Irrigation Soybean Trial_ Report

8/3/2019 Irrigation Soybean Trial_ Report

1/12

IRRIGATION SOYBEAN TRIAL REPORT

2001-2002 SEASON

Introduction

The effect of ComCat was investigated on soybeans in terms of its potential to affect yield under irrigation

conditions. The trial was conducted in the Prieska area, Northern Cape Province of South Africa.

Material and methods

Treatments were applied with a rug bag sprayer and laid out in a randomized block design with each

treatment replicated three times. The following treatments were applied:

1. Control (untreated)

2. ComCat ROW applied at 200 g/ha on the 3-4 leaf stage

Soybeans were harvested and each replicate was weighed separately. The amount of water sprayed per

hectare was 300 liters. Statistical analysis was performed using the NCSS 2000 statistical program at a

95% significance level. Differences between treatments were calculated using the Tukey-Kramer multi-

comparison test.

Results and discussion

Two trials were conducted under irrigation in the Prieska area during 2001 and 2002. ComCat applied as

a single foliar spray at the 3-4 leaf growth stage increased the final soybean yield by 0.63 ton ha-1

(Figure

1; LSD (T)5% = 0.12 ton ha-1

) and 1.01 ton ha-1

(Figure 2; LSD(T)5% = 0.27 ton ha-1

) during 2001 and 2002

respectively. In both cases the yield increase was statistically significant.


2/12

Figure 1 Yield on soybean under irrigation during 2001 in the Prieska area.

Figure 2 Yield on soybean under irrigation during 2002 in the Prieska area.

Statistical analysis

SOYBEAN: IRRIGATION

Trial 1 (2001) (Figure 1)

Analysis of Variance Table

Source Sum of Mean Prob Power

Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level

(Alpha=0.05)

A: Treatments 1 0.7843781 0.7843781 271.62 0.000486* 1.000000

B: Replication 3 3.297338E-02 1.099113E-02 3.81 0.150660 0.286316

Yield on soybean under irrigation 2001-Prieska

0

0.5

11.5

2

2.5

3

control ComCat

Treatments

Yield(

ton/ha)

LSD(T)(5%) = 0.12

Yield on soybeans under irrigation 2002 -

Prieska

0

1

2

3

4

control ComCatTreatments

Yield

(ton/ha)

LSD(T)(5%) = 0.27


3/12

S 3 8.663375E-03 2.887792E-03

Total (Adjusted) 7 0.8260149

Total 8

* Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means

Plots Section

Tukey-Kramer Multiple-Comparison Test

Response: Yield

Term A: Treatments

1.80

2.05

2.30

2.55

2.80

1 2

Means of Yield

Treatments

Yield

1.80

2.05

2.30

2.55

2.80

1 2 3 4

Means of Yield

Replication

Yield


4/12

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(AB) DF=3 MSE=2.887792E-03 Critical Value=4.499438

Different

Group Count Mean From Groups

1 4 2.00875 2

2 4 2.635 1


Response: Yield

Term B: Replication


Different


2 2 2.256

4 2 2.2875

3 2 2.3175

1 2 2.4265




Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level

(Alpha=0.05)

A: Treatments 1 2.0402 2.0402 136.54 0.001347* 0.999832

B: Replication 3 0.060425 2.014167E-02 1.35 0.405988 0.132239

S 3 0.044825 1.494167E-02


Total 8



5/12

Means

Plots Section


Response: Yield

Term A: Treatments


Different


1 4 2.69 2

2 4 3.7 1

2.40

2.80

3.20

3.60

4.00

1 2

Means of Yield

Treatments

Yield

2.40

2.80

3.20

3.60

4.00

1 2 3 4

Means of Yield

Replication

Yield


6/12


Response: Yield

Term B: Replication


Different


1 2 3.0725

4 2 3.1675

3 2 3.23

2 2 3.31


7/12

IRRIGATION SOYBEAN TRIAL REPORT

2005 SEASON

Introduction

The effect of ComCat was investigated on soybeans in terms of its potential to affect yield under irrigation

conditions. The trial was conducted in the Vaalharts area, North West Province of South Africa.

Material and Methods

Experimental design

Using a single soybean cultivar, Egret, the trial was structured as a complete randomized design (CRD)

with five replications.

Experimental conditions and plant material

The trial was conducted on a Hutton light sandy-loam soil type containing 6-10% clay. The plot size was

12 m2

(4 x 3m) and the total plot area 874 m2. Soybean seeds were sown by hand on December 14,

2005 in six rows at 528 seeds per plot. The in-row spacing was 5 cm and between-row spacing 50 cm

extrapolating to 440 000 plants per hectare. However, on average only 240 plants per plot reached

maturity representing an average total population of 200 000 plants per ha. Plots were spaced 1 m apart.

The average monthly irrigation and precipitation at the trial site over the five month growing period are

shown in Fig. 3.


8/12

Month

R

ainfall/Irrigation(mm

)

0

50

100

150

200

250= Irrigation (Total = 196 mm)

= Rainfall (Total = 478.8 mm)

Decembe

r2005

Janu

ary2

006

Febr

uary

2006

March

2006

April20

06

Figure 3 Irrigation and rainfall over the five month growing period at Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme during

the 2005/2006 growing season.

Based on a soil analysis performed before planting (Table 1), no fertilizer was added to the soil. A second

soil analysis (Table 1) was performed after pods were harvested.


9/12

Table 1: Soil analysis before planting and after harvest.

Action

pH (KCl)

P

(mg/kg)

K

(mg/

kg)

Ca

(mg/kg)

Mg

(mg/kg)

Na

(mg/kg)

Ca/M

g

Ca+

Mg/K

Clay (%)

and soil

type

Soil

analysis

before

planting 6.72 28.76 137 553 130 16 4.25 4.98

6-10%

(Hutton)

Soil

analysis

after

harvest 5.9 14.9

150.9

(10)

475

(61)

127

(27)

21.5

(2)

2.28 8.85

6-10%

Planting

date

14/12/20

05

Harvest

date

12/05/20

06

Lasso

was used to control weeds and Cypermethrin

to control insects.

Foliar application and combined seed and foliar treatments

All foliar treatments were applied till run-off at 300 L ha-1 by using a back sprayer. ComCat was applied at

200g ha-1

. Soybeans were harvested and each replicate was weighed separately. The amount of water

sprayed per hectare was 300 liters. Statistical analysis was performed using the NCSS 2000 statistical

program at a 95% significance level. Differences between treatments were calculated using the Tukey-

Kramer multi-comparison test.

Results and discussion

Subsequently, in order to consider the difference in number of plants harvested per plot, the yield

calculation was employed namely on an area basis, but as a percentage of the control plant population.

A significant difference in yield was observed when expressed on the above procedure (Figure 3).


10/12

Figure 4 Effect of treating soybean (cv. Egret) with ComCat on the final yield calculated on an area

basis, but as a percentage of the number of control plants harvested per plot. LSD (T0.05) = 0.388

Statistical analysisSOYBEAN: IRRIGATION


Analysis of Variance Report

Page/Date/Time 1 08-25-2009 19:47:45

Database

Response Yield_oes_area

Expected Mean Squares Section

Source Term Denominator Expected

Term DF Fixed? Term Mean Square

A: Treatment 1 Yes S(A) S+sA

S(A) 8 No S

Note: Expected Mean Squares are for the balanced cell-frequency case.



Term DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level (Alpha=0.05)

A: Treatment 1 0.75076 0.75076 10.59 0.011620* 0.812710

S 8 0.567 0.070875


Yield on soybean under irrigation 2005 - Vaalharts

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

control ComCat

Treatments

Yield

(ton/ha)


11/12

Total 10


Means and Standard Error Section

Standard

Term Count Mean Error

All 10 3.032

A: Treatment

1 5 2.758 0.1190588

2 5 3.306 0.1190588

Plots Section


Response: Yield_oes_area

Term A: Treatment

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(A) DF=8 MSE=0.070875 Critical Value=3.261214

Different


1 5 2.758 2

2 5 3.306 1

2.40

2.75

3.10

3.45

3.80

1 2

Means of Yield_oes_area

Treatment

Yield_

oes_

area


12/12

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Table 2: Summary of irrigation soybean over seasons

YEARControl(ton/ha)

ComCat(ton/ha)

2001 2.009 2.635

2002 2.690 3.700

2005 2.758 3.306

Average 2.458 3.21

Documents

Irrigation Soybean Trial_ Report