Non-Peer ReviewedNewer open pollinated (O.P.) and hybrid canola varieties provide higher yield potential but the management strategies necessary to achieve optimum yield are not well understood. To better understand the levels of inputs required to optimize yield and to enhance producers ability to optimize return on their investment a three year study was conducted at Melfort, Indian Head, and Scott during 1999, 2000 and 2001 with the following objective. Objective: To evaluate the effect of seeding rate, fertilizer addition and fungicides on the optimum yield potential of hybrid and open pollinated canola in the Thick Black, Thin Black and Dark Brown Soil Zones

Brandt, S.A.

Johnston, A.M.

Lafond, G.

Malhi, S.S.

Ulrich, D.

English

eCommons@USASK

Management for optimum yield of open pollinated and hybrid canola

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

Management for Optimum Yield of Open Pollinated and HybridCanolaS. Brandt, D. Ulrich, G. Lafond* ,S. Mahli** and A.M. Johnston†Scott Research Farm, P.O. Box 10, Highway 374 Scott, SK S0K 4A0*Indian Head Research Farm, Box 760, Indian Head, SK S0G 2K0** Melfort Research Farm, Highway 6 South Melfort, SK S0E 1A0 † Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada, Suite 704, CN Tower, Midtown PlazaSaskatoon, SK S7K 1J5IntroductionNewer open pollinated (O.P.) and hybrid canola varieties provide higher yield potential but themanagement strategies necessary to achieve optimum yield are not well understood.  To betterunderstand the levels of inputs required to optimize yield and to enhance  producers ability tooptimize return on their investment a three year study was conducted at Melfort, Indian Head,and Scott during 1999, 2000 and 2001 with the following objective. Objective: To evaluate the effect of seeding rate, fertilizer addition and fungicides on theoptimum yield potential of hybrid and open pollinated canola in the Thick Black, Thin Black andDark Brown soil zones.Materials and Methods Field experiments were established at Melfort (thick Black), Indian Head (thin Black), and Scott(Dark Brown) in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The experiment at Melfort was lost in 1999 as a result ofdamage to the growing point caused by leaching of Muster after a heavy rain. The weed controlstrategy at all sites was too optimize yield production and as a result was similar. Data collectionincluded plant density, crop biomass and seed yield, growth staging (flowering initiation, end offlowering, 30% seed maturity) as well as percent green seed,  % oil and protein (NIR), althoughthe crop quality data is not reported here. See Table 1  for a more detailed summary ofoperations, inputs and data collection dates.The experiment was designed as a 3 level factorial with fungicide treatment as a split plot. Factors in the experiment included 2 canola cultivars (Invigor hybrid and Quantum openpollinated variety) three fertility levels of 67%, 100% and 133% of a target fertility level andthree seeding rates of 2.8, 5.6 ,8.4 kg/ha. Fertility rates were categorized as low, middle and high.At Scott nitrogen as urea (46-0-0) was mid row banded using a Versatile hoe drill with a 8" rowspacing. At Indian Head and Melfort urea was side banded with row spacings of 12" and 9"respectively. At all three locations a blend of P-K-S was applied; below the seed at Scott andbeside the seed at Melfort and Indian Head at three different rates that increased as N rateincreased (Table 2). Additional details are provided in Table 1.The fungicide strip received an application of Ronilan EG (vinclozolin) for control of sclerotinia.A disease survey was conducted prior to swathing. At Scott suspected high levels of residual soil N in 2000 were observed to run perpendicularacross all 4 replicates of the experiment resulting in high biomass and seed production. To ensureonly treatment effects were contained in the data set, results from affected plots were deleted. Tofacilitate a combined site-year-location analysis, the results from Scott in 2000 were not used.Despite below normal spring precipitation at Scott and Melfort in 2000 and at all locations in2001, soil moisture reserves or timely rains ensured adequate crop stands for all site-year-locations. At Melfort in 2000 plant stands were reduced substantially due to frost.  The 1999 and2000 growing seasons were characterized by cool temperatures with normal to above normalprecipitation (Table 3) resulting in lush crop canopies and normal to above normal yields. Incontrast, 2001 was characterized by above normal temperatures and below normal precipitationresulting in below normal yields.Table 1. Field operation, inputs, and data collection dates for canola management study.Indian Head Melfort Scott1999 2000 2001 99 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001Seeding Date May 25 May 3 May 7-8 - May 7- 8 May 7 May 7 May 12 May 5Swathing Date Aug 31 Aug 15 Aug 20 - Sept 6 Aug 15-22 Aug 20-25 Aug 18-31 Aug 9Harvest Date Sept 16 Aug 29 Aug 28 - Oct 2 Sept-4 Aug 27-Se 4 Sept 13 Aug 18Soil Test Results (kg/ha) NO3-N 0-60cm 34.7 17 40 - 39 28 38 74 22PO4-P 0-15cm 11.2 16 27 - 21 19 42 55 4 K 0-15cm 571 557 571 - 570 540 >600 >600 -  SO4-S 0-60cm 95 17 55 - 71 52 112 172 - Fertilizer Nutrient application rates (kg/ha) N Placement side band side band mid row bandN target % 66 100 133 66 100 133 66 100 133 66 100 133 66 100 133 66 100 133 66 100 133 66 100 133N 75 109 149 74 110 146 85 129 172 - 43 82 122 49 89 129 20 46 72 26 37 49 54 91 128P2O5 23 34 45 22 34 45 17 25 33 - 6 19 32 6 19 32 17 11 17 23 17 23 29K 11 17 23 11 17 23 8 13 17 - 6 19 32 6 19 32 0 11 17 23 17 23 29S 11 17 23 11 17 23 8 13 17 - 2 6 11 2 6 11 0 4 6 8 6 8 10Seeding Rates (kg/ha)     Seed size(g/1000) 1999: Inv2273=4.7  Qtm=3.3     2000: Inv2663=4.1 Qtm=3.2    2001:Inv2663=4.6 Qtm=3.4Management 2.8    5.6     8.4 2.8   5.6    8.4 2.3   4.5   9 2.7   6.5   9.4 3.1  6.3  9.4Herbicides#1product edge Edge Edge - Roundup Roundup Liberty Roundup Rounduprate:g ai/ha 1130 1350 1413 - 659 440 500 440 1758date Apr26 Nov22/99 Oct 17/00 - May 7 May 10 Jun 8 May 14 May 8#2product Roundup Roundup Roundup - Poast Ultra Poast Ultra Poast Ultra Poast Ultra Poast Ultrarate:g ai/ha 890 879 900 - 222 222 211 211 145date May 7 May 4 May  8 - Jun 5 Jun 12 Jun 12 Jun 13 Jun 12#3product Muster Lontrel - Poast U Muster Muster Lontrel Musterrate:g ai/ha 15 153 - 222 15 22 151 15date Jun 22 Jun 11 - Jun 19 Jun 12 Jun 12 Jun 13 Jun 12#4product Assure Poast Ultra - Muster Lontrel Lontrelrate:g ai/ha 102 361 - 22 151 151date Jun 22 Jun 7 - Jun 19 Jun 12 Jun 12#5product Lontrel - Decis Decisrate:g ai/ha 150 - 74 62date Jun 7 - Jul 16 Jul 20Fungicides#1product Ronilan 750 Ronilan 750 Ronilan - Ronilan Ronilan Ronilan rate:g ai/ha 1000 1000 400 - 500 500 500date Jul 22 Jul 22 Jul 13 - Jun 29 Jul 7 Jul 5#2product - Ronilan Ronilanrate:g ai/ha - 494 494date - 7Jul 14 7Jul 3Seeder Conserva-Pak - 12" row spacing Conserva-Pak -  9" row spacing Versatile hoe drill - 8" row spacing(Note:deleted quadris as was a non issue. Qudris was not included in economic analyses)Table 2. Combined soil and fertilizer nutrient levels at each location for the canolamanagement study(kg/ha).Scott Indian Head MelfortYear 1999 2000 2001 Mean 1999 2000 2001 Mean 1999 2000 2001 Mean67 % 58 100 76 78 110 91 125 109 - 82 77 80Target84 111 113 103 144 127 169 147 - 121 117 119133%110 123 150 128 184 163 212 186 - 161 157 159Table 3.  Monthly precipitation and mean monthly temperatures at Scott, Melfort and IndianHead.Month Precipitation (mm) Temperature (Celsius)1999 2000 2001  Long Term 1950-19971999 2000 2001 Long Term1950-1997Scott May 66 24 18 34 9.4 9.4 11 10.4June 43 41 59 65 13.6 13.5 13.9 14.8July 81 91 37 66 15.1 17.8 17.7 17.1August 48 57 4 46 16.8 15.6 19 16.1MelfortMay 41 15 9 41 10.2 9.1 11.2 10.3June 14 74 23 62 14 13 15.8 15.2July 96 106 46 69 15.9 17.6 18.5 17.4August 36 47 11 53 17 16.6 19.1 16.2Indian HeadMay 67 68 2 50 10.4 10.1 11.4 10.8June 116 105 29 74 14.5 13.1 14.4 15.9July 84 46a 41 62 16 18 18.1 18.5August 88 63 13 53 16.6 16.4 18.9 17.5Results and DiscussionAgronomic ResponsesBecause the same weight of seed was sown for both cultivars, the number of seeds sown waslower due to larger seed size for the Invigor Hybrid than for Quantum. This was the major factoraffecting cultivar differences in plant density (Table 4). In general plant densities were lower forInvigor than Quantum, while the differences for percent establishment were inconsistent. Biomass and grain yield with the Invigor hybrid was similar or higher than Quantum at alllocation years, and averaged 12% higher for both biomass and seed yield. With above normalmoisture during 1999, the grain yield differences between cultivars were relatively small. Bycontrast, 2001 was very dry at all locations, and grain yield differences between cultivars werequite large. This in itself may not be sufficient to conclude that hybrids (Invigor) are moredrought tolerant than open pollinate (Quantum) cultivars. However it does provide strongevidence that they are at least equal and possibly more drought tolerant.Table 4. Plant densities, plant establishment, biomass production and grain yield of Invigor andQuantum canola at Scott, Melfort and Indian Head during 1999-2001. (Data is the mean of 3seed rates and 3 fertility levels).Plant Density (#/M2)PercentEstablishmentBiomass (t/ha) Grain Yield (kg/ha)Location Year Invigor Quantum Invigor Quantum Invigor Quantum Invigor QuantumScott 1999 81b 139a 68 82 6.69a 5.77b 2470a 2360bIndian Head199956b 64a 45 38 11.02a 9.84b 1750 1790Scott 2000 75a 66b 55 38 5.97 5.47 1690a 1460bIndian Head2000112 107 82 61 9.45a 8.49b 2040a 1790bMelfort 2000 19b 27a 14 15 7.27a 6.47b 2030a 1870bScott 2001 108b 144a 89 87 5.82a 5.37b 1350a 1200bIndian Head200141 40 34 24 6.40a 5.59 1300a 850bMelfort 2001 45 46 37 28 6.41a 5.47b 1870a 1580b8 Loc Yr Mean 67b 79a 53 47 7.38a 6.56b 1810a 1610bValues followed by a different letter between cultivars are significantly different at P=0.05.There were small (generally 1-2 day) cultivar differences in time to start flowering and time tomaturity, but the differences were not consistent across location years (data not shown). Diseaseincidence tended to be quite low for most location years, with one exception. At Melfort in 2000,sclerotinia incidence and sclerotinia induced seed loss (estimated) were higher for Invigor thanfor Quantum, although values for both cultivars were relatively low.Fungicide treatment alone did not affect yield, but the interaction of fungicide with fertility levelwas significant at P=0.05, and there was a tendency for the seed rate x fungicide interaction to besignificant (P=0.055) when analysed across location years. At the low fertility level, yield wasunaffected by fungicide (Table 5), while at the mid and high fertility levels, a small yield increasewas noted where fungicides were applied. This suggests that enhanced growth with higherfertility likely created an environment more conducive to sclerotinia infection and development.At Scott in 1999, and at Indian Head in 2000, sclerotinia incidence and yield loss ratings didincrease with increased fertility (data not shown).Fungicide application only increased yield at the lowest seed rate (Table 6). This would suggestthat the longer flowering period associated with reduced seed rates may have allowed more timefor sclerotinia to affect the crop. However, sclerotinia incidence and severity ratings were similarfor all seed rates (data not shown).Increasing seed rate and increasing fertility level generally increased yield (Table 7), and therewas a significant interaction of seed rate with fertility level. At the low fertility level, yieldincreased when seed rate was increased from 2.8 to 5.6 kg/ha, but was not increased further whenseed rate increased to 8.4 kg/ha; higher fertility was required to induce a yield response to higherseed rate. Similarly, at the 2.8 kg/ha seed rate, yield was higher for the mid than low fertility butfurther increases in yield were not noted for the high fertility rate; responses to high fertility onlyoccurred at the 5.6 and 8.4 kg/ha seed rates. This provided a strong indication that higher plantdensities are required to take advantage of higher fertility, and vice versa. The lack of aninteraction of cultivar with seed rate or fertility level provided a good indication that bothcultivars require similar seed rates and fertility to optimize yield.Table 5. Yield (kg/ha) response to fungicide treatment and increasing fertility averagedacross 7 location years. (Values are means for 2 cultivars and 3 seed rates).Fertility LevelFungicide Treatment Low Mid HighNone 1619d 1723c 1807bTreated 1593d 1782b 1856aLSD (P=0.05) 39Values followed by a different letter are significantly different at P=0.05.Table 6. Yield (kg/ha) response to fungicide treatment and increasing seed rate averaged across 7location years. (Values are means for 2 cultivars and 3 fertility levels).Seed Rate (kg/ha)Fungicide Treatment 2.8 5.6 8.4None 1558e 1751c 1839aTreated 1618d 1794bc 1819abLSD (P=0.05) 51Values followed by a different letter are significantly different at P=0.05.Table 7. Yield (kg/ha) response to increasing fertility and increasing seed rate averaged across 7location years. (Values are means for 2 cultivars and 2 fungicide treatments).Seed Rate (kg/ha)Fertility Level 2.8 5.6 8.4Low 1489e 1673d 1654dMid 1616d 1773c 1868bHigh 1659d 1870b 1964aLSD (P=0.05) 51Values followed by a different letter are significantly different at P=0.05.Because percent emergence varied considerably across location years, an attempt was made toidentify the plant densities required to achieve adequate responses to higher fertility. In general,where plant densities were less than 45 plants/m2 yield responses to higher fertility were 0-6%compared with the low fertility level. Where plant densities exceeded 65/m2 yield responses tohigher fertility averaged 12-18%. Economics / Marginal ReturnsEconomic analyses were performed on the data based on costs from the 2001 Crop Plannerpublished by Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (available on the Saskatchewan Agricultureand Food website). Table 8 outlines the actual expenses used in the analysis. Because seed costsand fertilizer costs varied between treatments, the actual costs associated with each treatmentwere used, based on seed costs of $ 9.35/kg for Invigor seed and $4.40/kg for Quantum seed,$0.51 /kg for N, $0.57/kg for P205, $0.18 /kg for K and $0.44/kg for S. Several canola priceswere investigated, and the analysis reported here is based on a canola price of $310/tonne.Table 8. Crop production costs ($/ha) used in economic analyses (based on 2001 Crop Plannerpublished by Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food). [actual values are a weighted average for theDark Brown and Black soil zones based on the number of location years of data for each soilzone].______________________________________________________________________________Variable expenses ($/ha) 129.40         Including chemicals, machinery operating, custom work and hired labour, crop         insurance premiums, utilities and miscellaneous expenses, and interest on variable         expenses, but excludes seed and fertilizer costs that varied across treatments.______________________________________________________________________________Other expenses ($/ha) 129.75        Including building repair, property taxes, insurance and licences, machinery         depreciation, building investment, and land investment.______________________________________________________________________________Net returns were calculated for each cultivar x seed rate x fertility level x fungicide treatment foreach location year. In addition the returns per $ invested and coefficients of variability of netreturns for each treatment combination was determined. To calculate an index of variability ofnet income, the coefficient of variability (CV)for one treatment (considered a check) wasassigned a value of 1.00, and indexes for other treatments were calculated based on themagnitude of the corresponding CV relative to the check [example; if the CV for a treatment was25% lager than for the check, the index would be 1.25]. Only selected economic data are reported here.Not surprisingly, total costs were higher (reflecting seed costs) for the hybrid than the openpollinate variety, but the value of  higher yield more than offset higher costs (Table 9), resultingin net returns that were $34/ha higher. Net income was only 2/3 as variable for the Invigor hybridthan for Quantum (index of variability of 0.67 vs 1.00), and return per $ invested was higher forInvigor. The reduced income variability reflected the relatively good yield performance ofInvigor in 2001, the driest year at all locations. This is not surprising, and reflects that cultivars orother practices that perform well in dry years provide income stability. The effect of the hybrid inthis study is somewhat unique in that many technologies that improve drought tolerance alsorestrict yield in years of favourable moisture. Technologies that restrict yield losses in dry yearsbut perform well in wetter conditions are the most desirable of strategies to cope with droughtand stabilize income.Net returns were highest for the combination of high fertility and the highest seed rate (Table 10),and were generally low for the lowest seed rate, although it was low also for low fertility, highseed rate combination. Income variability was high and return per $ invested low for the low seedrate across all fertility levels. Low seed rates increase the probability that plant populations areinsufficient to make efficient use of moisture and inputs used to produce a crop. With high seedrates, it is important that fertility is adequate to ensure that the crop can optimize yield. Overallthe mid to high fertility rates, combined with mid to high seed rates were favoured.Table 9. Economic Comparison of Cultivars (means for 7 location years)[Canola @ $310/tonne].Invigor QuantumTotal Cost ($/ha) 400 373Gross Return ($/ha) 563 502Net Return ($/ha) 163 129Index of income variability* 0.67 1Return per $ invested 1.4 1.35*Index of income variability is a relative measure of the coefficient of variability of net income over location yearswhere the 5.6 kg/ha seed rate with mid fertility has been assigned a value of 1.00.Table 10. Economic comparisons of seed and fertilizer rates. SeedRate(kg/ha)Net Returns ($/ha) Index of IncomeVariability*Return per $ InvestedFertility level Fertility level Fertility levelLow Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High2.8 120 132 118 1.2 1.4 1.92 1.35 1.36 1.35.6 154 158 161 0.96 1 1.2 1.42 1.41 1.398.4 130 168 172 0.98 0.95 1.05 1.39 1.42 1.4*Index of income variability is a relative measure of the coefficient of variability of net income over location yearswhere the 5.6 kg/ha seed rate with mid fertility has been assigned a value of 1.00.ConclusionsInvigor hybrids increased yield and net income over the open pollinated cultivar Quantum. Inaddition, yield and net income were stabilized, and return on investment was increased.Ensuring adequate plant populations is an important component of optimizing inputs, andreducing variability of yield and income. To achieve this, seed rates should be at or slightly abovecurrent recommendations.Where  plant populations are adequate, fertility should be at or above current recommendations. 

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/9763/1/S.A.%20Brandt%20et%20al.%2c%202002.pdf

Management for optimum yield of open pollinated and hybrid canola

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@USASK

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive