Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Master of Science in Agronomy Program – Plant Population Effects on Corn Yields and
Ear Characteristics to Evaluate Thinning in Research Yield Trial Plots
Kevin BetzApril 16th, 2010
2
• Introduction/Background
• Project Creation
• Plant density review
• Objectives
• Material and Methods
• Results and Discussion
• Summary
Overview
Master of Science in Agronomy Program
3
Background• Grain and Livestock Farm
– Mendota, IL
• Education– Associate of Science
• Southwestern Community College; 1998-2000
• Major: Agricultural Business
– Bachelor of Science• Iowa State University; 2001-
2003• Major: Agricultural Studies• Minor: Agronomy
– Masters of Agronomy Program• Fall 2005-Current
4
Background• Monsanto- Williamsburg, IA
– 2003, Research Technician– 2004, Research Assistant
• Monsanto- Thomasboro, IL– 2008, ICB Coordinator
5
Project Creation
• Field research project during the 2008 growing season
• Plant density trial conducted
• Idea was to evaluate thinning of yield trial plots by looking at hybrid response to plant density
6
Project Creation
• Why??– Corn plant densities continue to rise in
commercial agriculture– Private sector must evaluate new hybrids at
higher densities– General interest in how hybrids respond to
plant density– Monsanto’s commitment to double yield by
2030
7
Project Creation
• World population of over 9 billion by 2040
• U.S planted 86.5 million acres of corn in 2009
• A 1.5% annual increase in corn grain yield is needed
• The last 30 yrs we have had a 1.3% annual increase
8
Project Creation
• Plant densities are going to play a significant role in doubling grain yield by 2030
• Important to evaluate new hybrids at commercially recommended densities.
• Thinning of yield trial plots is a major job task involving many people and hours– Is there a chance it could be reduced?
9
Plant Density Review
• Advancement in corn genetics has led to hybrids withstanding higher levels of stress
• Adoption of traits since the mid-90’s has given farmers additional measures to protect yield
• Research has shown that hybrids with Bt have increased yields – Singer et. al. showed 5-8% yield increase with Bt hybrids– Cox et. al. (2009) showed double and triple-stack hybrids yielded
2.7% more than their base genetics
10
Plant Density Review
• Abundance of plant density data available • Data from recent years has shown that the
optimum plant density has increased– University of Minnesota recommends target planting rate of
33,000 seeds/acre– Purdue University recommends no less than 30,000 plants/acre
for a final stand– Iowa State University data in 2006 showed 36,000 seed/acre– Monsanto data shows 33,000-38,000 seeds/acre
11
Corn crop densities for states in the Corn Belt
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
IL IN IA MN NE OH WI
State
Pla
nts
pe
r a
cre
1991 1995 2000 2005 2009
12
Plant Density Review
• Research has shown that yields have increased when plant densities are increased
• Continuing research will be vital to ensure farmers have knowledge of optimum planting densities
• Private sector must test new hybrids under higher densities to see performance
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
23000 28000 33000 38000 43000
Corn
Yiel
d (bu
shels
per a
cre)
Plant Population (plants per acre)
Effect of plant density by year averaged across locations, row widths and germplasm (figure from Monsanto, 2010).
Source: Monsanto. 2010. Data Review-Corn Plant Density.Marcus Jones PH.D Technology Development Manager Corn Systems
13
Ear Growth Characteristics
• Companies characterize hybrids by ear type– Fixed (determinate)– Flexed (indeterminate)
• Why does ear type matter?– If a hybrid can truly flex then it could compensate for variations
in plant density– Theory is as plant density is increased fixed-ear hybrids would
yield better, conversely as plant density decreases flexed-ear hybrids would yield better
14
Ear Growth Characteristics• Also important in the Western Corn Belt where water is
limiting resource and plant densities are typically lower
• Very little scientific research comparing hybrid ear-type and their response to varying plant densities– Thomison and Jordan (1995) found that hybrid differences in ear
growth had a small effect on yield response to density– Cox (1997) reported that ear type did not contribute much to
hybrid variability for optimum plant density
• Interested in seeing if hybrid response to plant density varied by ear-type
15
Yield Components
• Four components– Plants per acre– Ears per plant– Kernels per ear
• Kernels per row (KPR)• Kernel rows per ear (RPE)
– Kernel weight
16
Kernel Rows per Ear (RPE)• Determined between V5-V8 growth stages
• Will always be even because of the splitting of the ovules to produce two rows
• Mostly determined by genetics but early season stress can have negative impact– Subedi and Ma (2005) found that nitrogen deficiency before V8
caused substantial decrease in RPE as well as kernels per row
• Increasing plant density could potentially affect RPE for flexed-ear hybrids while fixed-ear hybrids would in theory continue to produce the maximum number of RPE
17
Kernels per Row (KPR)
• Varies much more due to environmental stresses• Maximum KPR is determined just prior to pollination
when ovule formation is complete• Upwards of 1,000 potential ovules per ear• Stresses leading up to V12 can reduce the KPR by
reducing the number of ovules formed• Stresses during and after silking can reduce the total
number of kernels per ear– Select ovules are sacrificed so that the plant can supply others
ovules
18
Kernels per Row (KPR)
• Flexed-ear hybrids in theory could compensate depending on the stress level from V5 to just prior to silking
• Fixed-ear hybrids would not be able to respond to more favorable conditions
• If fixed-ear hybrids respond to higher plant densities then it shows that they are able to set enough kernels to maximize yields under favorable conditions
19
Kernel Weight
• Estimates show that 85% of the final yield is correlated with the total number of kernels and the final 15% is determined by the final kernel weight
• Late-season stress caused by drought, insect, disease or loss of leaf area can severely reduce kernel weight
• Studies have shown that as plant density is increased kernel weight is decreased– Lamm and Trooein (2001)– Cox (1996)
20
Monsanto testing footprint reaches hundreds of different environments
21
Thinning
• The removal of plants and plant competition within each plot
• Done prior to V6 growth stage
• Time consuming and costly on such a large scale
22
Thinning
• Research is very limited on effects of thinning – Hashemi et. al. showed that the greatest yield difference were
when plant competition occurred between V5 and anthesis– Early-season competition (V5) had little effect on final grain yield– Nafziger showed that as thinning was delayed the ability for
remaining plants to compensate decreased
• Within-row plant spacing and emergence could also affect final grain yield
23
Objectives
• Determine a range of plant density variability that could be tolerated without affecting yield comparison's among hybrids
• Look at effects of plant density on both fixed-ear and flexed-ear hybrids
• Determine if thinning could be reduced
24
Locations
25
General Site Information
LocationSoil Common Name (Taxonomic
name), Planting
DateHarvest
Date Fertilizer rates lbs/acre Weed Control, Chemicals
N P K
Farmer City, ILIpava silt loam (fine, smectitic,
mesic Aquic Argiudolls) 5 May 12 October 236 92 120 Bicep II, atrazine, callisto, cultivation
Bloomington, IL Ipava silt loam (fine, smectitic,
mesic Aquic Argiudolls) 5 May 17 October 170 40 120 Lumax, atrazine, callisto, cultivation
Thomasboro, IL
Drummer silty clay (fine-silty,mixed,superactive,mesic, Typic Endoaquolls) 4 May 3 October 290 NA* NA*
Harness Xtra, atrazine, callisto, option, cultivation
Oxford, IN
Darroch silt loam (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive mesic aquic argiudolls) 6 May 8 October 147.5 52 120
Degree Xtra, laudis, aatrex, cultivation
26
Planting Equipment
27
Experimental Design
• Split plot with whole plots in a RCB with two replications
• Densities were main plots
• Hybrids were sub-plots
• Density whole plots were completely randomized within replicates at each location and within each plant density, hybrids were randomized
28
Experimental Design
• Four locations• Four hybrids
– 113-115 RM, two fixed-ear, two flexed-ear
• Nine plant densities– 27,404-38,038 plants per acre
• Two replications• Seeding rate of 42,000 seeds/acre• Four 30-inch rows
– All four rows thinned to final stand
• Data collected only on middle two rows
29
Farmer City plot design
27404 28631 29858 31085 33312 33539 35175 36402 38038
9 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Rep 2 8Rep2 7Rep2 6Rep1 5Rep1 4Rep1 3
2 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Range 1 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B BCol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
64-24 63-42 64-44
64-79 65-44 64-2464-24 65-44 63-4264-24
63-42 64-79 64-24 65-4463-42 65-44 64-79 64-2464-24 64-79
63-42 64-2464-79 65-4465-44 63-4264-24 64-79 65-44 63-42 63-42 64-24 65-44 64-79
65-44 64-7963-42 63-42 64-79 65-44 64-24 64-24 63-4265-44 64-2464-24 64-79
64-79 63-42 65-4465-44 63-4264-79 63-42 64-24 64-79
64-2464-2463-42
64-79 6424 64-7964-79 65-4465-44 63-42
64-79 63-42 65-4465-4464-79 63-42
30
Hybrids
Hybrid Relative maturityDKC63-42-Med Flex 113DKC64-79- Flex 114DKC64-24- Fixed 114DKC65-44- Fixed 115
• Two fixed-ear, and two flexed-ear• All hybrids contained Yieldgard VT triple trait
combination
31
Field Data
• Stand counts• Plant Height• Stalk lodging• Root lodging• Harvest Data
– Grain weight (lbs.)– Moisture– Test weight
32
Lab Data• Six ears from center two rows collected
– Used to collect RPE, KPR and kernel weight
• Kernels per row– Measured from base to tip
• Kernel rows per ear– Measured from center of ear
• Kernel weight– 100 seeds counted and weighed
Photo courtesy of: Elmore, R, 2006. Iowa State University Extension
16 Kernel Rows 14 Kernel Rows
33
2008 Weather
Sourcehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/6month.html
34
2008 Weather
Source: http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/cuweather/index.htm
35
Results• Traits analyzed
– Yield– Moisture– Test weight– Kernel rows per ear– Kernels per row– 100 kernel weight– Stalk lodging– Root lodging– Plant height
36
Yield Results
218A218A217A217A220A217A208BC216AB207C+
0
50
100
150
200
250
2741
2
2855
5
2974
4
3098
4
3227
5
3361
9
3502
0
3648
0
3800
0
Plant Density (plants/acre)
Gra
in Y
ield
(bu
/acr
e)
† Means followed by same letter are not different
37
Yield Results
221A217AB+ 212B212B
0
50
100
150
200
250
DKC63-42-Med Flex
DKC64-79-Flex
DKC64-24-Fixed
DKC65-44-Fixed
Hybrid-Ear Type
Grain
Yield
bu/ac
re
DKC63-42-Med Flex
DKC64-79-FlexDKC64-24-Fixed
DKC65-44-Fixed
† Means followed by same letter are not different
38
Grain Moisture Results
25.8CD25.5D25.7D25.6D25.9BCD26.5A25.9BCD26.3ABC26.3AB+
2022242628303234
2741
228
555
2974
430
984
3227
533
619
3502
036
480
3800
0
Density (plants/acre)
Gra
in M
oist
ure
%
† Means followed by same letter are not different
39
Grain Moisture Results
26.6B
24.7D25.5C
27.1A+
2021222324252627282930
DKC63-42-
Med Flex
DKC64-79-
Flex
DKC64-24-F
ixed
DKC65-44-F
ixed
Hybrid-Ear Type
Grai
n M
oist
ure
%
† Means followed by same letter are not different
40
Test Weight Results58.8A
57.9C58.4B
57.5D+
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
DKC63-42- Med F
lex
DKC64-79-Flex
DKC64-24-Fixed
DKC65-44-Fixed
Hybrid-Ear Type
Test
wei
ght (
lbs/
bush
el)
† Means followed by same letter are not different
41
Kernel Rows per Ear
15.6C17.5A16.5B+ 17.5A
02468
101214161820
DKC63-4
2-Med
Flex
DKC64-7
9-Flex
DKC64-2
4-Fixe
d
DKC65-4
4-Fixe
d
Hybrid-Ear Type
Ker
nel
Ro
ws
per
Ear
† Means followed by same letter are not different
42
Kernels per Row
29.6E
30.7D31.3CD
32.2BC32.1B32.8B32.8B
33.7A+ 34.0A
272829303132333435
2741
228
555
2974
430
984
3227
533
619
3502
036
480
3800
0
Plant Density (plants/acre)
Ker
nels
/Row
† Means followed by same letter are not different
43
Kernels per Row
30.2C31.3B33.6A33.5A+
05
10152025303540
DKC63-42
-Med
Flex
DKC64-79
-Flex
DKC64-24
-Fixed
DKC65-44
-Fixed
Hybrid-Ear Type
Ker
nels
/Row
† Means followed by same letter are not different
44
DKC64-79-FlexDensity: 27,412
DKC64-79-FlexDensity: 38,000
45
DKC65-44-FixedDensity: 27,412
DKC65-44-FixedDensity: 38,000
46
100 Kernel Weight
34.8A 34.7A
33.7B+33.3B
32.3C32.6CD
32.2C
31.2D31.7CD
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
27412 28555 29744 30984 32275 33619 35020 36480 38000
Plant Density (plants/acre)
Kern
el W
eigh
t (gr
ams/
100K
)
† Means followed by same letter are not different
47
100 Kernel Weight
Hybrid Grams/100K
DKC64-24-Fixed 33.5A
DKC65-44-Fixed 33.3A
DKC64-79-Flex 33.0A
DKC63-42-Med Flex 31.8B
† Means followed by same letter are not different
48
Root Lodging
2.8A2.4AB
1.8ABC
1.1BCD1.0CD1.1BCD
0.3D0.4D0.7CD+
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
27412 28555 29744 30984 32275 33619 35020 36480 38000
Plant Density (plants/acre)
Roo
t lod
ging
%
† Means followed by same letter are not different
49
Root LodgingHybrid Root Lodging Percent
DKC64-79-Flex 2.1A
DKC63-42-Med Flex 1.9A
DKC64-24-Fixed 0.85B
DKC65-44-Fixed 0.22B
50
Conclusions
• No hybrid response to increasing density for:– Yield– Grain moisture– Test weight– Kernel row numbers– Kernels per ear– Kernel weight– Stalk lodging– Root lodging– Plant height
51
Conclusions
• The number of kernel rows per ear was less affected by density then was the number of kernels per row and kernel weights
• Difficult to conclude that a reduction in thinning could be warranted based on one year of data
• Could be worthwhile to continue to investigate if thinning could be reduced– If the range of plant densities can be increased without causing
negative impact on yield comparisons
52
Conclusions
• This study showed that the two lowest densities limited the hybrids ability to yield and should be considered on the low end of what should be used to evaluate new hybrid performance
• Fixed-ear hybrids are not being given an advantage based on this data set
• Increasing density does not seem to favor either a fixed-ear or flexed-ear hybrid
53
Acknowledgements• Iowa State University
• Drs. Elmore, Moore and Loynachan
• Dr. Mowers
• All of my colleagues at Monsanto
• Wife and family
54
Questions?