaching 0.10 beetles /plant.
Cursory root examinations in continuous and rotated corn revealed less than 0.10 nodes pruned
before Bt-RW hybrids were used and much less after. The low corn rootworm pressure did not
warrant more intensive adult or root sampling in any rotation or management.
Management and rotation effect on soil test levels
As expected, the 2010 topsoil samples taken at the end of study showed differences in nutrients
and pH by management and rotation (Table 23).
Higher levels of phosphorus, potassium, zinc and nitrate and pH occurred in the intensive
management treatments and correlates the additional plant nutrients applied (Table 24).
Page | 36
Rotation 3 (C-C-S-C-S-C-S-S), was higher in phosphorus, potassium and zinc than Rotation 4
(C-S-C-S-C-S-C-S). The magnitude of these differences was not large and the cause unclear.
Possible explanations include: sampling variability from previous manure applications,
differences in nutrient uptake with the 2009 or previous crop and/or an interaction between
nutrients.
In both management systems, topsoil phosphorus levels were higher in continuous corn and the
biennial soybean rotations (Table 24). This correlates to nutrients applied.
Topsoil samples for sulfur availability are notoriously inaccurate for predicting yield response to
a sulfur application. In this case, we are simply measuring residual sulfur. Topsoil sulfur was
affected by management and highest under intensive management. Equivalent applications of
sulfur were made to both management systems. The exception was an initial application to
intensive management plots in the spring of 2005. The difference could be due to the initial 25
pounds of sulfur, possible even for a nutrient mobile with water through the soil profile, or the
manure history. However, corn was responding to side-dress sulfur applications in both
management systems. This leads to hypotheses that low rates of sulfur will not produce
optimum yields or that sulfur cycling within crop residue may be one of the drivers of yield
responses.
With a single exception, previous sulfur application did not affect or interact with nutrient levels,
including sulfur. This was not unexpected due to the mobile nature of sulfates in the soil. The
exception was a management * rotation * previous sulfur interaction on residual topsoil nitrogen.
This statistical interaction did not impact mean separations.
Zinc levels remained adequate after a broadcast application in 2005 (Figure 7). Both
phosphorus and potassium soil levels declined over time in common practices (Figure 9, Figure
8). Broadcast superphosphate or K20 were applied when this occurred.
These data show that soil test values can decline relatively quickly even when it is supposed
that adequate fertilizer rates are being used. Phosphorus levels did increase in intensive
management but not at an unmanageable rate. Management of rented ground for high yields
based on high soil fertility is often problematic, particularly on rented land.
Page | 37
Table 23. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) p values for pH and soil nutrients. 0-6” samples, fall 2010.
Table 24. Soil test pH and nutrient (PPM) means for management, rotation and interactions. 0-6” samples fall 2010. Means followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey HSD alpha = 0.05).
Factor pH P (Bray) K Zn N03 SManagement 0.0020 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0638 *Rotation 0.0070 *** 0.0630 * 0.0122 ** 0.0070 *** 0.0210 ** 0.2128Previous Sulfur 0.9004 0.8556 0.7176 0.8527 0.9480 0.4450Management * Rotation 0.8953 0.0197 ** 0.3128 0.9755 0.9682 0.0029 ***Management * Previous S 0.2631 0.8556 0.4704 0.9179 0.1387 0.9593Rotation * Previous S 0.6067 0.5349 0.7658 0,4607 0.4555 0.8366Management * Rotation* Previous S 0.7044 0.5535 0.9716 0.8162 0.0528 * 0.1193
Variable pH P (Bray) K Zn NO3 SManagementIntensive 6.0 a 44.8 a 241.5 a 2.5 a 11.8 a 8.7Common 5.9 b 23.1 b 179.4 b 1.3 b 9.3 b 7.5Rotation (2003-2010)CCCCCCCS 5.8 b 35.4 205.4 b 1.7 b 9.8 bCCSCCSCS 6.1 a 32.8 206.7 b 2.0 ab 10.6 abCCSCSCSS 6.0 ab 40.4 238.2 a 2.3 a 11.8 aCSCSCSCS 5.9 ab 27.1 191.5 b 1.6 b 10.0 bManagement * Rotation Intensive CCCCCCCS 43.4 ab 9.0 abcIntensive CCSCCSCS 40.1 bc 8.1 abcIntensive CCSCSCSS 60.6 a 10.4 aIntensive CSCSCSCS 32.9 bc 7.1 abcCommon CCCCCCCS 25.4 bc 6.3 cCommon CCSCCSCS 25.4 bc 6.7 bcCommon CCSCSCSS 20.1 c 7.3 abcCommon CSCSCSCS 21.4 c 10.1 abc
Page | 38
Figure 7. Zinc levels (ppm) from fall 0-6 inch soil samples 2003-2010. Individual plots tested below 1 ppm zinc and 8 lbs/acre broadcast zinc was applied to all plots in spring 2005 to minimize variability from this nutrient.
Figure 8. Potassium levels (ppm) from fall 0-6 inch soil samples (2003-2010). Soil test levels were declining particularly within individual in common practices plots and 90 lbs./acre broadcast K was applied to all plots spring 2009.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Zin
c P
PM
Common practices Intensive management
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Po
tass
ium
PP
M
Common practices Intensive management
Page | 39
Figure 9. Phosphorus levels (ppm) from fall 0-6 inch soil samples. (2003-2010).
Effect of management and rotation on residual nitrate levels
Residual nitrates were sampled to a 48-inch depth after the 2009 harvest. Nitrate levels were higher in the intensive management. Residual levels were higher in continuous corn, intermediate in the corn-corn-soybean rotation and lowest after first year corn. Residual nitrates were much lower after soybeans (Figure10). Significant amounts of N were below the two foot depth. Nitrate nitrogen as a percentage of total nitrate N was similar for all treatments when partitioned by depth within the soil profile. The percentage contributed by unassimilated nitrogen fertilizer/ manure and from mineralization of crop residue is unknown. Available residual deep nitrogen later in the season may be a way that soybean are responding with higher yields to the intensive management system, particularly in dry years. Scavenging nitrogen may provide benefits in a corn/soybean system may provide benefits in addition to improving soybean yields. These data suggest that continuous corn production may not be as nitrogen-demanding as many corn producers believe. It is an intriguing possibility that nitrogen rates might be adjusted downward with longer-term corn rotations. This simple management practice would reduce the cost of continuous corn production while maintaining yield and minimizing any potential perceived environmental impacts from nitrogen fertilizers. The partitioning of NO3 within the profiles suggests soil sampling of continuous corn may useful in predicting N rate changes.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Pho
spho
rus
PP
MCommon practices Intensive management
Page | 40
Figure 10. The effect of management and crop rotation on residual soil nitrogen. High yield studies, fall 2009. Lamberton, MN.
Objective I. Summary/conclusions
This study, imperfect as it is, reinforces the relationships between management input variables.
Weather is a primary driver for corn and soybean yields as it affects planting date and
subsequent crop development. Drainage, soil fertility and variety selection are tools
producers can use to reduce but not eliminate the impact of weather.
While not a specific part of this study, it should be noted that field-specific variety
selection remains important to obtaining consistently high yields. The interaction of crop
genetics with environment, field characteristics and pest pressure is second only to
weather as a yield driver.
This study suggests that additional yield may be obtained by adjusting crop rotations and
thereby allowing greater flexibility in variety selection.
Page | 41
“Intensive management” has highest yields for both crops. Higher fertility and higher
corn plant populations do seem to improve yield of both crops.
Corn in a C-SB rotation has higher yield than continuous corn (5% in this study). A yield
decline occurs in second year corn but yields do not continue to decline with consecutive
corn crops. Management increases corn yield but does not remove the penalty for non-
rotation.
Soybean yields increase with reduced soybean frequency in the rotation. In this study,
brown stem rot severity was reduced with increased interval between soybean crops.
This study had relatively few pathogen problems reducing yield. The rate of yield
improvement for each year of non-soybean should not be expected to be the same for
all fields.
Continuous corn is not at universal risk to pest problems. In this study, a detectable
increase in corn disease, rootworm or plant parasitic nematodes were not observed,
even after seven years of corn.
This study indicates that in cropping systems containing both corn and soybean, neither
continuous corn nor an annual rotation between corn and soybean rotation will produce
optimum yields for both crops. Soybeans benefit from increased rotational interval and
corn yields increase after a soybean crop. Adding a second year of corn in the rotation
did not increase soybean yields but this may not reflect the situation after addition cycles
of a corn-corn- soybean rotation.
Fields under continuous corn production may develop disease or insects problems that
cause corn yields to decline. Goss’s blight and wilt and Bt-RW resistant western corn
rootworms are recent Minnesota examples. While they can be partially managed with
hybrid selection and in the case of rootworm, pesticides; a single year rotation out of
corn can eliminate or minimize problems from a field. This provides producers with
maximum flexibility, particularly in selecting hybrids for yield and other agronomic
factors. Prolonging the effective life of pesticides and genes for host plant resistance to
pests has long and short-term benefits in simplified and economical crop management.
Page | 42
The same rotation is not likely to be optimal for all fields and all producers’ needs. An
infrequent soybean crop may be best for one producer’s field, one may be best with
several corn crops between soybeans and another may be fine in a long-term corn-
soybean rotation. This study provides support to the value of crop-rotation. Creative use
of rotation can produce optimum per acre yields of carbohydrates and protein and
effectively create a “third crop” within a corn-soybean rotation.
Yield of intensively management continuous corn is similar is to common practices corn-
soybean rotation but less than intensively managed corn-soybean. However, greater
early vegetative growth in a high yield situation can produce a situation where drought
stress is magnified, particularly in continuous corn.
Increased bean yields in high yield systems can be essentially “free”. Both crops need
to be accounted for in a soil fertility program. The former seems often assume and the
latter easily ignored in tight economies or on rented ground.
Phosphorus and potassium levels declined in common practices management.
Producers need to provide adequate fertilizer inputs to maintain (or increase) soil test
levels. Do not assume a fertilizer recommendation is adequate for all fields or portion
thereof.
This study documents responses to sulfur on fine textured, high organic matter glacial till
soils. Side-dress applications of sulfur (ammonium thiosulfate) produced a consistent
yield response in corn. During 2007 and 2008 both management systems showed a
response and in 2009 response was limited to the intensive management system.
Soybeans responded to sulfur as an indirect (previous crop) application in 2009.
This study suggests that sulfur may decrease corn and soybean yields in some low yield
situations. Response to sulfur might be related to quantity and quality of residue or
interactions with other nutrients, this study suggests a limiting factor.
Page | 43
Nitrates accumulated through the profile with subsequent corn crops. Nitrogen rates
might be adjusted downward with nitrate soil tests. Nitrates were reduced when soybean
crops were grown.
Studies of this type may have several shortcomings. Large plots are required to provide
buffer space for soil, residue, nutrients and biotic factors between plots over years. For
better or worse, plots are fixed as soon as a rotational, tillage or soil fertility treatment is
applied. The number of comparisons that can be made is limited because of space and
statistical limitations. Multiple tillage comparisons are particularly prone to problems with
plot and equipment size and speed. The results of treatments applied to individual plots
are prone to drift over time.
This type of study does have advantages. It provides an opportunity for a treatment to
work through the system over time. In other words, yield effects might not be seen for
several years and the effects of a treatment may compound over time. Hypothetically, a
high yield environment develops over time. If new practices are added to the study there
should be some reason (data) to suggest they enhance yield. Multiple simultaneous
additions are acceptable if they have basis in research. Conversely, superimposing
treatments for exploratory purposes may provide useful information but they can
permanently disrupt plot integrity. This study suffered from this affliction.
Future needs
As typical, this study suggests additional research questions. A few examples follow:
• Is the sulfur response related to wet/dry or cool/warm weather during the growing season?
• What rate(s) and application method(s) of sulfur is optimum.
• Does a sulfur application provide a single season response or can long-term benefits occur.
• Would fall N or higher sub-soil levels of other nutrients have improved corn yields in dry conditions?
• Can N rates be reduced in continuous corn with mimimal risk.
Page | 44
• How far can tillage be reduced in a high yield system (residue management)?
• How would improved drainage change results?
• Which pest problems are best managed by rotation and high fertility.
• Can rotation eliminate Bt-RW resistant western corn rootworm from a field or geographic area.
• What are economic impacts?
Objective II
Initiate new long-term yield trials at multiple locations in Minnesota
Unfortunately, little progress has been made on this objective. Cooperators can be identified
with relative ease but valid and consistent guidelines for cooperators are critical and difficult to
define. For example, since the conclusion of this study, researchers at the University of
Minnesota Research and Outreach Centers have expended considerable effort in developing a
common protocol for implementation of long-term agricultural research at these sites. They
have been less than completely successful, highlighting the difficulties in establishing long- term
multivariate studies.
As mentioned in the summary of Objective I, there are several problems in establishing a long
term research plot. It is difficult to design trials that do not confound the analysis of variables
that were unplanned at the onset but become important to understanding results. Results can
be hard to publish, reducing participation by academic researchers.
The size of production agriculture machinery severely limit the number of accurate comparisons
possible in a producer managed experiment. Conversely, farm scale equipment operates at a
scale and speed incompatible with use in small plots. The dilemma is frustrating to both
producer and academic researchers. Physics indicates that the speed, weight and pass
width/wheel traffic used by farmers could give different outcomes. Mathematics and geography
indicate that strip trials across soil types, and pest populations might show differences that are
due to factors other than those studied.
The economy dictates how long a trial dealing with rotation can be maintained; this is especially
true of producer’s fields but also hinders long term work on University fields. Nonetheless, the
Page | 45
University of Minnesota Research and Outreach Centers are best situated to host a
comprehensive long-term study on yield increases over time.
Individual producers benefit from high yields and should participate in validating research.
Based on numerous conversations with producers, participation will follow the development of a
clean protocol.
This method was intended to add a single variable at a time. This would simplify
implementation, particularly for producer researchers, as experiments evolved over time.
Remember that both current management and intensive would be evolving over time. The
difficulty is... which variable? Management skills and yield constraints or fields fall across a
wide continuum.
A possible framework is briefly outlined in Objective III. It is not incompatible with techniques
demonstrated and described under Objective I.
Objective III
Create framework to identify input components for high yield production
Hybrid selection, seeding rate, N, P, K, Zn, S fertilizer rate and in-row residue management are
important components that need to be included in small plot and on-farm comparisons on yield.
Some researchers have included individual components of yield, seeding rates and individual
nutrients for example, in on-farm experiments. These data are valuable. A cropping system
often responds to a single management input but by its very nature the system cannot respond
to that variable to the exclusion of others. In other words, it is easier to identify individual
elements that may improve yield than understand how they fit into a high yield system.
Since 2009, new problems affecting corn and soybean growers have developed. These have
been mentioned previously and include Goss’s blight and wilt, western corn rootworms resistant
to Bt, two-spotted spider mites resistant to chlorpyrifos, and weeds resistant to multiple
herbicide modes of action. These pests, if studied as individual components, can quickly
change agronomic research from yield enhancement to yield maintenance. Studies on
Individual components of pesticide or variety selection are needed and provide basic efficacy
information. Real efficacy and yield/economic benefit can only be determined after the
Page | 46
component is examined with crop rotation, nutrient and drainage management and overall yield
potential.
What may be most helpful is a series of experiments that adventurous growers can apply to
their own farms. These could also apply to small plot studies superimposed on treatments in
grower’s fields and serve as a benchmark for applied agronomic research. The difficulties of
doing meaningful research on tillage and other mechanical based management in small plots
can be overcome. Interactions can be studied if small plots can be placed within plots
implemented with equipment used on the scale it was created for. This does require good
cooperation between all parties to avoid drift issues and any premature combining phenomena.
These experiments need to be formulated along a progression of management for example
water management, soil fertility, crop rotation planting date and row spacing, variety selection,
pest management (including all of these). Ideally, fact sheets or other educational materials
would be developed as part of this.
Researchers can also choose from research questions along this progression as high yield
systems are developed. To be blunt, it makes little sense to increase seeding or fertilizer rates
if a field drowns out on a regular basis. Other producers may only need to improve application
timings or variety selection. To be effectively developed, this series of experiment will need
considerable input from multiple disciplines. Frankly, obtaining this input has been one of the
impediments to the process.
On the other hand, producers and others in ag industry often see yield responses before
researchers understand the mechanism. Examples include yield increases from insecticides on
Bt-RW corn, sulfur responses on high organic matter soils, declining phosphorus soil tests.
Again these can be evaluated with field scale experiments, small plots within field scale strips,
or highly structured small plot research.
Committees already exist to determine research priorities. It would be relatively simple to use
these provide lists of those proposed and funded research that have produced yield positive
results for inclusion in the high yield system.
Positive, accurate (yield increasing) results, regardless of how they were initiated (academic,
industry, and producer) can then be incorporated into the long-term high yield locations and
menu of on-farm experiments for further validation.
Page | 47
Acknowlegements This research was funded by: Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council Several researchers and Extension specialists have provide suggestions over the course on this project: Jeff Coulter, Dale Hicks and Seth Naeve, U of M Agronomy and Plant Genetics; Dan Kaiser, John Lamb and George Rehm, U of M Soil, Water and Climate; Dean Malvick, U of M Plant Pathology, Kent Olson, U of M applied economics. Numerous producers and other ag professionals provided much appreciated input, both solicited and volunteered input. Mark Colter, Jeff Irbeck, Lee Klossner and Steve Quiring and 6 years worth of student interns provided the work for this project at the
Page | 48
Appendix I. Figures.
Figure 1. Plot diagram of the high yield study area showing initial (2003) soil test values.
.......................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 2. Experimental design (Rotations and management levels) for high yield studies at Lamberton, 2004-2010. .............................................................................................................10
Figure 3. 2004 - 2010 and historic growing degree day accumulations base 50o F. University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN....................................17 Figure 4. Cumulative growing season (May-September) precipitation. University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN (2004-2010 and historic).............18 Figure 5. Growing season soil moistures 2004-2010, University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN. Total inches of water available in the top five feet of the soil profile...................................................................................................................19 Figure 6. Corn and Soybean yields under two management systems (2004-2009..................20
Figure 7. Zinc levels (ppm) from fall 0-6 inch soil samples 2003-2010. High yield study, Lamberton, MN. Individual plots tested below 1 ppm zinc and 8 lbs/acre broadcast zinc was applied to all plots in spring 2005 to minimize variability from this nutrient.................................38
Figure 8. Potassium levels (ppm) from fall 0-6 inch soil samples 2003-2010. Soil test levels were declining particularly within individual in common practices plots and 90 lbs./acre broadcast K was applied to all plots spring 2009.......................................................................38
Figure 9. Phosphorus levels (ppm) from fall 0-6 inch soil samples. High yield study, Lamberton, MN. 2003 - 2010......................................................................................................39
Figure 10. The effect of management and crop rotation on residual soil nitrogen. High yield studies fall 2009, Lamberton, MN................................................................................................40
Page | 49
Appendix II. Tables
Table 1. Tillage information. High yield studies. Lamberton, MN 2004 2010...........................11
Table 2. Soil fertility information. Plant food applied expressed in pounds plant food/acre......12
Table 3. Variety and planting information (2004-2010)............................................................ 13
Table 4. Weed, insect and disease control. Aztec rate expressed in oz/1000 row ft. All other rates expressed as product /acre................................................................................................14
Table 5. Factorial ANOVA for management system, two crop rotations and year (2005-2009) .....................................................................................................................................................23
Table 6. Means corn yields by management system, rotation and year on corn yields (2005-2009).......................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 8. Factorial ANOVA for, management system, rotation and sulfur application effect on corn yields (2007-2009).............................................................................................................. 25
Table 9. Management system, rotation and sulfur application effect on corn yields (2007-2009)...........................................................................................................................................26
Table 10. Factorial ANOVA for managemnent system effect on soybean yields (2004-2009). 27
Table 11. Mean soybean yields by year (2004-2009)................................................................27
Table 12. Year and management system effect on soybean yields (2004-2009).....................27
Table 13. Factorial ANOVA for rotation, management and sulfur application effect on soybean yields (2006-2009)...................................................................................................................... 29
Table 14. Management system and previous sulfur application effect on soybean yields (2006,2007 and 2009)................................................................................................................ 29
Table 15. The effect of management, rotation interval, previous sulfur applications, and implied BSR resistance (variety) on 2010 soybean yield. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA........ 31
Table 16. The effect of crop rotation and corn management on 2010 soybean yields............. 31
Table 17. Rotation*brown stem rot resistance interaction. Influence on soybean yield 2010.. 32
Table 18. The effect of soybean planting interval (rotation) on Brown Stem Rot (BSR) severity and soybean yield. 2010..............................................................................................................32
Table 19. Rotation * sulfur interaction. Residual sulfur influence on soybean yield. 2010.......32
Table 20. The effect of management system and rotation on plant parasitic nematodes. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) p values.......................................................................34
Page | 50
Table 21. Management system effect on plant parasitic nematodes, spring 2009.................. 34
Table 22. Rotation effect on plant parasitic nematodes, spring 2009.......................................34
Table 23. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) p values for pH and soil nutrients. 0-6” samples, fall 2010........................................................................................................................37
Table 24. Soil test pH and nutrient (PPM) means for management, rotation and interactions. 0-6” samples, fall 2010............................................................................................................... 37