View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
PGRs for Irrigated Barley and Wheat ProductionIrrigated Crop Production Update 2016
Laurel Perrottlperrott@ualberta.ca
MSc. Candidate, University of Alberta
Sheri StrydhorstSheri.strydhorst@gov.ab.ca
Research Scientist, Alberta Agriculture & Forestry
https://seminolecropnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dsc3648.jpg
Lodging is a problem, especially under irrigation
•Yield losses
•Lower grades
•Difficult and slow to harvest
http://bugwoodcloud.org/images/768x512/1572064.jpg
Tools we currently have to manage lodging
•Genetics
•Fertility
•PGRs ??
What are PGRs?
• Synthetic compounds that mimic, modify, or
inhibit endogenous plant hormones
• Allow us to influence plant growth & development
• Effective at low concentrations & break-down
rapidly
•Reduce stem length
•Uppermost internodes and peduncle are
shortened (Berry et al 2000)
• Inconsistent reports of PGRs altering stem
diameter
ethylene
http://www.flowerbulbs.cornell.edu/forcing/lily_cultivars/Fangio.htm
gibberellic acid
http://samohigarden.blogspot.ca/2011/06/ethylene-gas-and-its-effects-on-fruit.html
Two Main PGR Groups
• Ethylene releasing compounds• i.e. Ethephon (also blocks auxin transport)
• GA biosynthesis inhibitors• i.e. Chlormequat-Chloride & Trinexapac-Ethyl
Rademacher, 2000. Growth retardants: Effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 51:501-31.
GA Biosynthesis Pathway
New PGR Registrations in Western Canada
• Manipulator (chlormequat chloride) was recently registered for wheat *not
registered on barley
• A 2nd PGR in the process of registration (for wheat)
• These PGRs produce shorter (2-15cm), thicker & stronger stems which
reduce lodging in intensive management systems (Syngenta, 2013; Taminco,
2013).
• The primary use of PGRs is as a harvest management aid
Syngenta. 2013. Palisade2EC Label. Accessed November 27, 2013. Available online at: http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Labels/p-1197/Palisade_2EC
Taminco. 2013. Manipulator Technical Data Sheet. Accessed November 27, 2013. Available online at: http://www.taminco.com/
When to apply GA inhibitors?
GS 30-31
BBCH 30: Beginning of stem elongation: first internode begins to elongate (top of
inflorescence at least 1cm above tillering node).
BBCH 31: First node at least 1cm above tillering nodePhotos: Sheri Strydhorst
Advanced Agronomic Management Trials (2014-2016)
Part I “Stacked experiments”
• Feed Barley: Testing Manipulator* on Amisk feed barley yield, height and lodging
• Wheat: Testing Manipulator and a 2nd PGR on AC Foremost wheat yield, height and lodging
Part II “Genetics X Management”
• Do varieties respond differently to PGRs in both barley and wheat?
*Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
When?
• 3 year study (2014-2016)
Where?• Lethbridge (irrigated)
• Lethbridge dryland
• Killam
• Bon Accord
• Falher
★
★
★
★
The Trials
★
Product Rates and Timing
Input Rate(s) Timing
UAN (28-0-0) 30 lbs N/ac
60 lbs N/ac
30 lbs N/ac + Agrotain
Just prior to GS 30 (just before elongation).
PGR – Manipulator (Barley*)
PGR – Manipulator (Wheat)
PGR – PGR B (Wheat)
0.93 L/ac
0.73 L/ac
2.0 L/ac
GS 30-31
1st Foliar Fungicide
Twinline202 mL/ac GS 39 Flag leaf fully unrolled
2nd Foliar Fungicide
Prosaro320 mL/ac ~ 2 weeks later
*Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
Barley PGR results were averaged over all treatments
Barley Results: Response of Amisk to Manipulator*
*Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
• Consistent but small yield increases (1 - 6%) in 6 of 9 site
years
• Height decrease in only 3 of 9 site years (2-4cm)
• No effect on lodging
4.2*
2.6*1.6*
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LethIrrigated
LethDryland
Killam BonAccord
Falher LethIrrigated
LethDryland
BonAccord
Falher
Pla
nt
He
igh
t (c
m)
Site Year
Amisk Barley Height in 2014 and 2015 with Control vs. Manipulator Treatment
Control
Manipulator
Height decrease at 3 of 9
site years (did not occur
under irrigated conditions)
Where lodging occurred,
Manipulator did not
reduce lodging at any site
Photo: Sheri Strydhorst
Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
Barley Genetics X ManagementComparing 10 feed varieties under
advanced and standard management
• Investigate if different cultivars respond
differently to advanced management
(which includes Manipulator application)
*Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
Barley Genetics x Management Treatments
• Comparing 10 feed barley varieties to standard and advanced management
• Standard management had no UAN, PGR, or fungicide applications
Advanced Agronomic Management
Input Rate Timing
UAN (28-0-0) 30 lbs N/ac Just prior to GS 30 (just before elongation).
PGR – Manipulator 0.93 L/ac GS 30-31
1st Foliar Fungicide
Twinline202 mL/ac GS 39 Flag leaf fully unrolled
2nd Foliar Fungicide
Prosaro320 mL/ac ~ 2 weeks later
*Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
Barley Genetics x Management: comparing 10 feed varieties
under advanced and standard management
• Lodging was reported at 4 of 9 sites
• Lodging differed between cultivars:
– Best standability: Amisk, Vivar, and CDC
Coalition
– Worst standability: Gadsby, Breton, Xena
• Lodging response to advanced mngt:
– No response at 3 of 4 sites where lodging was
reported
– Lodging increased with advanced management at
1 of 4 sites
Cultivar selection is a better tool than
agronomic management to determine
plant height and lodging *Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
Gadsby: showing similar lodging under Adv and Std
Lethbridge Irrigated: August 4th 2015
Standard Management Advanced Management
Wheat Results: Response of AC Foremost to Manipulator and PGR B
• Very few statistically significant yield responses for either PGR
• Protein reductions observed:
– Manipulator in 2 of 5 site years
– PGR B in 1 of 5 site years
– Safened with fungicide application
• Height reductions observed:
– Manipulator decreased height in 7 of 8 site years (by -1 to -8cm)
– PGR B decreased height in 5 of 8 site years (+2 to -5cm)
Wheat Genetics x Management: comparing 12 wheat varieties
under advanced and standard management
Photo: Sheri Strydhorst
Height Response to PGRs – Wheat GxM Summary
• PGRs reduced plant height in most cultivars, but to varying degrees– Height reduction ranged from (+1 cm to -27cm); avg -8.9cm
– Averaged over 8 site years, the following cultivars had height reductions > 10cm:• Belvoir (-14 cm), Sparrow (-10 cm), Coleman (-13cm), Harvest (-11 cm) and CDC Stanley (-11 cm)
– Averaged over 8 site years, the following cultivars had height reductions ≤ 6cm:• 5700PR (-5 cm) and AC Andrew (-6 cm)
• Height reduction was not specific to a certain class of wheat• Height reduction was not correlated with plant height
22/01/2016
• Lodging was reported at 4 of 8 sites
• Lodging differed between cultivars:
– Best standability: AAC Penhold, Belvoir, Sparrow
– Worst standability: Coleman and Thorsby
– Intermediate standability: Harvest, CDC Stanley, CDC Go
• PGR standability Response (advanced management):
– Harvest, CDC Stanley and CDC Go tended to have 100% standability with PGR use
– Coleman and Thorsby tended to have improvements in standability, but lodging was
still noted
22/01/2016
Lodging Response to PGRs – Wheat GxM Summary
Lethbridge Irrigated 2015 – Changes in Height and Lodging Ratings
Class Cultivar
-----------Height (cm)----------- Standard MngtLodging Index
(0 = no Lodging; 100 = Flat)
Advanced MngtLodging Index (0 = no Lodging;
100 = Flat)
Standard Mngt
Advanced Mngt Reduction
5700PR 87 81 -6 0 0
CPS AC Foremost 83 75 -8 2 0
AAC Penhold 83 75 -8 1 0
GP Belvoir 88 73 -15 0 0
Sparrow 93 80 -12 0 0
SWS AC Andrew 90 84 -6 0 0
CDC Go 91 86 -5 4 0
HRS Thorsby 105 98 -7 38 26
Coleman 113 102 -11 67 30
Stettler 98 90 -8 5 1
CDC Stanley 105 92 -13 13 0
AC Harvest 103 89 -14 39 0
- Large Height
Reduction
- No increase
in Standability
-Height Reduction
~50%
Improvement in
Standabiltiy
-Height Reduction
- 100%
Improvement in
Standabiltiy
Take Home Messages
• Manipulator modestly decreased height
in Amisk barley in 3 of 9 site years – did
not decrease lodging
• Small but consistent yield increases
using Manipulator on Amisk barley
• Variety selection remains a better tool
than GA inhibiting PGRs to manage
lodging in barley
• More tools are needed for producers to
manage lodging in feed barley!
• Some protein decreases observed in AC
Foremost wheat – fungicide safened
• PGRs, overall, reduced height in most
cultivars – to differing degrees (no
correlation to class or plant height)
• Lodging differed between cultivars –
cultivar selection is an important tool
• Harvest, Stanley, and CDC Go had the
most lodging reduction in response to
PGR application
Barley Wheat
*Manipulator is not registered for use in barley
Five additional site years of data will be compiled to give
producers more tools for agronomic decision making
Advanced Agronomic Practices in Wheat, Barley
and Pea to Maximize Yield and Harvestability
Anderson Seed Growers Ltd.
Beamish Seed Farms Ltd.
Galloway Seeds Ltd.
Canterra Seeds
Field Crop Development Centre
KL Nelson and KWS – UK
Kittle Farms Ltd.
Lefsrud Seed & Processors Ltd.
McNelly Seed Farms Ltd.
N. Jonk Seed Farms
Don Schmermund
Stony Plain Seed Cleaning Plant
Trueblood Farms Ltd.
University of Alberta
Westlock Seed Cleaning Co-op Ltd.
Financial Support of this Research is Provided By:
In-Kind Support of this Research is Provided By:
Recommended