No-till dryland sugarbeet production in the semi-arid US high plains. Drew Lyon

No-Till Dryland Sugarbeet Production in the Semi-Arid US High Plains

Drew Lyon and John Smith

Why Dryland Sugarbeets?

• High commodity prices limited irrigated ground available for beet production in 2007.

• Growers penalized for failing to deliver contracted acreage to factory.

• Growers asked if contracts could be met with dryland production?

Research Objectives

• Determine the yield potential for no-till dryland sugarbeet production

• Determine the optimum plant population

Materials & Methods

• Four locations– Sidney (E), Dalton, Hemingford, & Sidney (L)

• Two varieties– Hilleshog 9024RR & Betaseed 66RR70

• Four target populations– 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 plants m-2

• Six replications per location

Materials & Methods

• Plots were 4 rows wide by 12 m long– 76 cm row widths

• No-till planted into winter wheat residue• Weeds controlled in crop with two

applications of glyphosate• Goal was plant, spray, harvest and see what

happens

Root Yield Response to Harvest Population in 2008 - 2010

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

10

20

30

40

50

60

Plant population density (plants m-2)

Root

yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

Sidney 1 - 2009

Sidney 2 - 2009

Gurley - 2009

Hemingford - 2009

Sidney 1 - 2008

Sidney 2 - 2008

Hemingford - 2010

Sidney 2 - 2010Gurley - 2010

Sidney 1 - 2010

Sugar Concentration Response to Harvest Population in 2008-2010

0 2 4 6 8 10 12120

140

160

180

200

220

Plant population density (plants m-2)

Suga

r con

cent

ratio

n (g

kg-

1)

Sidney 1 -2008

Sidney 2 - 2008

Sidney 1 - 2009

Gurley - 2009

Hemingford - 2009

Sidney 2 - 2009

Sidney 1 - 2010

Gurley - 2010

Hemingford - 2010

Sidney 2 - 2010

Sugar Yield Response to Harvest Population in 2008 - 2010

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

Plant population density (plants m-2)

Suga

r yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

Sidney 1 - 2008 Sidney 2 - 2008

Sidney 1 - 2009

Gurley - 2009

Hemingford - 2009

Sidney 2 - 2009 Sidney 1 - 2010

Gurley - 2010

Hemingford - 2010

Sidney 2 - 2010

Root Yield Response to Harvest Population in 2008 - 2010

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Plant population density (plants m-2)

Root

yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

42

y = 9.7 + 11.4x – 0.962x2

R2 = 0.397, n = 477, p < 0.001

5.9

Sugar Yield Response to Harvest Population in 2008 - 2010

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.00.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Plant population density (plants m-2)

Suga

r yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

y = 9.7 + 11.4x – 0.962x2

R2 = 0.448, n = 477, p < 0.001

6.3

7.8

Conclusions

• Root yields > 40 Mg ha-1 are feasible• Sugar yields > 7.5 Mg ha-1 are feasible• No consistent varietal differences observed • Optimum plant population was between 5.9

(root yield) and 6.3 (sugar yield) plants m-2

Conclusions

• Maximum yields require deep, well drained soils with good stored water to at least 1.2 m

• Planting into heavy crop residues helps reduce evaporation and weed competition

After Harvest Soil Conditions

Questions?