no-till dryland sugarbeet production in the semi-arid us high plains. drew lyon
DESCRIPTION
A presentation from the WCCA 2011 conference in Birsbane.TRANSCRIPT
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?