首页 > 最新文献

Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management最新文献

英文 中文
Relationships among vegetation indices for different crops in the Northern Great Plains 北部大平原不同作物植被指数之间的关系
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-04-08 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70041
A. Chatterjee

Wide-spread adoption of proximal sensors in crop health assessment requires understanding of changes in canopy reflectance during the growing season and associations among readings from different sensors. Chlorophyll meter reading (Soil Plant Analysis Development, SPAD), red normalized difference vegetation index (RNDVI), and red-edge normalized difference vegetation index (RENDVI) were measured for sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), corn (Zea mays), sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), soybean (Glycine max), and spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) throughout the 2021 growing season. Cumulative growing degree days (GDD) had a significant relationship with SPAD, RNDVI, and RENDVI. The correlation coefficient indicated SPAD was more associated with RENDVI (r = 0.73) than RNDVI (0.50). The R2 values of multiple linear regression of SPAD and GDD with RNDVI and RENDVI were the lowest for spring wheat (0.33 and 0.52, respectively) and the highest for corn (0.94 and 0.95, respectively). For all major five crops grown in the Northern Great Plains, GDD showed a strong relationship with all three indices. For in-season crop health assessment based on vegetation indices, inclusion of GDD could be a useful predictor variable to develop a single model algorithm applicable for multiple crops at a regional scale.

{"title":"Relationships among vegetation indices for different crops in the Northern Great Plains","authors":"A. Chatterjee","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70041","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Wide-spread adoption of proximal sensors in crop health assessment requires understanding of changes in canopy reflectance during the growing season and associations among readings from different sensors. Chlorophyll meter reading (Soil Plant Analysis Development, SPAD), red normalized difference vegetation index (RNDVI), and red-edge normalized difference vegetation index (RENDVI) were measured for sugarbeet (<i>Beta vulgaris</i> L.), corn (<i>Zea mays</i>), sunflower (<i>Helianthus annuus</i> L.), soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>), and spring wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i>) throughout the 2021 growing season. Cumulative growing degree days (GDD) had a significant relationship with SPAD, RNDVI, and RENDVI. The correlation coefficient indicated SPAD was more associated with RENDVI (<i>r</i> = 0.73) than RNDVI (0.50). The <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values of multiple linear regression of SPAD and GDD with RNDVI and RENDVI were the lowest for spring wheat (0.33 and 0.52, respectively) and the highest for corn (0.94 and 0.95, respectively). For all major five crops grown in the Northern Great Plains, GDD showed a strong relationship with all three indices. For in-season crop health assessment based on vegetation indices, inclusion of GDD could be a useful predictor variable to develop a single model algorithm applicable for multiple crops at a regional scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143801516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Variety choice influences soft red winter wheat yield more than seed treatment
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70037
Haleigh J. Ortmeier-Clarke, Spyridon Mourtzinis, Damon L. Smith, Martin I. Chilvers, Darcy E. P. Telenko, Shawn P. Conley

Seed treatments are commonly used to protect most major crops in the United States from seed- and soil-borne pathogens. In winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) systems in the North Central United States, target pathogens include both true fungi like Fusarium spp. or Rhizoctonia spp. and oomycetes like Pythium spp. or Globisporangium spp. Potential benefits of seed treatments may include improved germination and emergence, protection against early season diseases, and improved plant vigor, but there is little recent research on the benefits of seed treatments in winter wheat in the North Central United States. Field experiments were established at 10 locations across Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan in 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the effect of seed treatments on winter wheat yield. The trial design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Treatments were a factorial of two varieties, Harpoon and Kaskaskia, and five seed treatments, non-treated control, Athena-R, CruiserMaxx Vibrance Cereals, Stamina F4, and Raxil Pro MD/Shield. The variety Harpoon resulted in greater yield and lower test weight than Kaskaksia. The only seed treatment to affect yield was Athena-R when applied to the Harpoon variety. No other seed treatment significantly impacted yield. Results of this study suggest that while seed treatments can provide yield protection, variety selection had a bigger role in overall yield potential.

{"title":"Variety choice influences soft red winter wheat yield more than seed treatment","authors":"Haleigh J. Ortmeier-Clarke,&nbsp;Spyridon Mourtzinis,&nbsp;Damon L. Smith,&nbsp;Martin I. Chilvers,&nbsp;Darcy E. P. Telenko,&nbsp;Shawn P. Conley","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70037","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Seed treatments are commonly used to protect most major crops in the United States from seed- and soil-borne pathogens. In winter wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.) systems in the North Central United States, target pathogens include both true fungi like <i>Fusarium</i> spp. or <i>Rhizoctonia</i> spp. and oomycetes like <i>Pythium</i> spp. or <i>Globisporangium</i> spp. Potential benefits of seed treatments may include improved germination and emergence, protection against early season diseases, and improved plant vigor, but there is little recent research on the benefits of seed treatments in winter wheat in the North Central United States. Field experiments were established at 10 locations across Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan in 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the effect of seed treatments on winter wheat yield. The trial design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Treatments were a factorial of two varieties, Harpoon and Kaskaskia, and five seed treatments, non-treated control, Athena-R, CruiserMaxx Vibrance Cereals, Stamina F4, and Raxil Pro MD/Shield. The variety Harpoon resulted in greater yield and lower test weight than Kaskaksia. The only seed treatment to affect yield was Athena-R when applied to the Harpoon variety. No other seed treatment significantly impacted yield. Results of this study suggest that while seed treatments can provide yield protection, variety selection had a bigger role in overall yield potential.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143762027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Effect of dicyandiamide-treated urea on furrow-irrigated rice yield and nitrogen uptake
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70038
Justin L. Chlapecka, Trenton L. Roberts, Jarrod T. Hardke

Furrow-irrigated rice (FIR; Oryza sativa L.) has been grown in the upper Mid-South since the 1980s. Nitrogen use in FIR is less efficient than direct-seeded, delayed-flood rice due to the lack of a flood, which ultimately protects applied nitrogen (N) from nitrification and subsequent denitrification. If urea applied to FIR fields could be protected from nitrification, N use efficiency could be increased. To address this issue, a test was initiated in 2018 to determine the utility of a blended-urea product that included < 0.1% N-butyl-thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), a urease inhibitor that is recommended on most urea applications to rice, and 0.85% dicyandiamide (DCD), a nitrification inhibitor. A control with no supplemental N application plus six different N management programs were tested as urea + NBPT with or without DCD. Analyses across six sites over 2 years suggested that DCD did not affect any of the variables measured, including total N uptake, recovery efficiency of N, rice grain yield, and rice milling yield. While this is contrary to some previous studies, the product used in the current study contained approximately 10 times less DCD than previous studies in rice. Therefore, out of the products tested, the authors recommend purchasing the lowest cost option.

自 20 世纪 80 年代以来,犁沟灌溉水稻(FIR;Oryza sativa L.)一直在上中南地区种植。与直接播种、延迟灌溉的水稻相比,犁沟灌溉水稻的氮利用效率较低,原因是没有洪水,洪水最终会使施用的氮(N)免于硝化和随后的反硝化。如果施用在水稻田中的尿素能防止硝化,就能提高氮的利用率。为解决这一问题,2018 年启动了一项试验,以确定混合尿素产品的效用,其中包括 < 0.1% N-丁基硫代磷酸三酰胺(NBPT)(一种脲酶抑制剂,建议用于大多数水稻尿素施用)和 0.85% 双氰胺(DCD)(一种硝化抑制剂)。不施用氮补充剂的对照组以及六种不同的氮管理方案(尿素 + NBPT + 或不 + DCD)均接受了测试。对 6 个地点 2 年的分析表明,DCD 不会影响任何测量变量,包括氮的总吸收量、氮的回收效率、稻谷产量和碾米产量。虽然这与之前的一些研究结果相反,但本研究中使用的产品所含的 DCD 比之前的水稻研究结果少约 10 倍。因此,在测试的产品中,作者建议购买成本最低的产品。
{"title":"Effect of dicyandiamide-treated urea on furrow-irrigated rice yield and nitrogen uptake","authors":"Justin L. Chlapecka,&nbsp;Trenton L. Roberts,&nbsp;Jarrod T. Hardke","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70038","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Furrow-irrigated rice (FIR; <i>Oryza sativa</i> L.) has been grown in the upper Mid-South since the 1980s. Nitrogen use in FIR is less efficient than direct-seeded, delayed-flood rice due to the lack of a flood, which ultimately protects applied nitrogen (N) from nitrification and subsequent denitrification. If urea applied to FIR fields could be protected from nitrification, N use efficiency could be increased. To address this issue, a test was initiated in 2018 to determine the utility of a blended-urea product that included &lt; 0.1% <i>N</i>-butyl-thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), a urease inhibitor that is recommended on most urea applications to rice, and 0.85% dicyandiamide (DCD), a nitrification inhibitor. A control with no supplemental N application plus six different N management programs were tested as urea + NBPT with or without DCD. Analyses across six sites over 2 years suggested that DCD did not affect any of the variables measured, including total N uptake, recovery efficiency of N, rice grain yield, and rice milling yield. While this is contrary to some previous studies, the product used in the current study contained approximately 10 times less DCD than previous studies in rice. Therefore, out of the products tested, the authors recommend purchasing the lowest cost option.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70038","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143762028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Nitrogen fertilizer improves no-till soybean seed yield
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-31 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70040
Mark A. Kendall, Spyridon Mourtzinis, John M. Gaska, Shawn P. Conley

No-tillage (NT) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] following corn (Zea mays L.) is a common practice in the United States. It reduces production costs associated with tillage such as labor, fuel, and equipment, in addition to providing environmental benefits such as reduced erosion and carbon emissions. However, in some situations, NT soybean seed yield can be reduced compared to conventional tillage (CT). The objectives of this study were to (i) quantify the effects of nitrogen, corn residue management, and tillage on soybean seed yield, and (ii) recommend optimal residue and nitrogen (N) management strategies for NT soybean following corn. The study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arlington Agricultural Research Station near Arlington, WI, during the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons. Treatments were tested in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Treatments were combinations of NT, CT, N fertilizer application, and corn residue management (removed, chopped, or none). Soybean seed yield was not affected by removing corn residue. Applying 30 lbs N acre−1 prior to NT planting soybean into corn residue and CT increased seed yield by 4.1 bu acre−1 (6.1%) and 5.3 bu acre−1 (7.8%), respectively compared to NT soybean planted into corn residue. The addition of a low rate of spring N can be a tool for producers to increase NT soybean seed yield rather than performing tillage.

{"title":"Nitrogen fertilizer improves no-till soybean seed yield","authors":"Mark A. Kendall,&nbsp;Spyridon Mourtzinis,&nbsp;John M. Gaska,&nbsp;Shawn P. Conley","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70040","url":null,"abstract":"<p>No-tillage (NT) soybean [<i>Glycine max</i> (L.) Merr.] following corn (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) is a common practice in the United States. It reduces production costs associated with tillage such as labor, fuel, and equipment, in addition to providing environmental benefits such as reduced erosion and carbon emissions. However, in some situations, NT soybean seed yield can be reduced compared to conventional tillage (CT). The objectives of this study were to (i) quantify the effects of nitrogen, corn residue management, and tillage on soybean seed yield, and (ii) recommend optimal residue and nitrogen (N) management strategies for NT soybean following corn. The study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arlington Agricultural Research Station near Arlington, WI, during the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons. Treatments were tested in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Treatments were combinations of NT, CT, N fertilizer application, and corn residue management (removed, chopped, or none). Soybean seed yield was not affected by removing corn residue. Applying 30 lbs N acre<sup>−1</sup> prior to NT planting soybean into corn residue and CT increased seed yield by 4.1 bu acre<sup>−1</sup> (6.1%) and 5.3 bu acre<sup>−1</sup> (7.8%), respectively compared to NT soybean planted into corn residue. The addition of a low rate of spring N can be a tool for producers to increase NT soybean seed yield rather than performing tillage.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70040","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Row spacing effects on soybean production in North Carolina
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-28 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70036
D. R. Stokes, R. A. Vann, J. L. Heitman, G. D. Collins, K. D. Stowe

North Carolina soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] growers use a diverse range of row spacings, commonly between 7.5 and 38 inches. Research findings regarding the effect of row spacing on soybean yield have been inconsistent and influenced by factors such as planting date and environmental conditions. Although small-plot data from North Carolina often indicates that narrower row spacings lead to higher yields, growers have raised concerns about the potential benefits of wide rows when ripping is employed in environments exhibiting symptoms of subsurface compaction. Research was conducted over 2 years (2021–2022) in the Coastal Plain region to evaluate the effects of wide row ripped spacing (36 or 38 inches) compared to un-ripped narrower spacing (15 inches) on plant population, canopy cover, soil compaction, and yield across four environments. One of the environments included an additional treatment with an un-ripped drilled row spacing of 7.5 inches. Although seeding rates were calibrated similarly, the ripped wide-row spacing treatments led to lower achieved plant population, predominantly due to adverse seed bed conditions resulting in lower germination caused by the inline ripper. The un-ripped narrow row spacings (7.5 and 15 inches) consistently demonstrated 7–25% greater canopy cover than ripped wider spacings (36 and 38 inches) by the flowering stage (R1). Soil penetration resistance varied by row spacing in only two environments, with differences generally lacking agronomic significance (i.e., penetration resistance <2 MPa). Yield results indicated no significant effect of row spacing in three out of four environments; in the fourth environment, the un-ripped 15-inch row spacing yielded significantly more than both the un-ripped drilled and ripped wide-row soybeans. In the environments in this study, wide-row ripped treatments offered no agronomical advantage over narrow row un-ripped treatments.

{"title":"Row spacing effects on soybean production in North Carolina","authors":"D. R. Stokes,&nbsp;R. A. Vann,&nbsp;J. L. Heitman,&nbsp;G. D. Collins,&nbsp;K. D. Stowe","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70036","url":null,"abstract":"<p>North Carolina soybean [<i>Glycine max</i> (L.) Merr.] growers use a diverse range of row spacings, commonly between 7.5 and 38 inches. Research findings regarding the effect of row spacing on soybean yield have been inconsistent and influenced by factors such as planting date and environmental conditions. Although small-plot data from North Carolina often indicates that narrower row spacings lead to higher yields, growers have raised concerns about the potential benefits of wide rows when ripping is employed in environments exhibiting symptoms of subsurface compaction. Research was conducted over 2 years (2021–2022) in the Coastal Plain region to evaluate the effects of wide row ripped spacing (36 or 38 inches) compared to un-ripped narrower spacing (15 inches) on plant population, canopy cover, soil compaction, and yield across four environments. One of the environments included an additional treatment with an un-ripped drilled row spacing of 7.5 inches. Although seeding rates were calibrated similarly, the ripped wide-row spacing treatments led to lower achieved plant population, predominantly due to adverse seed bed conditions resulting in lower germination caused by the inline ripper. The un-ripped narrow row spacings (7.5 and 15 inches) consistently demonstrated 7–25% greater canopy cover than ripped wider spacings (36 and 38 inches) by the flowering stage (R1). Soil penetration resistance varied by row spacing in only two environments, with differences generally lacking agronomic significance (i.e., penetration resistance &lt;2 MPa). Yield results indicated no significant effect of row spacing in three out of four environments; in the fourth environment, the un-ripped 15-inch row spacing yielded significantly more than both the un-ripped drilled and ripped wide-row soybeans. In the environments in this study, wide-row ripped treatments offered no agronomical advantage over narrow row un-ripped treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143717319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Identifying herbicides to manage weeds in a buckwheat cover crop and for the control of volunteers
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70034
Taylor Randell-Singleton, Hannah E. Wright-Smith, Lavesta C. Hand, Jenna C. Vance, A. Stanley Culpepper

Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) is a fast-growing plant that quickly produces a dense groundcover. The utilization of buckwheat as a cover crop in vegetable production could be beneficial to Georgia producers, however for successful adoption, weed control in the cover crop coupled with control of buckwheat volunteers must be achievable. A preemergence (PRE) and a postemergence (POST) experiment were each conducted three times in Ty Ty, GA (2020–2021) addressing these objectives. In the PRE study, acetochlor at 0.56 lb ai acre−1 injured buckwheat up to 16% without negatively influencing growth, suggesting potential for use in buckwheat for weed control. Flumioxazin, fomesafen, halosulfuron, ethalfluralin and S-metolachlor lacked adequate buckwheat safety. However, flumioxazin at 0.05 lb ai acre−1, fomesafen at 0.19 lb ai acre−1, and halosulfuron at 0.02 lb ai acre−1 were identified as effective options to manage volunteer plants, as control exceeded 80%. In the POST experiment, buckwheat injury from 2,4-D, clethodim, dicamba, glufosinate, glyphosate, halosulfuron, linuron, paraquat, and prometryn was evaluated, and when considering all evaluation parameters, paraquat (0.50 lb ai acre−1) was the most effective option for the control of buckwheat. This was followed by glufosinate (0.59 and 1.17 lb ai acre−1) and glyphosate (1.20 and 2.40 lb ai acre−1). For potential applications over buckwheat for weed management, clethodim (0.12 lb ai acre−1) was the only POST herbicide that provided adequate crop safety.

{"title":"Identifying herbicides to manage weeds in a buckwheat cover crop and for the control of volunteers","authors":"Taylor Randell-Singleton,&nbsp;Hannah E. Wright-Smith,&nbsp;Lavesta C. Hand,&nbsp;Jenna C. Vance,&nbsp;A. Stanley Culpepper","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70034","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Buckwheat (<i>Fagopyrum esculentum</i>) is a fast-growing plant that quickly produces a dense groundcover. The utilization of buckwheat as a cover crop in vegetable production could be beneficial to Georgia producers, however for successful adoption, weed control in the cover crop coupled with control of buckwheat volunteers must be achievable. A preemergence (PRE) and a postemergence (POST) experiment were each conducted three times in Ty Ty, GA (2020–2021) addressing these objectives. In the PRE study, acetochlor at 0.56 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup> injured buckwheat up to 16% without negatively influencing growth, suggesting potential for use in buckwheat for weed control. Flumioxazin, fomesafen, halosulfuron, ethalfluralin and <i>S</i>-metolachlor lacked adequate buckwheat safety. However, flumioxazin at 0.05 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup>, fomesafen at 0.19 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup>, and halosulfuron at 0.02 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup> were identified as effective options to manage volunteer plants, as control exceeded 80%. In the POST experiment, buckwheat injury from 2,4-D, clethodim, dicamba, glufosinate, glyphosate, halosulfuron, linuron, paraquat, and prometryn was evaluated, and when considering all evaluation parameters, paraquat (0.50 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup>) was the most effective option for the control of buckwheat. This was followed by glufosinate (0.59 and 1.17 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup>) and glyphosate (1.20 and 2.40 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup>). For potential applications over buckwheat for weed management, clethodim (0.12 lb ai acre<sup>−1</sup>) was the only POST herbicide that provided adequate crop safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143707245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Nutritive value and economic responses under different restoration strategies of cool-season grass pastures
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70039
Renata La Guardia Nave, Otávio Goulart de Almeida, Jennifer Tucker, Victoria Xiong, Andrew Griffith

Though costly, pasture restoration is necessary when forage stands decline. Interseeding legumes (e.g., alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.), along with crabgrass (CG; Digitaria sanguinalis L.) as a warm-season forage with high nutritive value, can play a key role in supporting pasture restoration. Our objective was to quantify changes in forage mass (FM) and nutritive value and the associated cost of pasture restoration using different strategies. The experiment was carried out in Spring Hill, TN, for 2 years in established swards of tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort] or orchardgrass (OG; Dactylis glomerata L.), with the addition of alfalfa with or without CG. The treatments were: 1) control (C-TF or C-OG), 2) synthetic N fertilization (TF+N or OG+N), 3) fall seeding of alfalfa (FA), 4) spring seeding of alfalfa (SA), 5) fall seeding of alfalfa + summer seeding of CG (FA+CG), and 6) spring seeding of alfalfa + summer seeding of CG (SA+CG), with four replications. The FM was greatest when N fertilizer was applied to TF and OG. In both grass types, N fertilization also resulted in greater nutritive value than the control. The addition of alfalfa and CG did not result in an increase in nutritive value, and this response probably may be pronounced in the medium to long term when overseeded species are well established. Thus, synthetic N still incorporates greater outcomes, showing the need for long-term researchers to provide deeper information into overseeding cool- and warm-season grasses, thereby contributing to the restoration of ecosystems.

{"title":"Nutritive value and economic responses under different restoration strategies of cool-season grass pastures","authors":"Renata La Guardia Nave,&nbsp;Otávio Goulart de Almeida,&nbsp;Jennifer Tucker,&nbsp;Victoria Xiong,&nbsp;Andrew Griffith","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70039","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Though costly, pasture restoration is necessary when forage stands decline. Interseeding legumes (e.g., alfalfa, <i>Medicago sativa</i> L.), along with crabgrass (CG; <i>Digitaria sanguinalis</i> L.) as a warm-season forage with high nutritive value, can play a key role in supporting pasture restoration. Our objective was to quantify changes in forage mass (FM) and nutritive value and the associated cost of pasture restoration using different strategies. The experiment was carried out in Spring Hill, TN, for 2 years in established swards of tall fescue [TF; <i>Schedonorus arundinaceus</i> (Schreb.) Dumort] or orchardgrass (OG; <i>Dactylis glomerata</i> L.), with the addition of alfalfa with or without CG. The treatments were: 1) control (C-TF or C-OG), 2) synthetic N fertilization (TF+N or OG+N), 3) fall seeding of alfalfa (FA), 4) spring seeding of alfalfa (SA), 5) fall seeding of alfalfa + summer seeding of CG (FA+CG), and 6) spring seeding of alfalfa + summer seeding of CG (SA+CG), with four replications. The FM was greatest when N fertilizer was applied to TF and OG. In both grass types, N fertilization also resulted in greater nutritive value than the control. The addition of alfalfa and CG did not result in an increase in nutritive value, and this response probably may be pronounced in the medium to long term when overseeded species are well established. Thus, synthetic N still incorporates greater outcomes, showing the need for long-term researchers to provide deeper information into overseeding cool- and warm-season grasses, thereby contributing to the restoration of ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143698983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Maximizing corn yield and partial returns in Michigan by optimizing hybrid maturity selection
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-24 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70035
Benjamin K. Agyei, S. Mourtzinis, Maninder P. Singh

Relative maturity (RM) selection is important for corn (Zea mays L.) farmers because it has significant effects on yield and profit. Selecting the appropriate RM is particularly important for corn farmers in the northern Corn Belt where growing season length is often a limiting factor. However, there is limited information on optimal RM for maximizing yield and partial returns in Michigan and other northern states. The objective of this study was to examine optimal RM across Michigan over the last two decades to identify RM that maximizes yield and partial returns. Data from irrigated and dryland corn hybrid trials conducted in Michigan between 2006 and 2022 were analyzed. Partial returns were estimated at a single grain price ($4.38 bu−1) and two drying costs ($0.045 and $0.06 bu−1 point−1). Our results showed that optimal RMs remained similar for most years (14 out of 17) and decreased significantly in 2009, 2014, and 2019. Averaged across years, optimal RMs for maximum yield were lowest (ranged from 84 to 95) in northern locations (latitude >44°N) and highest (ranged from 104 to 109) in the south (latitude 42°N). The optimal RM for maximum partial returns was up to 3 units lower than that maximized yield for central and southern locations but showed variability in northern locations. Overall, our results provide useful regional recommendations for Michigan corn farmers to optimize RM selection.

相对成熟度(RM)的选择对玉米(Zea mays L.)种植者来说非常重要,因为它对产量和利润有重大影响。选择适当的相对成熟度对玉米带北部的玉米种植者尤为重要,因为生长季节的长短往往是一个限制因素。然而,在密歇根州和其他北部州,有关实现产量和部分收益最大化的最佳 RM 的信息十分有限。本研究的目的是考察密歇根州过去二十年来的最佳种植密度,以确定能使产量和部分收益最大化的种植密度。研究分析了 2006 年至 2022 年期间在密歇根州进行的灌溉和旱地玉米杂交试验数据。部分收益是按单一谷物价格(4.38 美元 bu-1)和两种干燥成本(0.045 美元和 0.06 美元 bu-1 point-1)估算的。我们的结果表明,在大多数年份(17 年中的 14 年),最优 RMs 保持相似,而在 2009 年、2014 年和 2019 年,最优 RMs 显著下降。从各年的平均值来看,北部地区(北纬 44°)最大产量的最优里亚尔最低(从 84 到 95 不等),南部地区(北纬 42°)最高(从 104 到 109 不等)。在中部和南部地区,部分收益最大化的最佳RM比产量最大化的RM最多低3个单位,但在北部地区则存在差异。总之,我们的结果为密歇根玉米种植者优化RM选择提供了有用的地区建议。
{"title":"Maximizing corn yield and partial returns in Michigan by optimizing hybrid maturity selection","authors":"Benjamin K. Agyei,&nbsp;S. Mourtzinis,&nbsp;Maninder P. Singh","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70035","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Relative maturity (RM) selection is important for corn (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) farmers because it has significant effects on yield and profit. Selecting the appropriate RM is particularly important for corn farmers in the northern Corn Belt where growing season length is often a limiting factor. However, there is limited information on optimal RM for maximizing yield and partial returns in Michigan and other northern states. The objective of this study was to examine optimal RM across Michigan over the last two decades to identify RM that maximizes yield and partial returns. Data from irrigated and dryland corn hybrid trials conducted in Michigan between 2006 and 2022 were analyzed. Partial returns were estimated at a single grain price ($4.38 bu<sup>−1</sup>) and two drying costs ($0.045 and $0.06 bu<sup>−1</sup> point<sup>−1</sup>). Our results showed that optimal RMs remained similar for most years (14 out of 17) and decreased significantly in 2009, 2014, and 2019. Averaged across years, optimal RMs for maximum yield were lowest (ranged from 84 to 95) in northern locations (latitude &gt;44°N) and highest (ranged from 104 to 109) in the south (latitude 42°N). The optimal RM for maximum partial returns was up to 3 units lower than that maximized yield for central and southern locations but showed variability in northern locations. Overall, our results provide useful regional recommendations for Michigan corn farmers to optimize RM selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143690078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Low soybean plant population: Is replanting necessary?
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70032
Carrie Ortel, Laura E. Lindsey, Shaun Casteel, Hans Kandel, Emerson Nafziger, Jeremy Ross, Emma Matcham, David Moseley, Giovani Preza Fontes, Shawn P. Conley

Early in the growing season, abiotic (freezing temperatures, hail, flooding, etc.) and biotic (slugs, deer, disease, insects, etc.) factors often reduce soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plant populations. Although seeing a soybean field with poor seedling vigor, slow plant growth, and low plant population density often triggers an urge to replant, such fields do not always need to be replanted. The objectives of this management guide are to (a) address the necessary considerations prior to replanting a soybean field; (b) provide images depicting common early season stressors affecting soybean; and (c) explain the potential yield limitations from early season soybean injuries. US soybean agronomists representing a diversity of growing regions collated replant guidelines to generate applicable recommendations and pictures showing effects of early-season stressors that reduce soybean plant population. The minimum soybean stand required to produce near-maximal yields has been as low as 50,000 plants per acre, but more plants than that may be required in the case of adverse growing conditions, in northern regions, or with early-maturing varieties. When the plant population is low, repair planting—adding seeds without destroying established plants—portions of the field instead of destroying the existing stand and starting over is recommended. Management in reaction to stand loss should consider the cause and type of damage and should focus on maximizing profitability.

{"title":"Low soybean plant population: Is replanting necessary?","authors":"Carrie Ortel,&nbsp;Laura E. Lindsey,&nbsp;Shaun Casteel,&nbsp;Hans Kandel,&nbsp;Emerson Nafziger,&nbsp;Jeremy Ross,&nbsp;Emma Matcham,&nbsp;David Moseley,&nbsp;Giovani Preza Fontes,&nbsp;Shawn P. Conley","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70032","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Early in the growing season, abiotic (freezing temperatures, hail, flooding, etc.) and biotic (slugs, deer, disease, insects, etc.) factors often reduce soybean [<i>Glycine max</i> (L.) Merr.] plant populations. Although seeing a soybean field with poor seedling vigor, slow plant growth, and low plant population density often triggers an urge to replant, such fields do not always need to be replanted. The objectives of this management guide are to (a) address the necessary considerations prior to replanting a soybean field; (b) provide images depicting common early season stressors affecting soybean; and (c) explain the potential yield limitations from early season soybean injuries. US soybean agronomists representing a diversity of growing regions collated replant guidelines to generate applicable recommendations and pictures showing effects of early-season stressors that reduce soybean plant population. The minimum soybean stand required to produce near-maximal yields has been as low as 50,000 plants per acre, but more plants than that may be required in the case of adverse growing conditions, in northern regions, or with early-maturing varieties. When the plant population is low, repair planting—adding seeds without destroying established plants—portions of the field instead of destroying the existing stand and starting over is recommended. Management in reaction to stand loss should consider the cause and type of damage and should focus on maximizing profitability.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70032","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143530443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Tar spot impacts silage corn yield and forage nutritive value
IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI: 10.1002/cft2.70031
Harkirat Kaur, Martin Chilvers, Kimberly Cassida, Maninder Pal Singh

Silage corn (Zea mays L.) in Michigan and the Great Lakes region is prone to an emerging foliar disease called tar spot (caused by Phyllachora maydis). When corn is infected with Phyllochora maydis, stromata develop on the leaves resulting in early senescence and drying. Therefore, to understand the effect of tar spot on forage yield, nutritive value, and predicted milk yield, field trials were conducted at multiple Michigan locations from 2021–2023. Field trials were arranged in randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments included hybrid resistance (one susceptible and one partially resistant hybrid) and three fungicide treatments using Delaro 325 SC at 8 oz acre−1 (non-treated, one application at silking [R1], and two applications [one at R1 and second at dough stage]). Results showed that tar spot severity increased over time in silage corn. Fungicide application in susceptible hybrid had the lowest tar spot severity across all hybrids and fungicide treatments. Hybrid disease resistance resulted in 50% reduction of tar spot severity and contributed to a lower yield penalty. Reduction of tar spot severity due to hybrid disease resistance also minimized decline in neutral detergent fiber digestibility and predicted milk yield. Fungicide application reduced tar spot severity but did not affect dry yield and forage nutritive value. Overall, our study shows that tar spot reduces forage yield and nutritive value and requires an integrated approach to disease management.

{"title":"Tar spot impacts silage corn yield and forage nutritive value","authors":"Harkirat Kaur,&nbsp;Martin Chilvers,&nbsp;Kimberly Cassida,&nbsp;Maninder Pal Singh","doi":"10.1002/cft2.70031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70031","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Silage corn (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) in Michigan and the Great Lakes region is prone to an emerging foliar disease called tar spot (caused by <i>Phyllachora maydis</i>). When corn is infected with <i>Phyllochora maydis</i>, stromata develop on the leaves resulting in early senescence and drying. Therefore, to understand the effect of tar spot on forage yield, nutritive value, and predicted milk yield, field trials were conducted at multiple Michigan locations from 2021–2023. Field trials were arranged in randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments included hybrid resistance (one susceptible and one partially resistant hybrid) and three fungicide treatments using Delaro 325 SC at 8 oz acre<sup>−1</sup> (non-treated, one application at silking [R1], and two applications [one at R1 and second at dough stage]). Results showed that tar spot severity increased over time in silage corn. Fungicide application in susceptible hybrid had the lowest tar spot severity across all hybrids and fungicide treatments. Hybrid disease resistance resulted in 50% reduction of tar spot severity and contributed to a lower yield penalty. Reduction of tar spot severity due to hybrid disease resistance also minimized decline in neutral detergent fiber digestibility and predicted milk yield. Fungicide application reduced tar spot severity but did not affect dry yield and forage nutritive value. Overall, our study shows that tar spot reduces forage yield and nutritive value and requires an integrated approach to disease management.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.70031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143530441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1