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