hooker intensive corn eastern conf

Dave Hooker, PhD Email: [email protected] @cropdoc2

Intensive Mgmt. in Corn with a focus on the

-- OCC Trials in 2015 --

#ECC16

mailto:[email protected]

Dave Hooker, PhD Email: [email protected] @cropdoc2

Intensive Mgmt. in Corn with a focus on the

-- OCC Trials in 2015 -- -- Hybrid-specific Mgmt. --

Hooker (UG)

#ECC16


Overview …….. 1. Background of G x E x M Interactions from #OntAg research to 2014

2. OCC Intensive management trial results

Hooker (UG)

#ECC16

@cropdoc2

Nitrogen x Fungicide Synergy SMART 2008-2010

Brinkman and Hooker, UG (2012)

90 lbs N

150 lbs N

---- bu/ac --- -Fungicide 90 98 +Fungicide 98 109

Fungicide = T2+T3 applications

+19 bu/ac response over 90 lbs N/ac Untreated

@cropdoc2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

A7866RR

DKC52-59

36V75

35F44

HL B337

6226VT3

A7646BT

DKC52-63

N45A-3000GT

5338VT3

MZ 535

34P89

A8168G3

DKC57-86

N51-T8

35H42

MZ 546

N45-A6

HL 2677

N53-W5

35F37

A7450BtRR

MZ 540

35F40

MZ 535HX

Mean Fungicide

No. Comparisons Yield Response (bu/ac)

Hybrid Response to Fungicide at Ridgetown 2008-2011

0 10 20

** **

** **

* *

*

+

+

**

Average

+, *, ** statistically different from zero at p=0.10, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively

@cropdoc2

No fungicide Fungicide @ VT

Visual “Stay Green” in late Sept with a Foliar Fungicide

@cropdoc2

CHANGE FROM Std.

Mgmt.

Hybrid Ave H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

+12K plants +10 +120 lbs N + fung @ VT POP + N + F POP + N POP + F N + F

Multifactor Analysis 2-Year

Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

CHANGE FROM Std.

Mgmt.


+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10 +120 lbs N + fung @ VT POP + N + F POP + N POP + F N + F

Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT


Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

CHANGE FROM Std.

Mgmt.


+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10 +120 lbs N +11 +4 +6 +10 +15 +21 +6 + fung @ VT POP + N + F POP + N POP + F N + F



Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

CHANGE FROM Std.

Mgmt.


+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10 +120 lbs N +11 +4 +6 +10 +15 +21 +6 + fung @ VT +3 0 +5 +1 0 +13 0 POP + N + F POP + N POP + F N + F



Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

CHANGE FROM Std.

Mgmt.


+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10 +120 lbs N +11 +4 +6 +10 +15 +21 +6 + fung @ VT +3 0 +5 +1 0 +13 0 POP + N + F +22 +19 +19 +20 +22 +40 +22 POP + N POP + F N + F



Hooker (UG)

#ECC16

Hybrid x Nitrogen Rate Interaction 2012/13

N rate (lbs N/ac)

Gra

in Y

ield

(bu/

ac)

Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

N x Hybrid Interactions

N rate (kg/ha)

Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

Notables from 2009-2014 1. Hybrid x N interactions 2. x POP interactions 3. x fungicide interactions 4. “Racehorses” responsive to 1+2+3 5. High G x E in some hybrids

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

The

Ontario Corn

Committee Goal: to provide accurate relevant data to assist

in hybrid-selection decisions

#ECC16

OCC in 2015! • Continued traditional hybrid trials • NEW: Intensive mgmt. hybrid trials

• Investigate hybrid-specific mgmt

Treatment N

(lbs/ac) Population plants/ac

Fungicide @ VT

Standard Mgmt. 110-170 via N calc. 32,000 No

Intensive Mgmt. +50 +6,000 Yes Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

Conceptual OCC Strip-Plot Design Example: 16 hybrids x 2 mgmt levels x 4 reps

Rep 1 SPRAYER Rep 2 Rep 3 SPRAYER Rep 4 > 10

180

< 1 ^ B ^ 1 10 > 2 ^ B ^ 2 10 < 3 ^ B ^ 3 10 > 4 ^ B ^ 4 10 < 5 ^ B ^ 5 10 > 6 ^ B ^ 6 10 < 7 ^ B ^ 7 10

> 8 ^ B ^ 8 10 < 9 ^ B ^ 9 10

> 10 ^ B ^ 10 10 < 11 ^ B ^ 11 10

> 12 ^ B ^ 12 10 < 13 ^ B ^ 13 10 > 14 ^ B ^ 14 10 < 15 ^ B ^ 15 10 > 16 ^ B ^ 16 10 < 10

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 FEET 320

Buffer range between

standard and intensive

Buffer range with tramlines

for VT fung.

Intensive strip

Standard strip

#ECC16

OCC Intensive Mgmt 2015 OCC Table

or Zone Locations

2 Elora Alma 3 Winchester Waterloo 4 Exeter Belmont 5 Ridgetown Dresden

• 62 hybrids were entered by seed companies in consultation with the OCC

• 992 plots in total

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

6.5” = 32,000 ppa 5.5” = 38,000 ppa

Plant population: • All plots were overseeded,

then thinned before V3

Hooker (UG) @cropdoc2

Nitrogen: • All plots broadcast PP @ same rate • All plots sidedressed @ V6, rate

depending on mgmt.

Hooker (UG)

Foliar fungicide application: • When >75% of hybrids VT-R1

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

Main Measurements all plots: • Final stand • Silking date • Leaf disease severity by disease • “Stay green” late in season • Weather data (WIN) • Harvest data (yield, lodge, twt, mc)

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

Acknowledgements: • Byron Good (UG) for Elora, Alma and Waterloo • Katina Wren and Holly Byker (UG) for Winchester • Jonathan Brinkman (UG) for Exeter • Ken VanRaay and Scott Jay (UG) for Belmont, Ridgetown

and Dresden • Greg Stewart and others from the OCC (Industry partners, UG,

OMAFRA, GFO, AAFC, CSTA, OSCIA, Chair David Morris) • Seed Companies (11)

• AgReliant Genetics, Country Farm Seeds, Dow AgroSciences, Horizon Seeds, La Coop federee, Maizex Seeds, Monsanto, Pickseed, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Sevita International, Syngenta Seeds

• BASF (for sponsorship and fungicide) • Weather INnovations Inc. • Summer students Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

RESULTS!!

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

Questions we’ll address today ~ 1. What were the yield responses to mgmt. at each location?

2. How did mgmt. affect harvest moisture?

3. Were there differential hybrid yield responses to mgmt.?

4. Were hybrid response diffs related to leaf disease?

5. Were hybrid response diffs related to “stay green”?

6. How does disease affect stay green ratings?

7. Were hybrid response diffs related to hybrid CHU rating?

8. Conclusions

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

1. What were the yield responses to mgmt. at each location?

Hooker (UG)

100

150

200

250

300

Alma Elora Waterloo Winchester Belmont Exeter Dresden Ridgetown

OCC Intensive Trials 2015 Grain Yield (bu/ac): Standard vs. Intensive Mgmt.

* *

*

*

* * ns ns

* Statistically significant at P=0.10 using Fisher’s Protected LSD Test

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

34

24 25

17

26

21

9

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Yield Response to Intensive Mgmt. Across Hybrids

6,000 seeds/ac @ $275/bag = $20.50/ac or 4.1 bu corn

Fungicide + application = $26.00/ac or 5.2 bu corn

50 lbs N/ac, UAN @ $400/t = $32.00/ac or 6.4 bu corn

(bu/ac)

= top hybrid at each location Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

2. How did mgmt. affect harvest moisture?

@cropdoc2

22.2

23.9

26

20

20.5

22.1

16.8

21.5

23.6

25

27.7

20.6

21.9

23.4

17.2

21.6

1517192123252729


OCC Intensive Trials 2015 Grain Moisture @ Harvest

Standard vs. Intensive Mgmt.

* *

*

* *

*

*

ns


%

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

3. Were there hybrid-specific yield responses to mgmt.?

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

173

181

188

189

191

195

197

197

202

207

209

214

217

221

222

224

229

232

205

200

224

215

227

229

220

228

226

228

231

241

243

245

248

252

244

258

252

234

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

LR9573

CF15301

8211RA

PS 2793GSX RIB

LR9579

40J380 G.T.

PS 2676VT2P RIB

P8542AM

MZ 3066DBR

8295RA

A6455G8 RIB

MZ 3202SMX

CF15204

P9188AM

DKC38-03RIB

HZ 877

SG2043 3011A

5EXP SH2642

AVE

Alma and Elora

bu/ac

Intensive mgmt Standard mgmt

Hooker (UG)

y = -0.1745x + 64.757 R² = 0.2612

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240

Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management Elora and Alma, 2015

Resp

onse

to in

tens

ive

(bu/

ac)

Standard mgmt. yield (bu/ac)

Grain yield average (Standard Mgmt)

Average response to Intensive

29

205

Std mgmt. yield above ave, Above ave response

Std mgmt. above ave yield, Below ave response

Std mgmt. below ave yield, Above ave response

@cropdoc2

y = -0.1745x + 64.757 R² = 0.2612

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240

Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management Elora and Alma, 2015

Resp

onse

to in

tens

ive

(bu/

ac)




29

205

45 degree line Std yield + response

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

179

183

189

189

190

191

192

192

194

195

197

199

200

201

205

205

210

195

211

203

215

209

213

215

211

214

220

217

220

218

215

212

226

223

223

216

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

DS90R27RA

P9224AM

MZ 3484SMX

HZ 922

CF441

CF466

DKC46-07RIB

5084

MZ 3515DBR

N45P-3011A

P9644AM

P9188AM

8315RA

E57L60 R

PS 2902VT2P RIB

N35T-3110

XP6848

MEAN

Waterloo and Winchester Intensive mgmt Standard mgmt

Hooker (UG)

y = -0.435x + 105.61 R² = 0.4708

10

15

20

25

30

35

175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210

Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management Waterloo and Winchester, 2015

Resp

onse

to in

tens

ive

(bu/

ac)




21

195

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

212

214

215

220

220

222

224

225

229

230

232

233

236

243

247

227

234

239

234

253

244

266

242

250

265

249

253

261

249

260

258

251

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

LR9496

MZ 4107SMX

DKC50-78RIB

X13526VX

P0496AMX

PS 3035VT2P RIB

N45P-3011A

4425

HZ 1026A

CF474

CF626

E70G30 LR

MZ 4092DBR

A7270G8 RIB

P0157AM

MEAN

Belmont and Exeter Intensive mgmt Standard mgmt

Hooker (UG)

y = -0.3601x + 105.36 R² = 0.1789

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250

Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management Exeter and Belmont, 2015

Resp

onse

to in

tens

ive

(bu/

ac)



24

227


Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

231

234

238

240

245

247

247

248

250

252

254

255

245

244

252

256

249

259

270

254

264

265

251

256

267

256

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

5EXP SJ5082

CF662

P0216AM

8695RA

CF686

8598RA

DKC57-75RIB

A8303G8 RIB

MZ 4525SMX

DKC52-61RIB

MZ 4676DBR

P0506AM

MEAN

Ridgetown and Dresden Intensive mgmt Standard mgmt

Hooker (UG)

y = -0.3731x + 103.79 R² = 0.1749

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

230 235 240 245 250 255

Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management Ridgetown and Dresden, 2015

Resp

onse

to in

tens

ive

(bu/

ac)



12

245


Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

4. What was the impact of leaf disease on hybrid responses?

@cropdoc2

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

0

5

10

15

20


OCC Intensive Trials 2015 Northern Leaf Blight @ Mid-Milkline


*

* *

* * ns


* ns

*

% severity

Most severe hybrid


= top hybrid at each location Hooker (UG)

13

18

21

13

14

11

8

10

5

10

13

8

10

13

8

8

8

9

11

9

14

10

11

9

5

5

4

6

6

5

4

6

4

3

6

5

0 5 10 15 20 25

HYBRID 1

HYBRID 2

HYBRID 3

HYBRID 4

HYBRID 5

HYBRID 6

HYBRID 7

HYBRID 8

HYBRID 9

HYBRID 10

HYBRID 11

HYBRID 12

HYBRID 13

HYBRID 14

HYBRID 15

HYBRID 16

HYBRID 17

HYBRID 18

Northern leaf blight severity by hybrid at dent (R5) Alma, 2015


Leaf disease severity (%)

Hybrid x mgmt. interaction P <0.05

Hooker (UG)

5. What was the impact of “stay green” on hybrid responses?

@cropdoc2

Visual “stay green”

Older hybrid Newer hybrid Tollenaar (2009)

Visual “Stay Green” in late Sept

Hooker (UG)

0

20

40

60

80

100


OCC Intensive Trials 2015 Stay Green (early-late Sept)


* *

* *

ns


*

% green left in canopy

Top hybrid

*

*

n/a


Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

7

29

23

38

55

29

55

63

80

58

45

55

78

58

58

73

65

70

33

58

38

53

78

43

68

68

90

68

53

68

80

73

80

88

86

90

0 20 40 60 80 100

HYBRID 1

HYBRID 2

HYBRID 3

HYBRID 4

HYBRID 5

HYBRID 6

HYBRID 7

HYBRID 8

HYBRID 9

HYBRID 10

HYBRID 11

HYBRID 12

HYBRID 13

HYBRID 14

HYBRID 15

HYBRID 16

HYBRID 17

HYBRID 18

Stay green by hybrid ~mid-Sept Alma, 2015

% Leaf area still green


y = 0.5768x + 184.59 R² = 0.4706

y = 0.5301x + 213.04 R² = 0.3131

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

0 20 40 60 80 100

Grain yield vs. stay green across hybrids Alma, 2015

Gra

in y

ield

(bu/

ac)

Leaf area still green (%)


Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

6. How does disease affect stay green?

0102030405060708090

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Stay green vs. NLB disease severity across hybrids Alma, 2015

% L

eaf a

rea

still

gre

en

Leaf disease severity (%)


Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

Timing and Source of N Uptake

New hybrids (1991-2011) took up 29% more N post-flowering than old hybrids (1940-1990)1

1Ciampitti and Vyn (2012) 2Ciampitti and Vyn (2013)

New hybrids (1991-2011) less N remobilized to grain N2

Tollenaar (2009)

7. Were hybrid-specific responses related to CHU rating?

y = 0.079x + 4.0682 R² = 0.4643

y = 0.0772x + 43.03 R² = 0.4339

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900

Grain yield vs. CHU across hybrids Alma, 2015

Gra

in y

ield

(bu/

ac)

Hybrid CHU rating


Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

y = 0.1161x - 257.15 R² = 0.7079

y = 0.096x - 188.55 R² = 0.6022

0102030405060708090

100

2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900

Stay green ~mid-Sept vs. hybrid CHU rating Alma, 2015

% L

eaf a

rea

still

gre

en

Hybrid CHU rating


Hooker (UG)

Visual “Stay Green” in late Sept

Hooker (UG)

Conclusions 1. What were the yield responses to mgmt. at each location?

• One year, limited number of locations. • 9-34 bu/ac averaged across hybrids depending on location • Approx. 16 bu needed to B/E on intensive package.

2. How did mgmt. affect harvest moisture? • 0-1.5% higher with intensive

3. Were there hybrid-specific yield responses to mgmt? • 0-54 bu/ac response depending on location and hybrid. • Causes of differential yield responses difficult to ID.

4. What was the impact of leaf disease on hybrid responses? • NLB main disease; Alma > Elora > Exeter = Waterloo; rest low • Differential hybrid response to disease

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

Conclusions (cont’d) 5. What was the impact of “stay green” on hybrid responses?

• Diff. hybrid/mgmt. response related to stay green late in season. • High grain yields were associated with stay green late in season.

6. How does disease affect stay green? • Stay green associated with disease, but N status also impt.

7. Were hybrid response diffs related to hybrid CHU rating? • Yield response to intensive not related to CHU rating. • Early maturing hybrids = lower yield, lower stay green

Hooker (UG)

@cropdoc2

Conclusions (cont’d) More questions … 8. Repeatability? Only 2 locations one year. 9. ID workhorse, racehorse, and stable hybrids? 10. Contribution of each input? 11. Does the contribution-by-input vary by hybrid?

Hooker (UG)

#ECC16 @cropdoc2

YOUR QUESTIONS?

Dave Hooker [email protected] @cropdoc2


hooker intensive corn eastern conf

Food