Article written by Dr. Adam Gaspar and Dr. Shawn P. Conley
Early May
planting in Wisconsin has been documented to increase yield due to increased
light interception (Gaspar and Conley, 2015). Earlier planting dates are able to increase
light interception in two ways, which are both demonstrated in Figure 1. First,
the reproductive growth period between R1-R6 occurs during longer days
with the May 1st (Green line) compared to June 1st (Orange
line) planting date. Secondly, the time
spent in the R1-R6 growth stages is increased with the earlier planting date.
As Figure one shows, the May 1st planting date spent ~60 days from
R1-R6 compared ~45 days for the June 1st planting date. Therefore, early plated soybeans experience both longer duration in reproductive
growth (more days) and reproductive growth during the longest days of the summer.
Figure 1. Blue lines represent day length
at various latitudes. Most WI soybeans are grown between 43 and 45 degrees
latitude. The vertical lines represent the time spent
from R1 through R6 for May 1st (Green Lines) and June 1st
(Orange Lines) planting dates. WI soybeans are mainly grown between
43 and 45 degrees latitude.
Yet, in some instances (weather or logistical
problems) planting can be delayed or replanting may be needed. Therefore, investigating
the effect of different MG’s at multiple planting dates across the state would
be useful. Thus, DuPont Pioneer and the
Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board funded a 3-year study to examine proper
MG selection at 5 different planting dates across the state to maximize yield. So let’s look at the 2014-2016 data.
Trials were conducted at Arlington, Hancock, and Spooner,
WI. The five planting dates at each
location were planting roughly on: (1) May
1th, (2) May 20th,
(3) June 1st, (4) June 10th, and (5) June 20th. Planting after June 20th is generally not
recommended in WI. Two varieties within
each realistic MG from a 2.5 all the way down to a 00.5 were tested depending
upon the location and planting date and are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Maturity
Group’s tested within each location and planting date.
|
||||
Planting Date
|
|
Arlington
|
Hancock
|
Spooner
|
1 (May 1th)
|
|
2.5, 2.0, 1.5
|
2.5, 2.0, 1.5
|
1.5, 1.0, 0.5
|
2 (May 20th)
|
|
2.5, 2.0, 1.5
|
2.5, 2.0, 1.5
|
1.5, 1.0, 0.5
|
3 (June 1st)
|
|
2.0, 1.5, 1.0
|
2.0, 1.5, 1.0
|
1.0, 0.5, 0.0
|
4 (June 10th)
|
|
2.0, 1.5, 1.0
|
2.0, 1.5, 1.0
|
1.0, 0.5, 0.0
|
5 (June 20th)
|
|
1.5, 1.0, 0.5
|
1.5, 1.0, 0.5
|
0.5, 0.0, 00.5
|
We will
start with the easy and redundant part, get your soybeans in the ground ASAP to
maximize yield. This is very evident again
in this trial as shown in Figure 2 and 3. If the soil is fit, soil temps are near
50 ˚F, and the forecast is favorable….. get that soybean planter rolling! As you would expect we found some very interesting synergies between early planting and longer
MG’s. Figure 2 contains MG 1.5 soybeans
which at the May 1st planting date only achieved ~85% of max
yield. Figure 3 contains the longest
maturing soybean varieties (>1.5) for each location where soybeans reached 99% of max
yield, with May 1st planting.
Furthermore, as planting is delayed, the earlier MG bean’s (Figure 2) do
not show a quick and dramatic yield decline compared to the later maturing
beans (Figure 3). Therefore, those that
may have not experienced yield loss from delayed planting are likely planting
varieties from a MG too short for their respective area.
Clear yield synergies are
demonstrated in Figure 2 and 3 from planting early and using a longer MG
soybean variety. Both management
practices add no additional cost, meaning any yield increase is direct
profit.
Figure 2. Yield of planting date from May 1st (120) into June of 1.5MG soybean varieties. |
Figure 3. Yield of planting date from May 1st (120) into June for longest maturing soybean varieties at each location. |
Table 2. Effect
of Maturity Group on Yield tested within each location and planting date,
during 2014, 2015, and 2016
Planting Date
|
|
Arlington
|
Hancock
|
Spooner
|
1 (May 1th)
|
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
2 (May 20th)
|
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
3 (May 30th)
|
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
1.0
|
4 (June 10th)
|
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
0.5
|
5 (June 20th)
|
|
1.5
|
1.5
|
0.5
|
The numerically highest yielding MG for each
planting date and location. MG that
are bold and colored red were significantly higher at the P
≤ 0.10
|
Table 2
agrees with the conclusion from Figures 2 and 3, that early planting and longer
maturity groups maximize yield. However, due to no significant MG effect at the
Spooner location, the synergy of early planting and longer MG’s, may not be as
consistent in Northern WI where the growing season is condensed. Planting date
5 at Arlington and Hancock was not significant for MG effects, but the longest
MG planted there still yielded the highest numerically. This was also the case at Spooner, but the
0.5 MG significantly out yielded the 0.0 and ultra-early 00.5 MG
varieties.
These results suggest planting a portion
of your acres to slightly longer MG than normal within May can result in
greater yields with no additional dollars spent. In addition, when planting is delayed into
June, switching to a variety much more than 0.5 MG earlier than a full season
variety (2.5 MG) may limit yield potential. However, if planting is delayed until mid to
late June or more likely replanting is needed, a variety that is at least a
full MG earlier should be considered to avoid fall frost damage.
In conclusion, early planting is critical for higher yields
through increased light interception, and can be further maximized by planting
longer MG’s. However, variety selection heavily based upon the MG is not the “silver
bullet” for increasing yields. Yet, it does provide a strong “potential” for
higher yields with no additional dollars spent, especially in early planting
situations. Therefore, growers should
give consideration to MG when selecting varieties, but past local and regional
performance, disease package, scn-resistance, etc. should also strongly be
considered.
References:
Gaspar, A.P. and S.P. Conley. 2015. Responses of
canopy reflectance, light interception, and soybean seed yield to replanting
suboptimal stands. Crop Sci. 55:377-385.