|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|||
1999 STEEP III Final ReportTITLE: Examine cropping systems including yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) in the Pacific Northwest. INVESTIGATORS: Jack Brown, Donn Thill, John Hammel and Wesley Chun. P.S.E.S., University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, Tel.: (208) 885-7078, e-mail: jbrown@uidaho.edu. INTERIM REPORT: Year 2 report of
project started in 1998 OBJECTIVES:
KEY WORDS: Crop rotation, direct-seeding, yellow mustard, canola, pea, and wheat. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED: Yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) has shown good adaptability to dry-land regions of the Pacific Northwest. This species can be grown with few (if any) chemical inputs. However, yellow mustard is a new crop to this region and little knowledge is available to growers on the best practices to maximize water use and optimize crop productivity. Similarly, very little is known of yellow mustard rotation effects on weed control and management, disease control in following crop, and physical soil structure. This project will examine the effect of yellow mustard row spacing and seeding density on water use management, crop productivity, weed control, and rotational effects. AGRONOMIC ZONE OF INTEREST: Annual cropping, intermediate to high rainfall, non-irrigated ABSTRACT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS: Crop disease and water use efficiency in the four spring-planted crops were similar to those observed in the previous year. Pea used least deep soil moisture throughout the growing season, while yellow mustard and canola used deep profile soil moisture for growth development. Yellow mustard did not show the same high competition with weeds observed in 1998 and total weed biomass in yellow mustard was not significantly different from pea or canola. All of these crops had higher weed biomass compared to spring wheat. There were no association noted between yellow mustard row spacing or seeding rate and occurrence or biomass of weeds. Spring wheat produced highest seed yield followed by canola and yellow mustard and lowest yield was obtained from pea. Wheat yield was reduced without herbicide application, but canola and yellow mustard yield between herbicide applied and no treatment was the same. Highest yield of winter wheat planted after the alternative spring crops was after pea, followed by yellow mustard. Wheat yield after wheat was not significantly different compared to wheat after canola. Rotational benefits of yellow mustard in the following wheat crop was greatest at high seeding rates and closer row spacing. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Year 1 1999, Alternative crop Plots of spring wheat ('Penawawa'), pea ('Colombian'), canola ('Sunrise') and yellow mustard ('IdaGold') were planted near Genesee (Zenner farm) on May 17 and at Moscow on May 19, 1999. All crops were planted using a Great Plains direct-seed drill. Wheat, pea and canola were sown at 120, 110 and 7 lb/acre, respectively, on 7 inch row spacing. Yellow mustard was planted at 5 lb on 7 inch rows, 10 lb on 7 inch rows, 5 lb on 14 inch rows, and 10 lb on 14 inch rows. Pre-plant fertilizer (100 lb of 16-20-0) was banded below the seed. At Moscow 90 lb of nitrogen was broadcast applied and at Genesee 70 lbs of N was broadcast (both as 34-0-0). Water use by crop Aluminum access tubers were sunk into the soil in each plot following seedling emergence. These tubes were used to monitor soil moisture profile using a neutron moisture meter. Volumetric water content was measured on four occasions from each plot throughout the growing season at approximately six-inch increments to a soil depth of 60 inches. Water use results from the 1999 season were similar to those obtained the previous season. The pattern of water use was different at the two sites. Water use for each crop was determined by subtracting moisture content at maturity from moisture content at crop emergence. At both sites, however, pea used significantly less water, particularly at deeper soil profiles, compared to the other three crops to reach maturity (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Water use of all crops were similar in the top 18 inches, thereafter the water use of pea dropped dramatically compared to the other crops. At the Genesee site (Figure 1), canola and yellow mustard were significantly more efficient in deep soil profile water use compared to wheat. At Moscow, water use by soil depth relationship was more bell-shaped with maximum water use for all crops in the 10 to 36 inch depth range (Figure 2). At this site there was no significant difference between water use of wheat, canola or yellow mustard. Soil moisture content at crop maturity was not significantly different between crops in the top 24 inches of soil. Thereafter, soil moisture at maturity was significantly higher for pear than the other crops at both locations (Figure 3 and Figure 4). At Genesee, canola and yellow mustard showed significantly greater moisture depletion compared to spring wheat. Soil moisture at maturity for wheat, canola and yellow mustard were not significantly different, although there was a suspiciously low soil moisture at 60 inches depth for wheat, likely due to measurement error. The pattern of water use for the four treatments of yellow mustard (row spacing and seeding rate) was similar (Figure 5 and Figure 6). There were no significant differences between treatments in the top soil profile water use. Lower seeding rates used significantly more water deep in the soil profile compared to higher seeding rates. This could be explained from the observation that lower seeding densities resulted in larger plants (above ground biomass), and it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that these larger plants had a greater root system that was more able to extract moisture from deep in the soil profile. Similarly there was a trend that the narrower row spacing (7-inch) used more water than the wider row spacing in the 24 to 42 inch profile. Weed infestation Each 20 x 120 ft plot at Moscow and 18 x 140 ft at Genesee was divided into an untreated and herbicide-treated half. Weeds were counted in six 2.7 ft2 quadrats equidistantly spaced across the 120 or 140 ft plot length and randomly spaced within the center 9 or 10 ft (width) in each half of each plot. A crop-specific herbicide treatment was applied based on weed species, density, and growth stage (Table 1). Above ground crop and weed biomass were collected from six 2.7 ft2 quadrat as previously mentioned when wheat was heading and pea, canola and mustard were in the 50 to 75% bloom stage. Weed seed was harvested from three 2.7 ft2 quadrats equidistantly spaced along the plot length and randomly spaced within the center in each half of each plot. Seed samples are being cleaned and seeds counted. Weed species present at Moscow included mayweed chamomile, redroot pigweed, wild oat, common lambsquarters, prickly lettuce, henbit, shepherd's-purse, field pennycress, field bindweed, Canada thistle, tarweed fiddleneck, catchweed bedstraw, common chickweed, hairy nightshade, panicle willowweed, draba verna, and mullein. The principal weeds present at this location were mayweed chamomile and redroot pigweed. Individual and total weed density and biomass in herbicide-treated plots generally were equal to or less than in the untreated plots following herbicide treatment for all crops at Moscow (Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5). At Moscow location the three-way interaction, seed rate x row spacing x herbicide treatment was not significant. Similarly all two-way interactions (seeding rate x row spacing, seeding rate x herbicide treatment, and row spacing x herbicide treatment) were non-significant along with the main treatment effects. Weed species present at Genesee included wild oat, common lambsquarters, mayweed chamomile, redroot pigweed, prickly lettuce, henbit, shepherd's-purse, field pennycress, catchweed bedstraw, hairy nightshade, annual sowthistle, common mallow, and cone catchfly. The principal weeds present were wild oat and common lambsquarters. Individual and total weed density and biomass in herbicide-treated plots generally were equal to or less than in the untreated plots following herbicide treatment for all crops at Genesee (Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9). The total number of weed plants observed in the treated and non-treated plots at Moscow was not significantly different in any of the crop species (Table 10). At Genesee, however, weed plant counts were significantly higher in pea plots without herbicide. Higher weed counts were observed in the non-herbicide treatment of the other Genesee crops, although these were not formally significant. Over both sites and herbicide treatments, there was no significant difference between the four crop species for the number of weed plants counted. Total weed plant biomass was significantly higher at Genesee compared to Moscow, particularly in the non-treated plots (Table 11). Total weed biomass in herbicide treated pea, spring wheat, canola, and yellow mustard treated and non-treated plots were not significantly different for total weed biomass at Moscow. At Genesee, herbicide treatment in pea, canola, and yellow mustard resulted in lower weed biomass than non-treated plots. Weed biomass in spring wheat was not different between herbicide and non-treated plots. In the mustard treatment plots, the three-way interaction, seed rate x row spacing x herbicide treatment, and two-way interaction seeding rate x row spacing were significant. Weed density was greatest in the 10 lb/acre seeding rate and 14-inch row spacing plots (Table 12). The interaction of row spacing x herbicide treatment for wild oat density was significant. At the narrow row spacing, wild oat density was greater in the untreated plots than the herbicide-treated (Table 13). Herbicide treatment reduced total weed and wild oat biomass, 36 and 84%, respectively, compared to the untreated control. Seed yield and quality At maturity, all crops were combine-harvested and harvested seed dried to uniform moisture content (~6%) before weights were recorded. Seed yield at Genesee was significantly higher than at Moscow (Table 14). Averaged over sites and treatments, spring wheat produced significantly higher yield (3036 lb/acre or 50.5 Bu/acre) than the other crops. Canola and yellow mustard yield over treatments were not significant (1384 and 1302, respectively), and pea yields were significantly lowest (1085 lb/acre). Seed yield of spring wheat and pea was significantly higher from herbicide treatments. Spring wheat and pea yield without herbicide was reduced by 25% and 20%, respectively. Herbicide and non-herbicide treatments of canola and yellow mustard were not significantly different. Yellow mustard planted at 5 lb/acre resulted in a significant yield reduction of over 12% compared to a 10 lb/acre seeding rate (Table 15). There was a significant interaction between herbicide treatment and site, where lower yield was recorded from non-treated plots at Moscow, but highest yields were produced from no-treated plots at Genesee. Narrow row spacing (7 inches) resulted in significantly higher yellow mustard yield compared to wider (14 inch) row spacing (Table 16). Non-herbicide treatments were not significantly different than treated plots at both row spacing. Seed quality (test weight for wheat, seed size, oil content and seed color in canola and yellow mustard) were recorded using a sub-sample of seed from each plot. These data are yet to be fully analyzed although initial inspection shows little difference in these quality characteristics resulting from different herbicide treatments, row spacing and seeding rates. After harvesting the 1998 alternative crops trials, the complete trial areas was direct seeded to winter wheat. The winter wheat at both trial locations emerged and established well. It should be noted, however, that the Genesee winter wheat plots were affected by rodent infestation. Rodent damage was particularly noted in areas that had been previously planted to spring wheat and canola. Very little rodent damage was observed in areas that had been planted to pea and yellow mustard. Low damage in pea areas may be related to very low residue levels, but as yet the low damage in the yellow mustard areas is unexplained. Weed infestation Weeds were counted within the winter wheat (year 2 study) in three 0.25 m2 quadrats equidistantly spaced across the 140 ft plot length and randomly spaced within the center 10 ft (width) in each half of each plot (untreated and herbicide-treated in 1998). Herbicides were applied to winter wheat (entire plot area received the same treatment) based on weed species, density, and growth stage at Moscow and Genesee (Table 17). Above ground crop and weed biomass were collected from three 2.7 ft2 quadrat as previously mentioned when wheat was heading. Weed seed was harvested from three 2.7 ft2 quadrats equidistantly spaced along the plot length and randomly spaced within the center in each half of each plot. Seed samples are being cleaned and seeds counted. The weed species at Moscow included wild oat, common lambsquarters, prickly lettuce, henbit, shepherd's-purse, field pennycress, catchweed bedstraw, hairy nightshade, downy brome, field bindweed, interrupted windgrass, wild mustard, and dandelion. Wild oat was the main weed, although weed density was variable and sparse (Table 18). For all previous crops, wild oat and total weed density and biomass were lower in the treated versus the untreated plots (1998 crop year) following the herbicide treatment at Moscow. The weed species at Genesee included interrupted windgrass, henbit, wild oat, common lambsquarters, prickly lettuce, shepherd's-purse, field pennycress, catchweed bedstraw, downy brome, field bindweed, wild mustard, and mayweed chamomile. Interrupted windgrass and henbit were the principal weeds (Table 19). Weed populations were moderate. Individual and total weed density and biomass generally were equal to or lower in the treated versus the untreated plots (1998 crop year) following the herbicide treatment at Genesee. In treated plots, averaged over both locations, spring canola total weed density and spring pea total weed biomass were lowest compared to other crops, while total weed density and biomass were the highest in spring wheat.
Averaged over sites and treatments, yield of winter wheat after pea (63.5 Bu/acre) was significantly higher than canola, yellow mustard or spring wheat (Table 20). Wheat after yellow mustard (59.8 Bu/acre) was significantly higher than wheat after canola (58.6 Bu/acre), and wheat after spring wheat (57.8 Bu/acre). Winter wheat yields after spring wheat or after canola were not significantly different. Averaged over the four previous crop species, yield of wheat after herbicide treatment was not significantly higher than where no herbicide had been applied the previous year. Winter wheat after herbicide treated spring wheat was significantly higher yielding than where no herbicide was applied to the previous spring wheat crop. However, a significant reversal of this was found in pea where the herbicide treated areas were significantly lower yielding. No significant difference between herbicide and non-herbicide areas in canola or yellow mustard was noted. Winter wheat yield after yellow mustard planted at a higher seeding rate (10 lb/acre) was significantly higher (61.3 Bu/acre) than where yellow mustard was planted at 5 lb/acre (Table 21). Similarly, narrower row spacing (7 inches) in yellow mustard produced significant increases of over 5% in wheat yield compared to wider spaced rows (14-inch). Where yellow mustard had been planted at the narrower row spacing and higher seeding rate (7 inch rows & 10 lb/acre), yield of winter wheat (63.5 Bu/acre) was almost 10% higher than wheat after wheat (Table 23), and not significantly different from wheat after pea (Table 20). This latter mustard treatment did have least deep soil moisture depletion compared to other mustard treatments (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Similarly pea showed very low soil moisture depletion and this might explain some of this beneficial rotational effect. However, the yellow mustard treatments were all more soil moisture depleting than spring wheat so there is some suggestion of factors other than water conservation related to the observed rotational benefits of yellow mustard. There were no significant difference found between test weight of winter wheat from treatments in this trial. Disease incidence Foliage disease symptoms were monitored and recorded on all wheat plots. Averaged over all treatments, 14% of wheat plants showed necrotic flecking on leaves or stems (Table 24). There was no significant difference between treatments for visual disease symptoms. In addition, none of the samples taken showed any disease on being cultured, suggesting that the visual observations related to physiological leaf spot. After harvest, root samples were visually rated for blackening (a symptom of pythium). No significant difference was observed between treatments for root blackening. Figure 1. Water use (soil moisture content at planting minus soil moisture content at maturity) of four crop at different soil depths from Genesee 1999.
Figure 2. Water use (soil moisture content at planting minus soil moisture content at maturity) of four crop at different soil depths from Genesee 1999.
Figure 3. Crop maturity volumetric water content at different soil depths from four crop species grown at Genesee.
Figure 4. Crop maturity volumetric water content at different soil depths from four crop species grown at Genesee.
Figure 5. Water use (soil moisture content at planting minus soil moisture content at maturity) of yellow mustard planted at two seeding rates and two row spacing at different soil depths from Genesee 1999.
Figure 6. Water use (soil moisture content at planting minus soil moisture content at maturity) of yellow mustard planted at two seeding rates and two row spacing at different soil depths from Moscow 1999.
Table 1. Herbicide applied, application rates and dates applied to year 1 alternative crops grown at Genesee and Moscow, Idaho in 1999.
Table 2. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in spring pea at Moscow in 1999.1
Table 3. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in spring wheat at Moscow in 1999.1
Table 4. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in spring canola at Moscow in 1999.1
Table 5. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in mustard at Moscow in 1999.1
Table 6. Post-herbicide
application weed density and biomass in spring pea at Genesee
Table 7. Post-herbicide
application weed density and biomass in spring wheat at Genesee
Table 8. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in spring canola at Genesee in 1999.1
Table 9. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in mustard at Genesee in 1999.1
Table 10. Total number of weeds counted in four species grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 11. Total weeds biomass in four species grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 12. The effect of row spacing and seeding rate, averaged over herbicide treatment, on post-herbicide total weed density in mustard at Genesee in 1999.
Table 13. The effect of row spacing and herbicide treatment averaged over seeding rate on post-herbicide application wild oat density in mustard at Genesee in 1999.
Table 14. Seed yield (lb/acre) of four species grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 15. Seed yield (lb/acre) of two yellow mustard seeding rates, grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee), with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 16. Seed yield (lb/acre) of two yellow mustard row spacing grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 17. Herbicide applications in winter wheat near Genesee and Moscow, Idaho in 1999.
Table 18. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in winter wheat at Moscow in 1999.
Table 19. Post-herbicide application weed density and biomass in winter wheat at Genesee in 1999.
Table 20. Seed yield (Bu/acre) of winter wheat grown after four species grown with and without herbicide treatment at two locations (Moscow and Genesee).
Table 21. Seed yield (lb/acre) of winter wheat after spring wheat, and yellow mustard with two seeding rates grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 22. Seed yield (lb/acre) of winter wheat after spring wheat, and yellow mustard with two row spacing at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 23. Seed yield (lb/acre) of winter wheat after spring wheat, and yellow mustard with two seeding rates grown at two locations (Moscow and Genesee) with and without herbicide treatment.
Table 24. Percentage of plants expressing disease symptoms on leaves and stems and a visual rating of root diseases.
|
||||
 Contact
us: Hans Kok, (208)885-5971
|
Accessibility | Copyright
| Policies | WebStats | STEEP Acknowledgement |
||||
