Response of spring wheat and barley to simulated application of N through irrigation sprinklers in
Montana
by Randy Jay Killorn
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Soil Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by Randy Jay Killorn (1979)
Abstract:
During the summer of 1977, three experiments were established at two locations in Montana to
determine the yield response of spring wheat and barley to applying a portion of the total N fertilizer in
irrigation water. Various proportions of the total N fertiliser were applied at planting. The remainder of
the N fertilizer was applied in simulated fertigation treatments during the growing season. Treatments
receiving less than 100% of the total applied M fertilizer at planting had lower grain yields and higher
grain protein than treatments receiving 100% of the N fertilizer at planting. There seems to be no
advantage in Montana to applying part of the total N fertilizer at planting followed by growing season
applications of the remainder in irrigation water. . STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for an advanced degree at Montana State University,
I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for
inspection.
I further agree that permission for extensive copy­
ing of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by my
major professor, or, in his absence, by the Director of Libraries.
It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for
financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature
Date
RESPONSE OF SPRING WHEAT AND BARLEY TO SIMULATED APPLICATION OF N
THROUGH IRRIGATION SPRINKLERS IN MONTANA
by
RANDY JAY KILLORN
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Soil Science
Approved:
Chairman, Graduate XCommSttee
HeadltZMajor Department
Graduate lDean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman> Montana
February 1979'
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express sincere gratitude.to Dr. Neil W.
Christensen without whose patience and guidance this project would
not have been completed.
The author would also like to thank his wife Kathy and daughter
Kelly whose understanding and moral support during this project were
the key to its completion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Vita..............................
ii
Acknowledgment. ..............................................
ill
List of Tables...................
vii
List of Figures ..............
xix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Abstract......................................
xxi
Introduction..................................................
I
Literature.Review ...............................• . * ..........
3
Fertigation......................
3
Time of Application......................
6
Nitrogen Source..................
10
15
N Use in Agricultural Experimentation..................
12
Objectives....................................................
15
Materials and M e t h o d s ..............
16
Site Selection..................
16
Location and D e s i g n . .........................
18
Treatments ..................
18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
N Treatments.......................
'
22
Field W o r k ...............................
24
Weed C o n t r o l ...........................
25
.Irrigation......................
Harvest................
25
.
26
V
page
Sample Preparation........ J ................... ..
27
Plant Samples........ ..................... .
27
Soil Samples . . . ............................
28
Sample Analysis ................... ....................
28
Statistical Analysis....................................
29
Results and Discussion ......................................
31
Yield and Grain N Uptake Response to Phosphorous
.and Potassium Fertilizer...............................
31
Response to Different N FertilizerRates. . . . . . . . .
34
Effectiveness of N Sources Relative to Ammonium Nitrate
and Comparison of N with andwithout S u l f u r .............
45
Yield and N Uptake Response to Simulated Fertigation
Treatments..............................................
54
Yield Response....................................
56
Nitrogen Uptake as Influenced by Fertigation
Treatments ................
Efficiency of Uptake of NFertilizer.....................
67
80
Conclusions........................................ < ; . . . .
84
Summary....................
86
Literature Cited ............................................
88
vi
page
.Appendix I, Soil Series Descriptions ........................
93
Appendix II, Yield and N Uptake Data and Analysis of
Variance for Spring Wheat at Location 577....................
101
Appendix III, Yield and N Uptake Data and Analysis of
Variance for Spring Wheat at Location 777....................
115
Appendix IV, Yield and N Uptake Data and Analysis of
Variance for Barley at location 876.................. ..
128
Appendix V, Analysis of variance of Fertilizer N Uptake at
Locations 577, 777, 876.................... .. ...............
143
vii
LIST OF TABLES
page
Table 1.
Initial NO^-N and SO^-S concentrations at experi­
mental sites.
17
Table 2.
Initial soil test results at experimental sites.
17
Table 3.
Fertilizer treatments at two spring wheat and
one barley sites.
Table 4.
20
Date of irrigation and corresponding Feekes Growth
Stage at each of the three experimental sites.
21
Table 5.
Chronological list of field operations.
24
Table 6.
Irrigation and precipitation (cm) for spring wheat
locations 577 and 777 and barley location 876.
26
Table 7.
Plant and soil analysis procedures.
29
Table 8.
Yield, protein and grain N uptake as influenced by
phosphorous fertilizer at three locations.
Table 9.
32
Yield, protein, grain N uptake and dry matter as
influenced by potassium fertilizer rates at three
locations.
33
Table 10. Effect of amount of K applied on the degree of
lodging of barley (location 876).
34
Table 11; Grain yield, protein percent, yield components and
grain N uptake of spring wheat as influenced by
nitrogen rates at location 577.
36
viii
page
Table 12.
Grain yield, protein percent, N uptake by grain
and yield components of spring wheat as influenced
by nitrogen rates at location 777.
Table 13.
39
Grain yield, percent protein, grain N uptake and
yield components of barley, as influenced by
nitrogen rates at location 876»
Table 14.
43
Grain yield, protein, N uptake and yield components
of spring wheat as influenced by nitrogen fertilizer
source at location 577.
Table 15.
47
Wheat grain yield,, protein, N uptake and yield
components as influenced by nitrogen fertilizer
source at location 777.
Table 16.
5.0
Barley grain yield, protein, N uptake and yield
components as influenced by nitrogen fertilizer
source at location 876.
Table 17.
53
Spring wheat yield, yield components and grain
protein as influenced by ferfigation treatments
at location 577.
Table 18.
57
Coimparison coefficients for linear combination
of means from wheat and barley experiments
combined according to the amount of N applied
at planting.
59
ix
page
Table 19.
Wheat grain yield, protein and yield components
as influenced by fertigation treatments at location
777.
Table 20.
62
Barley grain yield, protein and yield components
as influenced by fertigation treatments at
location 876.
Table 21.
64
Growing season N uptake by spring wheat as
influenced by fertigation treatments at
location 577.
Table 22.
70
Yield, protein and grain and straw N uptake of
spring wheat as influenced by fertigation treat­
ments at location 577.
Table 23.
71
Growing season N uptake by spring wheat as
influenced by fertigation treatments at
location 777.
Table 24.
73
Spring wheat yield, protein, and K uptake of grain
and straw as influenced by fertigation treatments
at location 777.
Table 25.
Growing season N uptake by Barley as influenced
by fertigation treatments at location 876.
Table 26.
75
76
Barley yield, protein, and N uptake of grain as
influenced by fertigation treatments at location
876.
79
X
page
Table 27.
Efficiency of N fertilizer uptake at three
locations as calculated by difference method.
Table 28.
83
Irrigated Newana spring wheat yield, yield
components, as influenced by N fertilizer rates,
sources, and amount of N applied at irrigation.
Robert Hensley location - experiment 577. .
Table 29.
Analysis of variance for grain yield (Ibs/a)
at spring wheat location 577.
Table 30.
105
Analysis of variance for 1000 kernel weight (g)
of spring wheat at location 577.
Table 36.
105
Analysis of variance for plant height (cm) of
spring wheat at location 577.
Table 35.
105
Analysis of variance of the number of heads per
meter of row for spring wheat at location 577.
Table 34.
104
Analysis of variance of spring wheat protein
percentage at location 577.
Table 33.
, 104
Analysis of variance for test weight (lbs/bu)
of spring wheat at location 577.
Table 32.
104
Analysis of variance for total spring wheat
dry matter yield (Ibs/a) at location 577.
Table 31.
102
106
Analysis of variance for the number of kernels
per head for spring wheat at location 577.
I
106
xi
page
Table 37.
Analysis of variance for the grain weight per
head for spring wheat at location 577.
Table 38.
106
Irrigated Mewana spring wheat nitrogen uptake as
influenced by N fertilizer rates, sources» and
amount of N applied at irrigation.
Robert Hensley
location - experiment 577.
Table 39.
Analysis of variance of M content (%) at the
second irrigation of spring wheat at location 577.
Table 40.
107
HO
Analysis of variance of spring wheat dry matter
production (kg/ha) at the second irrigation at
location 577.
Table 41.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat N uptake
(kg/ha) at the second irrigation at location 577.
Table 42.
HO
Analysis of variance of N content (%) at the third
irrigation of spring wheat at location 577.
Table 43.
HO
Ill
Analysis of variance of spring wheat dry matter
production (kg/ha) at the third irrigation at
I
location 577.
Table 44.
Ill
Analysis of variance of spring wheat N uptake
(kg/ha) at the third irrigation at location 577.
Ill
xii
page
Table 45.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat grain N content
(S) at harvest at location 577.
Table 46.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat grain N
uptake (kg/ha) at harvest at location 577.
Table 47.
113
Analysis of variance for spring wheat straw N
uptake (kg/ha) at harvest at location 577.
Table 50.
112
Analysis of variance of spring wheat straw dry
matter (kg/ha) at harvest at location 577.
Table 49.
112
Analysis of variance of N content (S) of spring
wheat straw at harvest at location 577.
Table 48.
112
113
Irrigated Newana spring wheat yield, yield
components, as influenced by N fertilizer rates,
sources, and amount of N applied at Irrigation.
Earle Wallingford location - experiment 777.
Table 51.
Analysis of variance for spring wheat grain
yield (Ibs/a) at location 777.
Table 52.
117
Analysis of variance for spring wheat test
weight (Ibs/bu) at location 777.
Table 54.
117
Analysis of variance of spring wheat total dry
matter production (Ibs/a) at location 777.
Table 53.
115
117
Analysis of variance of spring wheat protein
percentage at location 777.
118
xiii
page
Table 55.
Analysis of variance of the number of heads of
spring wheat per meter of row at location 777.
Table 56.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat plant
118
height (cm) at location 777.
Table 57.
Analysis of variance of 1000 kernel weight (g)
119
spring wheat at location 777.
Table 58.
Analysis of variance of the number of kernels per
head of spring wheat at location 777.
Table 59.
119
Analysis of variance for the grain weight per
head for spring wheat at location 777.
Table 60.
118
119
Irrigated Newana spring wheat nitrogen uptake
as influenced by N fertilizer rates, sources, and
amount of N applied at irrigation.
Earle
Wallingford location - experiment 777.
Table 61.
120
Analysis of variance of the total N content OS)
of spring wheat at the first irrigation at
location 777.
Table 62.
123
Analysis of variance of total dry matter
production (kg/ha) of spring wheat at the first
irrigation at location 777.
123
xiv
page
Table 63.
Analysis of. variance of total W uptake (kg/ha)
at the first irrigation by spring wheat at location
777;
Table 64.
123
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of
spring wheat at the second irrigation at location
777.
Table 65.
124
Analysis of variance of total dry matter
production (kg/ha) of spring wheat at the second
irrigation at location 777.
Table 66.
124
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha)
at the second irrigation by spring wheat at
location 777.
Table 67.
a
Analysis of variance of total N content (iS) of
spring wheat at the third irrigation at location
777.
Table 68.
124
125
Analysis of variance of total dry matter
production (kg/ha) of spring wheat at the third
irrigation at location 777.
Table 69.
125
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha)
at the third irrigation by spring wheat at
location 777.
125
page
Table 70.
Analysis of variance of grain N content (S)
of spring wheat at harvest at location 777.
Table 71.
Analysis of variance of grain M uptake (kg/ha)
at harvest by spring wheat at location 777.
Table 72.
126
Analysis of variance of straw M content (S)
of spring wheat at harvest at location 777.
Table 73.
126
126
Analysis of variance of straw dry matter
production (kg/ha) by.spring wheat at harvest
at location 777.
Table 74.
127
Analysis of variance of N uptake (kg/ha) by
the straw of spring wheat at harvest at location
777.
Table 75.
127
Irrigated Shabet barley yield, yield components,
and grain uptake of nitrogen as influenced by
N fertilizer rates, sources, and amount of N
applied at irrigation.
Earle Wallingford
location - experiment 876.
Table 76.
Analysis of variance of barley grain yield
(Ibs/a) at location 876.
Table 77.
129
132
Analysis of variance of total dry matter yield
(Ibs/a) of barley at location 876.
132
srvi
page
Table 78.
Analysis of variance of test weight (Ibs/bu)
of barley at location 876.
Table 79.
Analysis of variance of barley protein percent­
age at location 876.
Table 80.
133
Analysis of variance of percent plimp kernels .
of barley at location 876.
Table 81.
133
Analysis of variance of the number of barley
heads per meter of row at location 876.
Table 83.
134
Analysis of variance of barley 1000 kernel
weight (g) at location 876.
Table 85.
135
Analysis of variance for the grain weight per
head for barley at location 876.
Table 87.
134
Analysis of variance of the number of kernels
per head of barley at location 876.
Table 86.
134
Analysis of variance of plant height Cm) of
barley at location 876.
Table 84.
133
Analysis of variance of lodging scores of
barley at location 876.
Table 82.
132
135
Irrigated Shabet barley N uptake as influenced
by N fertilizer rates, sources and amount of N
applied at irrigation.
Earle Wallingford
location - experiment 876.
136
xvii
page
Table 88.
Analysis of variance of total W content (%)
of barley a t .the first irrigation at location 876.
Table 89.
139
Analysis of variance of total dry matter
production (kg/ha) at the first irrigation by
barley at location 876.
Table 90.
Analysis of variance of total M uptake (kg/ha)
at the first irrigation by barley at location 876.
Table 91.
139
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of
barley at the second irrigation at location 876.
Table 92.
139
140
Analysis of variance of total dry matter
production (kg/ha) at the second irrigation by
barley at location 876.
Table 93.
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha)
at the second irrigation by barley at location 876.
Table 94.
140
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of barley
at the third irrigation at location 876.
Table 95.
140
141
Analysis of variance of total dry matter
production (kg/ha) at the third irrigation by
barley at location 876.
Table 96.
141
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha)
at the third irrigation by barley at lo-ation 876.
141
jrtriii
page
Table 97.
Analysis of variance of grain H content (%) of
barley at harvest at loation
Table 98.
876.
Analysis of variance of grain M uptake (kg/ha)
by barley at harvest at location 876.
Table 99.
142
142
Analysis of variance of amount of grain N (%)
that was taken up from applied M fertilizer at
location 577.
143
Table 100. Analysis of variance of amount of straw N (%)
that was taken up from applied M fertilizer at
location 577.
143
Table 101. Analysis of variance of amount, of grain N (%)
that was taken up from applied fertilizer N
at location 777.
143
Table 102. Analysis of variance of amount of straw M
(%) that was taken up from applied W
fertilizer at location 777
144
Table 103. Analysis of variance of amount of grain N (%)
that was taken up from applied N fertilizer
at location 876
144
ibix
LIST OF FIGURES
page
Figure I .
15
N pulse applications to treatment 15.
Figure 2 .
Grain yield and protein response of spring wheat
to rates of applied N fertilizer at location 577.
23
37
Figure 3 . Grain yield and protein response of spring wheat
to rates of applied K fertilizer at location 777.
40
Figure 4 . Grain yield and protein response of barley to rates
of applied N fertilizer at location 876.
Figure 5 .
Influence of sulfur and N source on yield and yield
components of spring wheat grain at location 577
Figure 6 ,
44
49
Influence of sulfur and N source on yield and yield
components of spring wheat grain at location 777.
52
Figure I . Influence of sulfur and N source on yield and yield
components of barley at location 876.
55
Figure 8 . Average of spring wheat yield components and grain
yield for fertigation treatments at location 577 com­
bined according to the amount of M applied at planting.
60
Figure 9 . Average of spring wheat yield components and grain
yield for fertigation treatments at location 777
combined according to the amount of W applied at
planting.
63 ^
XX
page
Figure 10.
Average of barley yield components and grain
yield for ferbigation treatments at location
876 combined according to the amount of N
applied at planting.
Figure 11.
66
Spring wheat dry matter production and N content
as influenced by ferbigation treatments at
loation 577.
Figure 12.
69
Spring wheat dry matter production and N
content as influenced by ferbigation treatments
at location 777.
Figure 13.
72
Barley dry matter production and N content
as
influenced by ferbigation treatments at
location 876.
77
ABSTRACT
During the summer of 1977, three experiments were,established
at two locations in Montana to determine the yield response of
spring wheat and barley to applying a portion of the total M
fertilizer in irrigation water. Various proportions of the total
N fertiliser were applied at planting. The remainder of the M
fertilizer was applied in simulated fertigation treatments during
the growing season. Treatments receiving less than 100% of the
total applied M fertilizer at planting had lower grain yields
and higher grain protein than treatments receiving 100% of the
N fertilizer at planting. There seems to be no advantage in
Montana to applying part of the total M fertilizer at planting
followed by growing season applications of the remainder in
irrigation water.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years the number of irrigated acres in Montana has in­
creased.
Small grains are produced on much of the newly developed
sprinkler irrigated acreage. To obtain the high yields necessary to
offset the cost of irrigation development, crops must be properly
fertilized.
Hence, an interest in applying fertilizers through sprin­
kler systems is developing.
Fertigation, applying fertilizers with irrigation water, is a
common practice in some parts of the United States.
It is used exten­
sively to apply nitrogen fertilizers to crops grown on coarse textured
soils in low rainfall areas along the Columbia River in Oregon and
Washington as well as in other areas.
In order to maximize crop production and minimize costs, nitrogen
(N) losses, and possible pollution of ground and surface waters, fertil
izer must be applied at the proper rate and the proper time.
Precip­
itation distribution influences when irrigation is initiated and may
limit the utility of fertigation in Montana. Fifty percent or more of
the total annual precipitation in Montana falls during the months of
April, May and June, thus delaying the time of irrigation and fertig­
ation initiation, and restricting the timing of fertilizer applications
Consequently, extrapolation of data from areas where irrigation begins
earlier in the spring may not be valid.
In order to ensure proper
2
fertilizer utilization, guidelines for fertigation in Montana need to
be developed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to maximize quantity and quality of spring grains grown
under irrigation, proper use of fertilizer is essential.
The effi­
ciency of applied N for grain production is altered by the method of
application, timing of the application, and possibly by the N source
used.
Fertigatlon
The practice of applying fertilizer in irrigation water probably.
started when an irrigator ran his irrigation canal through a pit filled
with barnyard manure (Fischbach, 1976). , When anhydrous ammonia became
plentiful in the 1950 *s , irrigators started applying it in their irriga­
tion water.
Anhydrous ammonia use in sprinkler systems was severely
limited because ammonia displaced other cations such as calcium and
magnesium, in solution.
These ions form precipitates that plug nozzles.
Salts such as calcium carbonates and calcium, bicarbonates are also dis­
placed by the ammonia ion, forming precipitates that plug sprinkler
nozzles.
In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, non-pressure solutions
of ammonium nitrate (AN) and urea (UR) were introduced to the market.
Unlike anhydrous and aqua ammonia, AN and UR are non-volatile arid do not
cause precipitates to form in irrigation water and thus can be used in
sprinkler irrigation systems.
4
Nitrogen is not the only nutrient that can be applied in irriga­
tion water.
Murphy (1970) showed that iron can successfully be applied
through sprinkler irrigation systems.
In fact, iron chelate compounds
applied through sprinklers to grain sorghum produced higher average
yields and iron contents than iron applied to the soil.
Schneider,
et al. (1968) found that iron solutions can be used to correct defi­
ciencies during the critical period of crop growth 2 to 4 weeks follow­
ing emergence of the crop.
Beaton and Bixby (1974) found that sulfur, magnesium and calcium
can all be applied in solutions.
Suspensions of limestone and gypsum
can be used to rapidly correct the soil pH of acid or sodic soils .
respectively.
In many cases polyphosphates can be applied through sprinkler
systems.
If calcium is present in the irrigation water, however, a
calcium ammonium pyrophosphate precipitate will form, clogging the
sprinkler system.
Duis and Burman (1969) developed a rapid test pro­
cedure for predicting precipitate formation, allowing immediate knowl­
edge about the feasibility of phosphate fertigation on an individual
basis.
Fertigation also provides a way in which to utilize nitrate con­
taminated ground water.
Fischbach, et al. (1973) irrigated c o m using
ground water known to be contaminated with nitrate.
If. the water con-
5
tained 27 parts per million nitrate-nitrogen, no fertilizer nitrogen .,
was required.
Since N is the nutrient used in the largest quantities, and
because most N sources are more soluble than other fertilizers., most
producers are interested in the aspects of applying N fertilizer through
sprinkler systems.
Fischbach (1970, 1964) compared sprinkler application of N with
ground application.
Both Fischbach (1976) and Morton (1976) demon­
strated that on shallow sandy soils, applying N through an irrigation
system is more effective than ground application.
Fischbach (1970)
found N fertigation of crops on fine textured soils to be just as effec­
tive as ground application.
In five field trials comparing N fertigation with ground, appli­
cation in central and western Nebraska, fertigation produced a yield
increase of eight bushels of c o m per acre over ground application, plus
eliminated one field operation (Fischbach, 1964).
Ground applying the
recommended amount of N, and then applying 20 to 30 pounds additional N
in the first irrigation produced an average of fifteen bushels per acre
of c o m more than applying the recommended amount of N alone.
When urea or ammonium containing fertilizers are applied to warm,
moist, well-aerated soils, the N is rapidly converted to NO
somonas and nitrobacter bacteria.
by nitro-
Because nitrate is an anion, and
therefore not adsorbed to soil and organic colloids, it moves freely in
6
the soil solution. Nitrate can be expected to leach through sandy
soils if too much water is applied when irrigating (Thorup, 1977).
Therefore, ip sandy soils, efficient management of water and fertilizer
can result in a favorable cost/benefit ratio for fertigation. Watts
(1975) was able to demonstrate greater efficiency of use from sprinkler
applied N than from preplant broadcast N on sandy soils.
The yield re­
sulting from 150 pounds of N injected into the irrigation system was
nearly double that of 150 pounds Qf N broadcast preplant. The N loss
due to leaching was far less for the injected treatment than for the
preplant broadcast treatment.
Caldwell (1972) demonstrated that split application of N increased
yields of Kitt and Era spring wheats.
Fischbach (1972) and MacGregor
(1972) have shown that applying at least one-third of the total N re­
quirement through the irrigation system can increase c o m yields as
much as 26 bushels per acre on deep sandy soils.
Time of Application
Timing of fertilizer application is important.
Morton (1976)
points out that the total amounts of N and water applied are not as
important as the ability to place them on the crop when they are needed.
On sandy soils, yields can be maximized by "spoon feeding" N to the
crop at critical times in the life cycle.
Using fertigation, fertilizer
can be applied to a crop at times when ground application could damage
7
the crop and severely reduce yields.
This is particularly true of late,
applications of fertilizer (i.e. in the boot stage of small grains).
Rankin (1946) showed that applying only a portion of the N require­
ment at seeding, followed by later N applications increased both yield
and quality of wheat over applying the total N requirement at seeding.
Due simply to the size of the root system after germination, seed­
lings are able to use only a small fraction of any N applied at seeding.
Fenn and Escarzaga (1977) and Hargrove, Kissel and Fenn (1977) found
that significant amounts of N applied at seeding can be lost through
volatilization, especially if the soil is wet when the N fertilizer is
applied.
They found that when 100 kg N/ha was added to moistened soil
in pots, up to 68% was lost via volatilization. while up to 45% of the
added N was lost from oven dried soil.
Russell (1973) points out that
N applied at seeding can also be lost through leaching.
Therefore, a
considerably reduced amount of N may be available for tillering and
growth when the entire N requirement is applied at seeding.
The availability of N to wheat at and during tillering is critical
(Khalifa, 1973; Baiba, et al. 1972; Jain, Maurya, and Singh, 1971).
Mehrotra et al. (1967) have shown that N uptake increases dramatically
from the seedling to the tillering and jointing stages.
They found that
45% of total N uptake occurred following seeding through tillering.
From jointing to ear initiation 25% of total N uptake occurred, while
30% of total N uptake occurred from jointing to grain formation.
8
Van Dobben (1966) found that early N applications stimulate
tillering as well as straw length in cereal grain.
This response de­
creases with delay of application and disappears completely after stem
elongation begins.
Khalifa (1973) and Baiba et al. (1972) found that
application of nitrogen fertilizers in the early phases of crop growth
gave the greatest yield response.
Yield response to N application at
ear emergence was much less.
.
^
Data of Baiba et al. (1972) show 13% utilization of M applied at
ear emergence compared to 31.4% utilization of N applied at tillering.
Khalifa (1973) found that 44 kg N/ha applied to irrigated wheat at
planting, tillering and ear emergence produced grain yields of 1787,
1690, and 932 kg/ha respectively.
Khalifa (1973) found that applying half the N to wheat at planting
and half at tillering or ear emergence produced no significant differ­
ence in yields from applying all the N at planting.
He found that dif­
ferences in grain yield were a reflection of the,effect of the treat­
ments on leaf area duration (LAD) after ear emergence. Leaf area dura­
tion describes the length of time the leaf area is functional.
Grain
yield of cereals is related to LAD after the ears emerge (Mitchell,
1970a).
Early N application increases LAD at the time of ear emergence
(Khalifa, 1973).
Ayoub (1974) found that time of fertilizer application affected
wheat grain yield mainly by increasing the number of ears per unit area
9
A maximum of about 800 ears/m
was obtained by application at the
jointing stage.
These research results have shown that split applications of N
fertilizer affect grain yield per unit land area.
The amount of grain
produced per unit land area is only one parameter used to evaluate fer­
tilizer response, however.
The quality of wheat measured by protein
content, is another important aspect to consider.
McNeal et al. (1966) found that even though most (up to 61.6%) of
stem nitrogen is translocated to the kernel, wheat plants continued to
take up M from the soil during the filling of the kernels.
McNeal.
et al. report results which indicate that N applied when the kernels are
filling could increase the protein content of the grain.
Hunter, et al. (1973) , Hucklesby et al. (1971) , and MacLeod (1.975)
/
showed that late (spring) applications of N to winter wheat consistently
gave higher protein contents than fall applications.
Spratt (1974)
suggested applying N at sowing to increase leaf and
stem growth and applying N at the boot stage to increase grain protein
levels.
Hamid and Sarwar (1976) found that applying N in six equal
applications at seeding, tillering, boot, heading, flowering, and the
milky stage significantly increased protein content compared with a
single application at planting or two split (seeding and tillering)
applications.
10
Nitrogen Source
Nitrogen fertilizer may be applied as nitrate or ammonium salts,
urea, anhydrous ammonia, or a combination of these materials.
There
are also many organic sources of N including animal manures, animal
by-products (i.e. dried blood and.fish meal), and plant materials such
as alfalfa.
Generally speaking, the N present in all these compounds
is supplied asr'iumnoniurm^ ^
Nitrate-N is the -form
+
most used by plants and therefore before. NH ^-N is taken up by plants
it is generally transformed to NO ^-N (Meyer et al. 1973).
The N present
in organic compounds and urea is generally in an amine group (-NH3).
In order for organic N to become available to plants, it must undergo
the process of mineralization. This normally takes place in essentially
three steps:
aminization, ammonification, and nitrification.
The first
two are accomplished through the medium of heterotrophic microorganisms
and the third is brought about largely by autotrophic soil bacteria
(Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
Aminization is the process of hydrolytic
decomposition of proteins and the release of amino acids as accomplished
by one group of heterotrophs:
proteins — > R-NH3 + CO3 + other products.
These amines and amino acids are utilized by another group of hetero­
trophs, resulting in the release of ammonia:
.
R-NH3 + H3O — s>NH3 + R-OH + energy.
11
z
Some of the NH
3
+
released is dissolved in water to form ammonium (NH. )
4
and this is converted into nitrate via two steps by autotrophic bacteria.
N supplied as NH^
enters the mineralization process at this
point.
2NH4+ + 302 — » 2N02~ + 2H26 + 4H+
NO
2
+ O- —
2
2N0
3
Tisdale and Nelson (1975) say that in well drained neutral to slightly
acidic soils, the rate of oxidation of NO2
to NO3 .
is usually higher
**>
_
than that of NH4
to NO^
The rate of NO3
+
to or greater than the rate of NH4
formation is usually equal
-
formation. Therefore, NO^
is the
form that tends to accumulate in soils or, if plants are growing on that
soil, will be the form most used by them.
Plants are not capable of distinguishing from what source N is
originating.
Of note, however, is the fact that at different phono­
logical stages wheat plants may use one form of N preferentially over
another (Spratt, 1974).
The ammonium form is used in early stages of
plant growth, and nitrate-N is used in later stages.
Spratt found that
applying ammonium-N to wheat at planting promoted more stem and leaf
growth than nitrate-N.
Conversely, nitrate-N applied during the boot
stage increased grain protein more than did ammonium-N.
Spratt and Gasser (1970) found that with adequate moisture, wheat
produces more dry matter (and grain) containing more N when provided
with a nitrate source as opposed to an ammonium source of fertilizer N .
When moisture is lacking, ammonium N is as good or better than nitrate-N
for increasing dry matter production and N uptake.
The difference in efficiency of crop production (as measured by
yields) between sources of N fertilizers, lies in the factors influ■.
i
encing N transformations once the fertilizers contact the soil.
Re­
searchers consistently find N x year interactions (Alessi and Power,
1972; Spratt 1974; Hamid and Sarwar, 1976; and Ayoub 1974) are
significant, indicating that N fertilizer interactions with components
of the environment are what determines the efficiency of a nitrogen
source.
Christensen, et al. (1975) have shown that if N fertilizer is
applied properly, under proper conditions, different N sources produce
comparable crop response.
Caldwell, Murphy, Tucker, Wiese and Zubriski
(1977) concur, that if used properly, there is no difference in ef­
ficiency of the various nitrogen sources.
N Use in Agricultural Experimentation
There are six known isotopes of N.
15
N, are stable and occur naturally.
Of these six only two,
14
N and
Since these isotopes occur natu­
rally in an almost constant ratio (0.366 atom % ^ N), they can be used
■
as tracers in biological systems by using three basic assumptions (Hauck
and Bremner, 1976).
Those assumptions are;
13
1.
Elements containing two or more isotopes have a constant
isotope concentration in the natural state.
2.
Living systems cannot distinguish one isotope from the other.
3.
The chemical identity of the isotopes is maintained in biolog­
ical systems.
Hauck and Bremner (1976) have found 1500 papers published since 1943
relating to the use of
tracers in agronomic related research.
In their 1976 review paper, Hauck and Bremner conclude that tracer
methods have distinct advantages over hontracer methods for studying the
recovery of applied fertilizer-N by plants.
Even though the use of
labeled N is confounded by possible biological interchange of labeled N
with unlabeled soil N, N tracer methodology is still a convenient pro­
cedure for studying N uptake.
No control plots are required, so more
treatments or replications can be used.
Uptake is calculated directly
from total plant N and isotope ratio analysis.
Users of non-tracer
techniques calculate N uptake from fertilizer by taking the difference
between total N uptake from fertilized and unfertilized plots.
This
technique is based on the erroneous assumption that addition of N to the
soil does not alter the amount of soil N taken up by the plant (Hauck
and Bremner, 1976).
14
+
During mass spectrometer analyses of N^, the nitrogen ions ( N^) ,
(1V
5N)+ and (15Ng)+ are found to occur in the mass spectrum.
The
14
relative number of ions of each species approaches the ideal statistical
values given by the equation
(a + b)
2
= a
2
+ 2ab + b
2
where a is the atom fraction of ^ N , b is the atom fraction of ^ N , and
a + b = I (Hauck and Bremner, 1976).
The mass spectrometer can measure
I
the ion currents at M/e 28, M/e29 and M/e30, which are proportional to
the respective molecular ions (Bremner, 1965).
It is usually not
necessary to measure the ion current at M/e30 to determine the,atom
percent
15
N because of the random distribution of isotopes in the
\
molecules.
'
ion current at M/e28 and M/e29, atom %
I/M/e
'
.
'
Hauck and Bremner (1976) show that from the ratio (R) of the
Mass/charge of the ions
15
N = 100/(2R + 1 ) .
OBJECTIVES
This review of the literature reveals that, when used properly,
fertigation may be a highly efficient manner in which to apply fertil­
izers.
The literature also points out that the timing of fertilizer
application and other management decisions are important factors to con­
sider under any fertility management scheme.
Due to the extended period of spring rains in Montana, the first
application of fertilizer through sprinkler systems is normally later,
in terms of the stage of crop development, than in other areas where
fertigation is commonly practiced.
Consequently, little data exist that
will predict the effect of late application of N fertilizers to small
grains.
The major objective of this study was to gather such infor­
mation .
Specifically, the objectives of this study were:
1.
To determine the effect on spring wheat and barley grain yield
and quality of applying various proportions of the total N-requirement through sprinkler systems.
2.
To determine the optimum timing, measured phenologically, for
applications of N fertilizers through sprinkler systems.
3.
To compare crop response to new N fertilizers with response
to ammonium nitrate.
4.
To obtain information to correlate soil test values for P and
K to crop yield response in the field.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site Selection
1 .
Three criteria were used in selecting sites for this experiment.
The area had to be under sprinkler irrigation, have low residual NO^-N
levels to 1.8 meters, and, due to the management required, be close to
Bozeman, Montama.
Parameters including slope> apparent texture and
surface soil color were subjectively examined to evaluate soil uniform­
ity at prospective sites.
Soil samples were collected at each site to
determine soil nptrient levels.
Six random samples were taken at each prospective site to 1.8
meters in 30.5 cm increments with a Veihmeyer tube.
These samples were
oven dried at 65°C, ground in a Robert Hewitt stainless steel hammermill
to pass a 20 mesh screen and analyzed for SO^-S using the BaSO4,method
of Bardsley and Lancaster (1960) , and for NO^-N using the Phenoldisulfonic procedure of Bremner (1965).
Results for the two sites se­
lected for the experiments are reported in Table I.
Appproximately 35 samples were taken randomly from the 0-15 cm
soil depth at each site using an Oakfield probe.
The samples were
composited, dried and ground as previously described and analyzed for
pH, electrical conductivity (E.C.), P, K, organic matter (O.M.) and Na.
The results are recorded in Table 2.
17
Table I.
Initial NO^-N and SO^-S concentrations at experimental sites
Depth in cm
Location
577
NO-N
777 & 876
NO-N
SO^-S
Table 2.
0-30
30-60
60-90
10.7
31.0
3.6
70.4
1.4
8.6
0.9
5
total
(kg/ha)
90-125
125-155
155-185
3.0
90.8
2.0
96
2.0
5
3.0
56.9
109
1547
0.9
18.3
0.9
34.1
1.4
35.2
1.4
28.9
31
560
Initial soil test results at experimental sites
Location
PH
577
777 & 876
8.1
8.2
E.C.
(mmhos/cm)
1.1
0.5
P
(ppm)
41
45
K
(ppm)
O.M.
(%)
509
429
1.9
2.7
Na
(meq/lOOg)
0.2
trace
Electrical conductivity and pH were determined using a 2:1
water:soil dilution (USDA Handbook 60, 1969).
Concentrations of K and
Na were determined with a Perkin Elmer 290B atomic absorption spec­
trophotometer following extraction with one normal ammonium acetate us­
ing methods described by Rich (1965) .
Phosphorous concentrations were
determined using the Bray procedure as modified by Smith, et al. (1957)
Percent organic matter was determined using the procedure of Sims and
Haby (1971).
All analyses were performed by the Soil Testing Lab at
Montana State University.
18
Location and Design
Site 577 was located near Toston, Montana.
Sites 777 and 876 were
located adjacent to one another ten miles north of Bozeman, Montana.
All three sites were irrigated with side-wheel-roll type sprinkler
systems.
Soil series descriptions are listed in Appendix I.
The field design at each location consisted of three replications
of 16 treatments arranged in a randomized complete block design.. All
• .
three locations were planted using a modified Minneapolis-Moline deep
furrow press wheel drill with a row spacing of 30.5 cm.
Locations 577
and 777 were seeded with spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L .) var. .
Newana at a rate of 100 kg/ha.
Location 876 was seeded with malting
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) var. Shabet at a rate of 100 kg/ha.
Plots were 4.3 m wide (14 rows) and 12.2 m long.
Since the width
of the plots was twice the drill width, plots were seeded by making two
passes in the same direction.
Rows were planted parallel to the long
dimension of the plot which in turn was aligned parallel to the length
of the sprinkler system.
Plots were divided into halves with each half
containing seven rows 12.2 m long.
One-half of each plot was used for
subsampling during the growing season while the other half was harvested
at the end of the growing season for determination of grain yield and
quality.
Treatments
The treatments at each location were designed to include a number
19
of variables (see Table 3).
Phosphorous (P) was drilled with the seed
as Triple Super Phosphate (0-45-0) at rates of 0, 11 and 22.5 kg P/ha
(tmts. 2, 3, 7).
Potassium (K) as Muriate of Potash (0-0-60) was top-
dressed immediately following seeding at rates of 0 or 45 kg K/ha
(tmts. 4 and 7).
Treatments used to evaluate response to P and K
fertilizer were topdressed with Ammonium Nitrate (AN, 34-0-0) at a rate
of 100 kg N/ha immediately after seeding.
There were three distinct sets of N variables at each location
(all received 22.5 kg P/ha and 45 kg K/ha applied as previously de'
scribed).
Response to N fertilizer was determined using rates of 0, 50,
100 and 150 kg N/ha as AN topdressed immediately following seeding.
(tmts. 5-8).
A series of treatments were included to compare grain
response to Urea (UR, 46-0-0), Ammonium Nitrate Sulfate (ANS,
30-0-0-6.5S), Urea Ammonium Sulfate (UAS, 40-0-0-6 S) and AN (tmts. 7,
9, 10, 11).
These four treatments were topdressed immediately follow­
ing seeding at a rate of 100 kg N/ha.
The third set of N treatments
(tmts. 12-16) was designed to measure response to simulated sprinkler
application of N fertilizer.
Nitrogen (as AN) was applied, at a total
rate of 100 kg/ha (treatment 16 at location 577 and 777 received
125 kg N/ha). These treatments received either 25, 50, 75 or 100 kg N/ha
topdressed immediately after seeding.
The remainder of the 100 kg N/ha
total was applied at rates of from 25 to 50 kg N/ha at various times
later in the growing season. The later applications were timed to
20
Table 3. Fertilizer treatments at two spring wheat and one barley
________ . experimental sites______________________________________
N Rates (kg/ha)______ band w/ topdress @
Bdc. @ Irrigation
seed
N
seeding
TMT Source Seeding 1st 2nd 3rd Total N (kg/ha)
(kg/ha)
I
2
AN
3
AN
4.
AN
5
AN
6
AN
7
AN.
8
AN
9
UR.
10
ANS
11
UAS
12
AN
13
AN
14
AN
15
AN
16 ' a AN
b AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
=
=
=
=
0
100
100
100
0
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
100
25
—
—
"
25
——
50
25
—
50
——
25
—
25
——
25
——
—
25
—
0
100
100
100
0
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
100
0
0
11
22-5I/
22.5I/
22.5A/
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
ll'.lv
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
0
45
45
0
45
45
45 .
45'
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
15
N
labeled
subplots
__
'—
—
-—*■
yes
yes
yes
yes
-*
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Ammonium Nitrate (34-0-0)
Urea (46-0-0)
Ammonium Nitrate Sulfate (30-0-0-6.5 S)
Urea Ammonium Sulfate (40-0-0-6 S)
^ A t location 577, rep. I, the fertilizer cones malfunctioned, so
TSP was hand broadcast into the furrows at 3 times the banded
rate.
2/
■
.'At location 577, rep. 3, the fertilizer cones malfunctioned, so
TSP was hand broadcast into the furrows at 3 times the banded
rate.
.
'Treatment 16a used in spring wheat experiments (locations 577
and 777). Treatment 16b used in barley experiment (location 876).
21
correspond to phonological stages of the crop's development.
It was
originally planned to apply the first N application after seeding when
the crop was in the last leaf visible (Feekes 8) stage, the second at
the boot (Feekes 10) stage, and the final N treatment at the watery
kernel
(Feekes 10.5.4) stage.
Due to spring precipitation, the time of
these,applications was delayed at the site where both barley and spring
wheat were grown (see Table 4).
Table 4. Date of irrigation and corresponding Feekes Growth Stage at
__________each of the three experimental sites_______________ _______
Location
I
Irrigation
2
3
577
Date
Feekes Stage
6/01/77
Tillering
(5)
6/21/77
Last leaf
visible (10)
7/07/77
Ears out
(10.5)
777
Date
Feekes Stage
7/02/77
Flowering
(10.5.1)
7/19/77
Watery kernel
(10.5.4)
876
Date
Feekes Stage
6/24/77
Ears visible
(10.1)
/
6/27/77
Ears visible
(10.1)
7/05/77
Flowering
(10.5.1)
7/20/77
Watery kernel
(10.5.4)
Since the plot design consisted of 48 adjacent small plots at each
location, each plot receiving different treatments, it was impossible to .
actually apply the N fertilizer through the sprinkler system.
Instead N
was topdressed on plots receiving simulated fertigation treatments
immediately prior to an irrigation.
Since N fertilizers are highly
22
soluble such applications should satisfactorily simulate application
through a sprinkler system.
To minimize leaching of N below the root zone, the amount of ir­
rigation water applied was limited to that required to refill the root
zone (amount of water applied at each irrigation is listed in Table 6).
^ N Treatments
Ammonium Nitrate labelled with one atom percent
was applied to
subplots within the fertigation treatments at locations 577 and 777 to
determine the efficiency of uptake of applied N fertilizer.
Depending
on the particular treatment, from one to three 1.5 x 1.5 m subplots-were
established in each fertigation and N response treatment.
The subplots,
each containing five rows (three sampling rows with a border row.on
either side) were established on the half of the major plot designated
for subsampling.
The barley experiment (location 876) received no
labelled N, and no subplots were used.
Fertigation and N response
treatments were otherwise managed similarly to those at locations 577
and 777.
Labelled fertilizer was applied to subplots at the appropriate
rate by dissolving the dry material in approximately one liter of water.
This solution was then sprinkled into the furrows ,of the subplot im­
mediately prior to irrigating using a rubber sink nozzle to dissem-
l
23
inate the solution (see Table 4 for fertilizer rates).
Treatment 15, which received three fertigation treatments, pro­
vides an example of how the subplots were managed.
At seeding, sub­
plot I (see Figure 11 was covered with a cloth tarp and then 50 kg
N/ha was topdressed over the entire plot.
The tarp was then removed
and the fertilizer that had fallen on it was discarded outside the
experimental area.
atom percent
Subplot I then received 50 kg N/ha enriched to one
15
N as. previously described.
Seeding
1st Irr.
2nd Irr.
I
Figure I.
15
N pulse applications to treatment 15
Immediately prior to the first irrigation subplot one was sampled
by clipping 15 cm of plant material from each of the inner three rows
15 cm from one end of the subplot
2/
.
After clipping was completed,
25 kg N/ha was topdressed over the entire main plot area with the ex­
ception of subplot two.
Subplot two received 25 kg/ha labeled N
fertilizer applied as previously described.
(Tarps were not used in
later N applications so as not to damage the plants).
2/
All subsamples at location 876 were 30 cm of 3 rows.
24
Immediately preceding the second irrigation, subplots one and two
were subsampled by clipping 15 cm of plant material from each of the in­
ner three rows of the subplots.
Subplot one was clipped 15 cm further
into the subplot from the area clipped prior, to the first irrigation.
Subplot two was clipped 15 cm from one end of the subplot.
Following
clipping, the entire main plot with the exception of subplot three; was
topdressed with 25 kg N/ha,
Subplot three received 25. kg/ha labeled N
fertilizer applied as previously described.
Even though treatment 15 received no further applications of fer­
tilizer, all subplots were subsampled as previously described prior to
the third irrigation.
x
All plant material, regardless of time of sampling, was dried as
soon after clipping as possible.
The dried material was prepared for
analysis as described in the plant analysis portion of the materials
and methods section.
Field Work
Table 5.
Chronological list of field operations
Location
Planting
Application
2-4D
577
777
876
4/19
4/21
4/22
6/20
6/17
Fertigations
1 2
3
6/1
6/24
6/27
6/21 7/7
7/2
7/19
7/5
7/20
Lodging
Scoring
Harvest
—
8/8 7
9/6
8/29
8/30-9/1
25
Weed Control
Broadleaf weeds were controlled at locations 777 and 876 with 2,
|
4-D amine. Both locations were sprayed (see Table 5 for dates of ap­
plication) with 0.56 kg of active ingredient per hectare, using 8
number 8001 nozzles spaced 51 cm apart, from a height of 48 cm above
the ground.
Later in the growing season locations 777 and 876 were
periodically hand weeded to control wild oats.
Since neither broadleaf weeds nor wild oats were a problem at
location 577, no weed control was necessary.
Irrigation
All locations were irrigated with side-wheel-roll type sprinkler
systems.
The systems
a twelve hour set.
were calibrated to deliver 10.2 cm of water in
All locations were irrigated immediately following
fertilizer application except following the first fertilizer ap­
plication at location 577.
Due to precipitation, the cooperating
producer at location 577 felt it was hot necessary (see Table 6).
The
amount of water applied per irrigation ranged from 2.5 cm to 10.2,cm
(Table 6).
26
Table 6. Irrigation and precipitation (cm) for spring wheat locations
__________ 511 and 111 and barley location 876_________________________
Location
577
Time Interval
4/19
6/1
6/21
7/7
to
to
to
to
5/31
6/20
7/6
9/6
Seasonal Total
111
4/21
6/24
7/2
7/19
to
to
to
to
6/23
7/1
7/18
8/29
Seasonal Total
876
4/22
6/27
7/5
7/20
to
to
to
to
6/26
7/4
7/19
9/1
Seasonal Total
Irrigation (cm)
Precipitation (cm)
10.2
0
7.6
5.1
2.5
1.8
0
0,3
22.9
,4.6
10.2
2.5
2.5
10.2
.9.8
'0.2
1.4
2.6
25.4
14.0
,10.2
2.5
2.5
10.2
9.8
0.2
1.4
2.6
25.4
14.0
Harvest
Immediately prior to harvesting the material in the undisturbed,
half of the plots, all material remaining in the inner three rows of
each subplot (described in ^5N treatment section) was clipped, bundled
and stored until it could be prepared for analysis.
Prior to the actual harvesting, 0.9 meter wide alleys were cut
perpendicularly through the ends of the plots leaving from 6 to 9 meters
of material for harvesting in each plot.
All locations were harvested
at ground level using a Jari mower equipped with sheet metal pans to
27
catch straw and grain.
The undisturbed half of each plot was harvest­
ed by cutting the inner three rows (0.9 m wide) from alleyway to alleyway leaving two rows on either side as border rows.
The harvested
material was weighed and subsequently threshed using a rasp-bar type
stationary plot thresher.
Grain samples were labeled and stored until
they could be prepared for analysis.
When all samples at a location
had been threshed, the length of cut of each plot was measured and re­
corded.
At this time random straw and grain samples were taken and
composited.
o
This bundle was weighed, dried at 65 G and then reweighed
to determine moisture percentage.
Each individual plot was randomly
sampled and these samples were stored for chemical analysis.
height and the number of heads per meter
Plant
of row in each plot were
also measured and recorded at harvest.
Soil samples were taken following harvest using a Giddings hy­
draulic soil sampler.
All plots were sampled to 1.2 meters (or as deep
as possible) in 30 cm increments.
well.
All
subplots were sampled as
These samples were frozen until they could be prepared for
analysis.
Sample Preparation
Plant Samples
Plant samples taken during "the growing season were dried at 65°c
in forced air ovens as soon after sampling as possible.
After.drying
28
the samples were weighed and the data recorded for use in determining N
uptake.
Samples were subsequently ground to pass a 20 mesh screen in
a Wiley laboratory grinder.
sampled.
The ground material was mixed and sub­
These subsamples were saved for later analysis.
Harvest samples from
15
H labeled subplots were individually head
threshed using a Vogel head thresher to separate grain and straw.
The
straw was ground in a Wiley mill and stored for analysis. ,The grain was
ground to flour in a Cyclone Sample Mill and also stored for later
analysis.
Soil Samples
Soil samples were divided into 30.5 cm increments in the field,
and each increment was placed in a separate bag.
All samples were
frozen until they could be dried.
Samples were removed from the freezer one location at a time and
O
dried in a forced air oven at 65 C .
Since only 55 samples could be
dried at one time, the remaining samples were stored in a seed storage
cold room until they could be cycled into the dryer.
When all samples
had been dried, they were ground in a Robert Hewitt stainless steel
hammermill to pass a 20 mesh seive.
The samples were then stored
until they could be analyzed.
Sample Analysis
All analytical procedures are listed in Table 7.
cations to the procedures will be discussed.
Only modifi­
29
Table 7.
Plant and soil analysis procedures
Analysis_______Method
References
Comments
I.
Plant
Total N
Kjeldahl
Bremner, 1965
Only 5 mis of
NH4 trap solution
were used to col­
lect 20 mis of
distillate.
2.
Soil
NO3-N
Chromotropic
Haby & Larson
A Bausch and Lomb
Spec 70 spec­
trophotometer was
used to read per
cent transmit­
tance.
3.
Test
Wfeight
Gravimetric
& Volumetric
4.
Grain
Protein
Udy dye
American Asso­
ciation of
Cereal Chemists,
1962
Analysis perform­
ed by the Cereal
Quality Lab at
Montana State
University
When determining total plant N, it was found that adding NaOH to
the highly acidic digested material prior to distillation resulted in a
violent reaction that many times blew the sample completely out of the
digestion tube.
Cooling both the NaOH and the sample in an ice bath
eliminated this problem.
Statistical Analysis
All data were initially analyzed using an analysis of variance for
a randomized complete block design with 16 treatments and three repli­
30
cations.
Means were compared using a least significant difference
technique at the .05 probability level.
Certain data were compared
using linear combinations of means as described in the yield response
to fertigation section of this report.
Response to added increments
of N was calculated using regression techniques.
All methods used are
described by Snedecor and Cochrcin (1969) . Listed below is an example
of the form of analysis of variance used.
(The data are the number of
heads per meter of row as affected by treatments at spring wheat
location 577).
Source
Reps.
Tmts.
Error
Total
Sum of Squares
2196.259
2Q891.222
19380.573
42468.054
Degrees of Freedom
2
15
30
47
Standard Error = 20.753
*Significant at the .05 probability level
Mean Square_____F______
1098.129
1392.748
646.019
1.700
2.156*
RESULTS M D DISCUSSION
Yield and Grain N Uptake Response to Phosphorous and Potasaitm
Fertilizer
Treatments 2, 3 and 7 were included in the experiment to collect
data for phosphorous soil test correlation with field response to
phosphorous fertilizer.
Initial soil tests (Table 2) showed 41 ppm
P at locations 577 and 45 ppm P at locations 777 and 876.
Montana
Fertilizer Guide AG 55,610:26 (Wilson and Christensen» 1977) indicates
these levels are low and recommends that 13-18 kg P/ha be banded with
\
.
the seed.
The P rates applied, yield, grain protein and grain N uptake
data are listed in Table 8.
All comparisons were tested at the 5%
probability level.
While treatments receiving 22.5 kg P/ha had the highest grain and
dry matter yields at locations 577 and 777, there were no statistically
significant yield differences attributable to P rates.
P rates did not
.
affect either protein or grain N uptake.
Treatments 4 and 7 were included to collect data for potassium
soil test correlation with field response to potassium fertilizer.
According to Montana Fertilizer Guide AG 55.610:26 and :30 (Wilson and
Christensen, 1976) all three locations had adequate soil test K levels
(see Table 2),
Table 9 lists K rates and yield, dry matter and grain
protein and N uptake response to K fertilizer.
made at the 5% probability level.
All comparisons were
32
Table 8.
Location
577
(spring
wheat)
777
(spring
Wheat)
876
(barley)
Yield, protein, grain ES uptake, and dry matter as influenced
by phosphorous fertilizer at three locations
TMT
2
3
Std (7)
LSD.OS2 '
2
3
Std (7)
LSD.052/
2
3
Std (7)
LSD.OS2/
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy grain
Protein
%
Grain N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
Dry
Matter
(kg/ha)
0
11
22.5
39.7
32.9
49.5
MS
13.5
14.2
13.0
MS
84.1
77.8
114.3
MS
7357.5
7148.2
9315.1
■MS
0
11
22.5
33.1
34.6
40.1
7.3
10.3
10.8
11.1
1.4
70.2
70.5
67..8
14.0
' 6396.2
6662.2
7417.5
' 1247.6
0
11
22.5
45.3
43.8
42.5
6.1
8.1
8.7
9.4
1.1
64.4
69.7.
• 58.2
14.0
8396.7
8057.9
8632.8
1038.6
P Rate
(kg/ha)
All treatments received 100 kg N/ha as ammonium nitrate and 45 kg K/ha
as muriate of potash topdressed at planting.
I/
Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total ES percent of grain
(determined using the Kjeldahl technique).
2/
LSD's calculated for all treatments in the experiment.
33
Table 9. Yield, protein, grain N uptake and dry matter as influenced
__________by potassium fertilizer rates at three locations __________
Location
TMT
4
577
(spring
wheat)
777
(spring
wheat)
K Rate
(kg/ha)
7 2/
LSD.05 '
4
7 2/
LSD.05 '
876
(barley)
4
7
LSD.05
2/
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%
Grain N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
Dry
Matter
(kg/ha)
^
•0
45
47.8
49.5
NS
13.3
13.0
NS
112.7
114.3
NS
.9228.3
9315.1
NS
0
.45
42.4
40.1
7.3
10.9
11.1
1.0
69.7
67.8
14.0
9009.3
7417.5
1247.6
66.6
58.2 :
14.0
8691.1
8632.8
1038.6
0
45
43.5
42.5
6.1
'
8.9
9.4 .
1.1
All treatments received 100 kg N/ha as ammonium nitrate topdressed at
planting and 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super phosphate drilled with the
seed.
I/
Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total N content of grain
(determined using the Kjeldahl techniques) .
2/
zLSD1s are for all treatments at each location, not just for those
treatments shown.
The only significant difference attributable to K was at location 777
where the O K treatment produced more dry matter than the 45 kg K/ha
treatment.
Since K is known to affect straw strength, lodging was
scored at the barley location (876) where significant lodging occurred.
Lodging was not evaluated at the spring wheat locations because no
lodging occurred.
There was significantly more loding in the low K
rate treatment (4) than in those treatments receiving 45 kg K/ha
(Table 10).
34
Table 10. Effect of amount of K applied on the degree of lodging of
___________ barley (location 876)_____ _________________________________
— -
____________TMT
_____K rate .(kg/ha)_______ Lodging Score _______ '
4
7
.
LSD.05 Z
0
45
4.2
2.8
.7
I/
' Scored on the basis of I = no lodging, 5 = all lodged.
2/
LSD.is for all barley treatments, riot just those shown.
Data from the K response treatments are consistent with the fer­
tilizer guide for irrigated spring grains.
The guide indicates, how­
ever, that P was needed and yet no statistically significant response
to P was obtained.
These data suggest that the correlation between
P soil test levels arid response to P fertilizer could be strengthened
for irrigated small grains.
Response to Different M Fertilizer Rates
In order for yield comparisons between fertilizer sources and
methods of application to be meaningful it is essential that an appre­
ciable yield response to the applied nutrient be obtained.
Treatments
5-8 were used to measure yield response to different rates of N fer­
tilizer at each location.
5% probability level.
All treatment comparisons were made at the
35
Location 577 (spring wheat)
While not statistically significant, grain yield was increased
from 33.0 q/ha to 44.5 q/ha with the application of 50 kg N/ha
(Table 11).
Grain yield remained essentially unchanged for higher
rates of applied N,. while each increment of N increased protein per­
centage.
Protein percentages ranged from 10.8% with no N added to
14.4% with 150 kg N/ha added, although differences were not statistical­
ly significant.
Figure 2 graphically presents grain yield and protein
response to additions of N at location 577.
Examination of N uptake by grain gives some insight into the re­
lationship between grain yield and protein percent.
Nitrogen uptake
by grain increased with the application of 50 kg N/ha.
not only did yield increase but so did protein percent.
As a result,
Application
of 100 kg N/ha increased yield slightly above the 50 kg N/ha treat­
ment, while the amount of N taken up by the grain increased dramatical­
ly (Table 11).
as well.
As a result, protein percent increased dramatically
Grain yield for the 150 kg N/ha rate was approximately the
same as that for the 50 kg N/ha rate, and lower than the 100 kg N/ha
yield.
Nitrogen uptake by the grain remained high, resulting in
another increase in protein percentage.
Due to variable initial soil moisture at location 577, seeds ger­
minated at different times. The result was a highly variable stand
and several different stages of maturity at harvest.
The resultant
Table 11. Grain yield, protein percent, yield components and grain N uptake of spring
__________ wheat as influenced by nitrogen rates at location 577______________________
Yield Components
TMT
5
6
7
8 2/
LSD.05 '
N Rate
(kg/ha)
0
50
100
150
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%'
33.0
44.6
49,5
42.9
NS.
10.8
11.8
13.0
14.4
NS
Grain N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
# Heads per
Meter of Row
Kernels/
Head
142
154
202
163
42
18.9
22.7
20.3
24.8
NS
68,6
88.8
114,3
104.3
NS
Weight/
1000 kernels
(g)
37.9
39.5
36.6
33.8
NS
All N was topdressed as ammonium nitrate at planting. All treatments received 22.5 kg
P/ha as triple super phosphate drilled with the seed, and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash topdressed at planting.
I/
Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total grain N (determined using a Kjeldahl
analysis for total N ) .
2/
LSD's are for all treatments, not just those shown.
37
——
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
—
Grain Yield
Protein
% Protein
-11.7
Applied N (kg/ha)
Figure 2.
Grain yield and protein response of spring wheat to rates
of applied N fertilizer at location 577
38
high error terms in the analysis of variance help explain why N treat­
ment means for grain yield, N uptake and protein content were not
significantly different.
Variable stands probably also limited grain
yield response to N fertilizer.
The only yield component that was significantly affected by N
rates was the number of heads per meter of row which was maximized with
100 kg N/ha.
This lack of significant differences was probably due to
the erratic stand caused by variable soil moisture at planting.
Residual NO^-N levels at this site were high and 56 kg N/ha had
been topdressed over the field and incorporated prior to selection.of .
this site for the experiment.
As a result, 109 kg N/ha was present in
the soil at planting (Table I). Even though there were no significant
differences in yield due to N rates there was a definite trend.
The
first 50 kg N/ha application provided enough available N to attain
maximum yield.
Higher N rates appeared to increase protein percent­
ages as reflected in Table 11 and Figure 2.
Figure 2 suggests that
grain yield was only minimally affected while protein percentage was
markedly influenced by N fertilizer.
Location 777 (spring wheat)
As shown in Table 12, each increase in N rate significantly in­
creased grain yield.
rates.
Protein percentage was greatly affected by N
It was significantly decreased by the 50 kg N/ha rate and then
Table 12.
TMT
5
6
7
8 2/
LSD.05 '
Grain yield, protein percent, N uptake by grain and yield components of spring
wheat as influenced by nitrogen rates at location 777
N Rate
(kg/ha)
0
50
100
150
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%
Grain
Uptake
(kg/ha)
11.0
23.1
40.1
48.5
7.3
13.2
10.1
11.1
12.4
1.4
25.4
39.5.
67.8
94.5
14.0
Yield Components
# Heads per
Kernels/
1000 Kernel
Meter of Row
Head
Weight (g)
50
88
105
166
36
17.8
.20.9
29.0
22.9
NS
39.7
39.7
39.8
40.1
1.6
All N was topdressed as ammonium nitrate at planting. All treatments received 22.5 kg
P/ha as triple super phosphate drilled with the seed, and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash topdressed at planting.
I/
Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total N content (determined by Kjeldahl anal­
ysis for total H ) .
2/
'LSD's were calculated on the basis of all treatments, not just those shown.
40
increased with each successive increase in N rate.
Figure 3 graph­
ically presents grain yield and protein response to rates of N fer­
tilizer.
Grain Yield
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Protein
% Protein
Applied N (kg/ha)
Figure 3.
Grain yield and protein response of spring wheat to rates
of applied N fertilizer at location 777
As at location 577, insight into the relationship between grain
yield and protein percent is gained by examining N uptake by the grain
(Table 12).
Nitrogen uptake by the grain, was increased 55% over the
zero N rate by the application of 50 kg N/ha, while yield was doubled.
The result was a marked decrease in protein percentage.
Application of
100 kg N/ha nearly doubled both N uptake by the grain and yield com­
pared to the 50 kg N/ha rate.
Grain yield for the 150 kg N/ha rate was
increased over that of the 100 kg N/ha rate, as was N uptake by the
grain;
Once again protein percent was increased. Even though succes­
sively higher N rates increased protein percentage, the highest protein
percentage was in the zero N rate.
This dilution effect on grain
protein is often observed in experiments conducted on N deficient soils.
Addition of 50 kg N/ha stimulated tillering and thus signifi­
cantly increased the number of heads per meter of row and the number of
kernels per head (not significantly) while 1000 kernel weight remained
constant (Table 12).
Nitrogen uptake by the grain was not increased as
much as grain yield, and consequently protein was less them the zero
N treatment.
At rates above 50 kg N/ha grain yield, protein per­
centage and N uptake were increased by additional N fertilizer.
The
yield response as N was increased from 50 to 100 kg N/ha appeared to be
the result of increased numbers of heads per meter of row and increased
kernel weight.
Nitrogen uptake increased enough that percent protein
seemed to increase. As the N rate was increased to 150 kg N/ha, a
42
still greater number of heads per meter of row were observed, but
average kernels per head decreased. Nitrogen uptake increased enough to
cause another increase in protein percent.
Location 876 (barley)
As shown in Table 13, barley grain yield increased from 12.4 q/ha
for the zero N treatment to 30.2 q/ha upon the addition of 50' kg N/ha.
At the same time, grain N uptake increased, however percent protein
decreased dramatically (see Figure 4).
While grain N uptake increased
slightly, both yield and percent protein significantly increased in
response to 100 kg N/ha.
Grain yield and protein percent for the
•150 kg N/ha treatment were slightly higher than those of the 100 kg
N/ha treatment.
Grain N uptake however was significantly increased.
The degree of lodging increased proportionally with N rate until at
the 150 kg N/ha rate the entire plot lodged.
Addition of 50 kg N/ha at location 876 increased grain yield by
nearly tripling the number of heads per meter of row while the number
of kernels per head and kernel weight remained unchanged.
Nitrogen up­
take by the grain doubled, however percent protein was significantly
less than that of the zero N treatment.
Addition of 100 kg N/ha in­
creased yield above the 50 kg N/ha treatment by increasing the number
of kernels per head.
The number of heads per meter of row and kernel
weight were not different from the 50 kg N/ha treatment.
Nitrogen
Table 13.
TKP
5
6
.7
8 2/
LSD.05 '
Grain yield, percent protein, grain N uptake and yield components of
barley as influenced by nitrogen rates at location 876
N Rate
(kg/ha)
0
50
100
150
Grain Udy Grain
Yield
Protein
%
(q/ha)
12.4
30.2
42.5
45.8
6.2
9.5
7.3
9.4
9.4
1.1
Grain N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
19.7
46.8
58.2
75.8
14.0
Yield Components
# Heads per
Kernels/ 1000 Kernel
Meter of Row
Head
Weight (g)
48
119
118
140
53
15.4
15.7
24.0
20.0
NS
51.0
49.7
51.1
49.8
1.9
.
Lodging
Score
1.0
1.0
2.8
5.0
0.7
All N was topdressed as ammonium nitrate at planting. All treatments received 22.5 kg
P/ha as triple super phosphate drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash topdressed at planting.
I/Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total N content (determined using the Kjeldahl
technique).
2/
LSD's were calculated on the basis of all treatments at
shown.
this location, not just those
w
44
Grain Yield
Protein
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
% Protein
Applied N (JcgAa)
Figure 4.
Grain yield and protein response of barley to rates of
applied N fertilizer at location 876
45
uptake by the grain was significantly higher than the 50 kg N/ha
treatment and protein was significantly higher as well.
Addition of
150 kg N/ha increased yield above that of the 100 kg N/ha treatment.
by means of an increase in the number of heads per meter of row.
Nitrogen uptake by the grain was higher than in the 100 kg N/ha treat­
ment and protein percentage remained unchanged.
Data on response to added increments of N for locations 777 and
876 (Figures 3 and 4) indicate that this site was highly responsive
3
to additions of N fertilizer.
Because of this response, it should be
possible to detect differences between N sources and methods of ap­
plications if these variables influenced N fertilizer use efficiency.
Near maximum yields and N uptake by grain were obtained at location
577 with the addition of 50 kg N/ha (Figure 2).
Since all N source
and method of application treatments received at least 50 kg N/ha at
planting, and since plot variability was high at this location, it is
doubtful that differences between N source and method of application
treatments could be detected if they occurred.
Effectiveness of N Sources Relative to Ammonium Nitrate and
Comparison of N with and without Sulfur
Treatments 9, 10 and 11 were included in the experiment to compare
the effectiveness of different sources of nitrogen fertilizer
3.
Locations 777 and 876 were adjacent to one another in the same
field.
/
46
(Table 14).
The fertilizers evaluated also provided a comparison be­
tween nitrogen and nitrogen plus sulfur.
All comparisons were made at
the 5% probability level.
Spring Wheat, Location 577
Even though both grain yield and N uptake were higher for the AN
treatment than the other treatments, there were no significant dif­
ferences between N source means at location 577 (Table 14).
There
were no statistically significant differences in yield or N uptake
between N and N + S sources although grain yield and N uptake for AN
were greater them for ANS.
The low number of heads per meter of row for UAS was probably due
to soil variability rather than source of nitrogen (Table 14).
The
third replication at this location was underlain in places by very
coarse textured subsoil.
The water holding capacity in these areas
was lower than that of the surrounding soil. The amount of water,
available to plants was therefore lower as well.
Plots located above
these areas had visibly less tillering than neighboring plots.
In
replication three, the UAS treatment had 116 heads per meter of row
compared to 175 and 177 for replications one and two respectively.
This disparity accounts for the significant difference from the AN
source treatment.
Yields of S and no-S treatments were compared using a linear
combination of means (Snedecor and Cochran, 1969).
Yields and yield
Table 14. Grain yield, protein, N uptake and yield components of spring wheat as
___________ influenced by nitrogen fertilizer source at location 577______________
TMT
N Source
Std (7)
9
10
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
H
2/
LSD.05 '
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
49.5
40.3
38.9
43.1
NS
Udy Grain
Protein
%
13.0
13.6
13.7
12.7
NS
Grain N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
114.3
95.8
87.8
93.6
NS
Yield Components
# Heads i?er Kernels/ 1000 Kernel
Meter of Row
Head
Weight (g)
202
172
188
156
42
20.3
21.0
17.3
22.7
NS
36.6
34.3
36.4
37.1
NS
AN: Ammonium Nitrate (34-0^0); DR: Urea (46-0^0); ANS: Ammonium Nitrate Sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S); DAS: Urea Ammonium Sulfate (40-0-0-6 S) applied at a rate of 100 kg
N/ha. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg
K/ha as muriate of potash was topdressed at planting.
I/
Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total N content of the grain (determined
using the Kjeldahl technique).
2/
LSD's calculated on the basis of all treatments at this location, not just those
shown.
48
components of treatments 10 and 11 (S sources) were averaged and com­
pared to those of treatments 7 and 9 (no S).. Figure 5 graphically
illustrates these data.
There were no significant differences at­
tributable to sulfur.
Since ANS and AN chemically differ only by a small amount of
NH^SO^ in the ANS, and UAS and UR are chemically very similar, yields
and yield components of ANS and AN were averaged and compared to the
average of UAS and UR using a linear combination of means to further
compare N sources.
As shown in Figure 5, AN treatments produced signi­
ficantly more heads per meter of row than UR treatments, although there
were no other, significant differences.
This low number of heads per
meter of row was probably due to limited soil moisture in the UAS
treatment (as previously described) rather than a response to N source.
Recall that location 577 (Figure 2) was not responsive to additions
of N fertilizer.
Due to the high initial soil N O - N concentration,
3
yields were maximized with the addition of 50 kg N/ha.
Since all N
source treatments received 100 kg N/ha, it is doubtful that any dif­
ferences in yield or N uptake attributable to source of N could have
been detected.
Spring Wheat, Location 777
Table 15 presents yield, grain protein and N uptake response to N
source at location 777.
Grain yields were variable ranging from
49
1000 Kernel
Weight (g)
Heads/Meter
of Row
AN > DR*
200
180 '
Kemels/head
Grain Yield (q/ha)
AN
UR
All N applied at the rate of 100 kg/ha. All treatments received 22.5 kg
P/ha as triple super phosphate drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as
muriate of potash topdressed at planting.
* Significantly different at the 5% probability level.
Figure 5.
Influence of sulfur and N source on yield and yield
components of spring wheat grain at location 577
Table 15. Wheat grain yield, protein, N uptake and yield components as influenced by
___________nitrogen fertilizer source at location 777________ . ____________________
TMT
Std (7)
9
10
11 2/
LSD.05 '
.N Source
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%
Grain N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
40.1
37.6
37.9
35.4
2.3
11.1
11.6
10.3
11.2
1.4
67.8
74.5
65.6
68.0
14.0
Yield Components
# Heads ijer
Kernels/ 1000 Kernel
Meter of Row
Head
Weight (g)
105.5
144.2
126.5
102.2
36.2
29.0
20.5
24.7
26.7
NS
39.8
40.9
40.1
40.3
1.6
AN: Ammonium nitrate (34-0-0); UR: Urea (46-0-0) ; ANS: Amonium Nitrate Sulfate
(36-0-0-6„5 s); UAS: Urea Amdnium Sulfate (40-0-0-6 S) applied at a rate of 100 kg
N/ha. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha
as muriate of potash was topdressed at planting.
^Calculated by multiplying grain yield x total grain N (determined using the Kjeldahl
technique).
2/
'LSD's calculated on the basis of all treatments at this location, not just those
shown.
51
35.4 q/ha with.UAS to 40.1 q/ha with AN.
Nitrogen uptake and per­
cent protein were maximized by addition of urea, as were the number
of heads per meter of row.
While the differences were not signif­
icant, the number of kernels per head was least for. the urea treatment,
so that final yield and grain protein percent for urea were not dif­
ferent from the other treatments.
Figure 6 graphically displays linear combinations of means compar­
ing yields and yield components of S to no S treatments and AN to UR
treatments combined as at Location 577.
There were no significant
responses to S or source of N.
Yield at location 777 was highly responsive to additions of N
fertilizer (Figure 3).
Therefore differences in yield, protein or N
uptake due to N source, should have been detected if present.
It
appears that urea was more efficiently taken up by the plants result­
ing in higher number of heads per meter of row than other treatments.
Barley, Location 876
Data for N source treatments at location 876 are listed in Table
16.
Barley grain yield for the urea treatment was significantly higher
than yields with the other treatments, due primarily to an increased
number of heads per mater of row.
Nitrogen uptake by the grain of the
urea treatment was not higher than that of the other treatments, con­
sequently. protein percentage was lower than the AN treatment although
52
Heads per Meter
of Row
120
1000 Kernel
Weight (g)
*
Kemels/head
Yield (q/ha)
All N applied at the rate of 100 kg/ha. All treatments received 22.5 kg
P/ha as triple super phosphate drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as
muriate of potash topdressed at planting.
Figure 6.
Influence of sulfur and N source on yield and yield
components of spring wheat grain at location 777
Table 16.
TMT
Std (7)
9
10
11 2/
LSD.05 Z
Barley grain yield, protein , N uptake and yield components as influenced by
nitrogen fertilizer source at location 876
N Source
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
.%
42.5
48.6
40.1
40.0
6.1
9.4
8.4
8.0
8.5
1.1
Grain
Uptake
(kg/ha)
58.2
70.4
52.1
57.5
14.0
-
Yield Components
# Heads I?er
Kernels/ 1000 Kernel
Meter of Row
Head
Weight (g)
118.0
157.8
140.0
131.8
52.7
24.0
18.6
17.8
19.0
NS
51.1
50.7
48.4
49.4
1.9
AN: Amsonium Nitrate (34-0-0)? UR: Urea (46-0-0); ANS: Ammonium Nitrate Sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S); UAS; Urea Ammonium Sulfate (40-0-0-6 S) applied at the rate of 100 kg
N/ha. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha
as muriate of potash was topdressed at planting.
^Calculated by multiplying grain yield % total grain N (determined using the Kjeldahl
technique).
2/
LSD's calculated on the basis of all treatments at this location, not just those
shown.
54
the difference was not significant.
Protein percentage for the ANS
treatment was lower than the AN treatment, reflecting decreased N up­
take efficiency.
As at spring wheat locations (577 and 777), linear combinations of
means of yield and yield components were used to compare S to no S
treatments and AN to UR treatments.
These data are shown in Figure 7.
There were no significant differences except in yield where no S treat­
ments produced a higher yield than S treatments.
due to the high yield of the UR treatment.
This difference is
At location 876, N .uptake
was less for N + S fertilizers than for N only fertilizers.
1
Figure 4 shows that barley grain yields and protein at location
876 were highly responsive to additions of N fertilizers.
At the barley
site (876), UR produced a significantly higher yield than other N
sources.
Also at location 876, ANS treatments had significantly lower
protein percentages than other N source treatments.
Yield and N Uptake Response to Simulated Fertigation Treatments
The primary objective of this experiment was to evaluate the rel­
ative effectiveness of delaying application of various proportions of
the total amount of N fertilizer as would happen with fertigation through
sprinkler systems (treatment 12-16).
This was accomplished by comparing
55
Heads per Meter
of Row
1000 Kernel
Weight (g)
1451
135-
KemelsAiead
Yield (qAia)
+S < -S*
AN
UR
All N applied at the rate of 100 kgAia. All treatments received 22.5 kg
PAia as triple super phosphate drilled with the seed and 45 kg KAia
as muriate of potash topdressed at planting.
♦Significantly different at the 5* probability level.
Figure 7.
Influence of sulfur and N source on yield and yield
components of barley at location 876
56
treatments simulating fertigation with a standard treatment which
consisted of topdressing 100 percent of the H fertilizer immediately
following seeding (treatment 7, Table 3).
Yield, yield components,
grain protein and N fertilizer uptake were the parameters compared.
Unless otherwise indicated, all comparisons were made at the 5% prob­
ability level.
Yield Response
Spring Wheat, Location 577
Data in Table 17 show a tendency for yield to decrease and
protein to increase as the amount of N applied at planting (Table 3)
was reduced.
Yield and protein differences between treatments were
not statistically significant at the 5% probability level, however.
The number of heads per meter of row generally declined with later ap­
plications of N (1st and 2nd. irrigation). The number of kernels per
head and 1000 kernel weight were variable and no trends were apparent.
Treatment 16 was included in the experiment to see if an application
of N after ear emergence would increase grain protein. While protein
was higher for treatment 16 than for other treatments, the difference
is not statistically significant.
The factor that had the greatest affect on yield, yield components
and grain protein was the amount of W applied at planting.
Grain yield
is a product of yield components which are determined sequentially
,
Table 17.
TMT
Std (7)
12
13
14
15
16 jy
LSD.05
Spring wheat yield, yield components and grain protein as influenced by
fertigation treatments at location 577
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
100
75
75
50
50
100
25
——
50
25
——
—
25
——
25
——
——
——
——
—
25
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Ody Grain
Protein
S
49.5
45.0
41.8
40.7
37.3
39.2
NS
13.0
13.3
13.6
13.9
13.5
14.5
NS
Yield Components
# Heads per
Kernels/ 1000 Kernels
Meter of Row
Head
weight (g)
202
168
145
190
164
148
.42
20.3
24.1
28.7
19.6
21.4
21.6
NS
36.6
34.3
31.6
33.5
34.4
37.8
NS
All N was applied as Ammonium Nitrate (34-0-0). 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of potash was
topdressed at planting.
^ L S D *s calculated on the basis of all treatments at this location, not just those
shown.
58
during the growing season as shown by the following equation:
Yield (wt/a)==heads/area x kemels/head x weightA e m e l
(Mitbhell,
1970c).
Very often yield components are observed to exhibit a compensatory
effect for one another.
For example, if the number of heads per unit
area is large, very likely the number of kernels per head and weight
per kernel will be smaller than for a similar treatment with fewer heads
per unit area.
Mitchell C1970b) states that the amount of tillering,
which is directly related to the number of heads per unit area, is
highly dependent on nitrogen supply.
Reduced nitrogen supply results
in reduced tillering and hence, a reduced number of heads per unit area.
If the number of heads per unit area is reduced below a critical level,
maximum yield will not be attained.
Since the amount of N applied at planting was the factor most af­
fecting yields, yields and yield components from treatments that
received the same amount of N at planting were averaged and these
averages compared to the standard treatment (7) in a pairwise manner
using a linear combination of means (Snedecor and Cochran, 1969).
When no significant differences due to N source were observed, treat­
ments 9, 10, and 11 were averaged with the standard treatment (7) to
better estimate response to the 100 kg N A a at planting treatments.
Comparison coefficients are listed in Table 18.
Because treatment 16
received 125 kg N A a , it was not considered in the pairwise comparisons.
59
Table 18.
Comparison coefficients for linear combination of means from
wheat and barley experiments combined according to the amount
of N applied at planting_____________________________________
Comparison
100 vs 75
100 vs 50
75 vs 50
7
I
I
0
9
I
I
0
10
I
I
0
Treatment Number
12
11
I
-2
0
I
0
I
13
-2
0
I
14
0
-2
-I
15
0
-2
-I
When discussing combinations of means N50, N75, and NlOO will refer to
the average of those treatments receiving 50, 75 or 100 kg N/ha at
planting, respectively.
•
,
Figure 8 graphically displays linear combination of means for fertigation treatments.
By pooling the data in this manner, significant
differences due to the amount of N applied at planting were found.
N75 treatments had significantly fewer heads per meter of row
than NlOO treatments.
This difference was probably due to soil heter­
ogeneity rather than method of N application.
As previously mentioned,
variable soil moisture at seeding resulted in poor stand establishment
at this location.
The low number of heads per meter of row for N75
treatments (12 and 13) was due to poor establishment of treatment 13 in
all three replications.
Treatment 13 averaged 144.7 heads per meter of
row compared with 167.5 for treatment 12 (see Table 17).
As illustrated
in Figure 8, kernels per head and 1000 kernel weight were higher for N75
treatments relative to NlOO treatments and N50 treatments.
were not significantly different.
Final yields
60
# Heads per
Meter of Row
1000 Kernel
Weight (g)
200-1
HlOO > N75*
kg N/ha at planting
N75 < NlOO > N50*
kg N/ha at planting
Kemels/head
NlOO < N75 > N50*
Grain Yield (q/ha)
45 -
kg N/ha at planting
kg N/ha at planting
•Significantly different at the 5% probability level.
Figure 8.
Average of spring wheat yield components and grain yield for
fertigation treatments at location 577 combined according to
the amount of N applied at planting
61
Spring Wheat, Location 777
The application of 50 or 75 kg N/ha at planting resulted in' lower
grain yields and higher grain protein as compared to the standard
treatment of 100 kg N/ha at planting (Table 19).
Differences between
'' i
the 100 kg N/ha and 50 kg N/ha treatments were statistically significant
at the 5% probability level.
Reduced yields were the result of reduced
number of heads per meter of row while increased protein was associated
with significantly increased kernel weights. Treatment 16, as at
location 577, was included to determine if the quantity of grain protein
could be increased by a-late addition of N fertilizer. . Neither yield
nor grain protein was significantly affected by the late addition of N.
Pairwise comparison of combined means (Figure 9) reveals that N50
treatments had significantly fewer heads per. meter of row than NlOO
treatments.
A large compensatory effect was observed in 1000 kernel
weight (highly significant).
However, final yields for N50 treatments
were significantly lower (P=>.01) than either NlOO or N75 treatments.
Barley, Location 876
Barley response to fertigation treatments was quite different than
spring wheat response when the two crops were grown at the same loca­
tion.
Data in Table 20 illustrate that with barley, the number of
heads per meter and kernel weight tended to increase while the number of
kernels per head tended to decrease as an increasing percentage of the
Table 19.
TMT
Std (7)
12
13
14
15
16 I/
LSD.05 '
Wheat grain yield, protein and yield components as influenced by fertigation
treatments at location 777______ ____ __________________ ______________
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
100
75
75
50
50
100
25
——
50
25
——
——
25
—
25
—
-
——
—
——
—
25
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%
40.1
35.3
35.5
29.6
29.9
41.6
7.3
11.1
12.3
12.0
13.3
14.8
11.3
1.4
Yield Components
$ Heads per
Kernels/ 1000 Kernel
Meter of Row
Head
Weight (g)
105.5
93.3
111.0
86.0
84.0
117.2
36.2
29.0
28.6
22.7
24.5
24.9
28.9
NS
39.8
42.4
42.9
43.8
44.2
41.1
1.6
All N applied as Ammonium Nitrate (34-0-0). 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super phosphate
was drilled with the seed; 45 kg K/ha as muriate of potash was topdressed at planting.
lyLSD1S are for comparisons of all treatments at this location, not just those shown.
Cl
M
63
# Heads/Meter
of Row
NlOO > N50*
100 75
kg N/ha at planting
Kemels/head
1000 Kernel
Weight (g)
N50 > N75 > N100*
kg N/ha at planting
Yield (q/ha)
N75 < NlOO > N50*
100 75
kg N/ha at planting
100 75
kg N/ha at planting
* Significantly different at the 5% probability level.
Figure 9.
Average of spring wheat yield components and grain yield
for. fertigation treatments at location 777 combined
according to the amount of N applied at planting
Table 20.
Barley grain yield, protein and yield components as influenced by fertigation
treatments at location 876________ _________________________ ________
I
TMT
Std (7)
12
13 .
14
15
16 I/
LSD.05 Z
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
.
100
75
75
50
50
25
■
25
50
25
50
— —
— —
25
25
25
---
—
— —
—
—
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%
42.5
44.0
41.7
41.5
37.0
41.1
6.1
9.4
9.0
9.3
10.0
10.2
10.6
1.1
Yield Components
# Heads per
Kernels/ 1000 Kernel
Mater of Row
Weight (g)
Head
118.0
116.2
104.8
140.0
157.5
180.5
52.7
24.0
22.4
26.6
18.6
15.4
13.0
NS
All N was applied as Ammonium Nitrate (34-0-0)„ 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of potash was
topdressed at planting.
1^LSD1S are for comparisons of all treatments at this location, not just those
shown.
51.1
52.3
50.9 .
53.1
51.7
54.0
1.9
65
nitrogen fertilizer was applied with irrigation.
Yield components,
particularly heads per meter of row and kernels pejr head, compensated
■,>
for one another such that grain yield was not significantly influenced
by the amount of nitrogen applied at planting.
Grain protein tended to
increase as a greater percentage of the N was appt Iad
irri
4nn
' \
water. Only when 75 percent of the N was applied with irrigation water
(treatment 16) was the grain protein level significantly different from
the standard treatment, however.
Examination of means combined according to the amount of N applied
at planting (Figure 10) reveals that at this location, N25 (treatment
16) had significantly more heads per meter of row than any of the other
treatments.
row.
N75 treatments had the fewest number of heads per meter of
Later yield components, kernels per head and 1000 kernel weight
compensated to such a degree that there were no significant differences
between combined yield means.
One possible explanation for the difference between spring wheat
and spring barley response to fertigation is that the barley matured
slower than the wheat.
Thus treatment 14 which received 50 kg N/ha at
planting and 50.kg N/ha at the first irrigation was able to use the
later N application to produce late tillers, and the number of heads per
meter of row was slightly higher than the standard treatment.
Treat­
ment 15 received 50 kg N/ha at planting and 25 kg N/ha at the first and
second irrigations.
The number of heads per meter of row wasn't
# Heads per Meter of Row
66
1000 Kernel Weight (g)
N25 > NlOO & N75*
N50 > N75*
100 75
kg N/ha at planting
Kemels/head
N25 > NlOO & N75*
N50 & N75 > N100*
kg N/ha at planting
Grain Yield (q/ha)
N75 > N50 6 N25*
100 75
kg N/ha at planting
45 -I
100 75
kg N/ha at planting
+Significantly different at the 5% probability level
Figure 10.
Average of barley yield components and grain yield for
fertigation treatments at location 876 combined according
to the amount of N applied at planting
67
adversely affected by this treatment either.
Treatment 16 received
25 kg N/ha at planting with 50 kg N/ha and 25 kg N/ha applied with the
first and second irrigations.
The number of heads per meter of row
for treatment 16 was significantly higher than any of the other fertigation treatments.
These later applications of N probably stimulated
secondary tillering to the extent that the number of kernels per head
was reduced.
One possible explanation for the reduced number of heads per
meter of row for the N75 treatments is that the later applications of
N came too late to be utilized for initial tillering, but had been
completely used up before the second tillering stage.
It should be
noted, however, that other yield components compensated for the fewer
numbers of heads (Figure 10).
Yield and grain protein data from all three locations indicate
that if 75% of the required amount of N fertilizer is applied at plant­
ing , the remainder of the N must be applied prior to completion of til­
lering.
If the remaining N is applied after tillering is completed,
protein percentage is increased, but yield is reduced.
=i— ---
"
"
~
—
----------—
--------
Nirtrogen Uptake as Influenced by Fertigation Treatments
Nitrogen uptake is discussed in a separate section from yield and
protein percentage because of the manner in which growing season uptake
data were gathered.
Locations 777 (spring wheat) and 876 (barley)
68
were subsampled three times during the growing season.
Due to poor
stand establishment, location 577 (spring wheat) was not sampled prior
to the first fertigation treatment so only two sets of subsamples were
gathered there.
Itwas initially felt that due to the small sample size of the
subsamples taken during the growing season, interpretation of N uptake
from these samples would be limited.
Analysis of variance of dry matter
production at all sampling dates for locations 777 and 876 showed that
there yras indeed significant variation (P < .001) attributable to
treatments.
Therefore, it was decided to present growing season total
N content and uptake data since they help explain the relationship
between yield and protein percentage.
For convenience, data on yield and percent protein will be used
again in this section simply to avoid having to look, back to earlier
tables,
All comparisons were made at the 5% probability level.
Spring Wheat, Location 577
Tpe relationship between dry matter production and percent N
of spring wheat for location 577 is shown in Figure 11.
Data points
represent averages for treatments receiving comparable amounts of N at
planting.
Even though differences are not statistically significant,
the initial N content was proportional to the amount of N applied at
planting.
As the amount of dry matter increased throughout the growing
Dry Matter (kg/ha)
10,000 -T
r- 4.0
7,500-
— 3.0
5,000-
-2.0
2,500-
79 90
139 150
Cumulative days after planting
Figure 11.
Dry matter production and N content as influenced by
fertigation treatments at location 577
Points represent sampling dates
%N
70
season, percent N decreased.
As indicated in Table 21, the N uptake
was not significantly different at this location.
Table 21.
Growing season N uptake by spring wheat.as influenced by
fertigation treatments at lpcation 577
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
TMT
Std (7)
12
13
14
15
16 jy
LSD.05 z
100
75
75
50
50
100
—
25
—
50
25
—
—
——
25
—
25
——’
— .
—
—
—
—
25
2nd Sampling
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
8.81
11.51
10.29
6.93.
10.25
12.34
NS
3rd Sampling
If Uptake
(kg/ha)
19.81
21.56
19.59
22.18
18.49
12.30
NS
All N was applied as ammonium nitrate. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash was topdressed at planting.
I/
LSD's are comparisons for all treatments at this location, not just
those shown.
Table 22 presents yield, protein and grain and straw uptake data .
for spring wheat.
Once again the variability of the site masked any
fertigation treatment effects.
However, all fertigation treatments
had lower mean yields, lower mean N uptake and higher protein percent­
age than the standard treatment.
71
Table 22.
Yield, protein and grain and straw N uptake of spring wheat
as influenced by fertigation treatments at location 577
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
TMT
Std (7)
12.
13
■14
15 .
16 I/
LSD.05
Z
100
75
75
50
50
100
25
—
50
25
---25 —
---25 —
—
25
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
49.5
45.0
41.8
40.7
37.3
39.2
NS
Udy Grain
Protein
%
13.0
13.3
13.6
13.9
13.5
14.5
NS'
N Uptake (kg/ha)
Grain
Straw 'Total
114.3
95.8
106.2
■ 91.9
89.1
99.6
NS
21.4
15.3
18.6.
15.4
20.9
21.3
NS
135.7
111.1
124.8
107.3
110.0
120.9
NS
All N applied as ammonium nitrate. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash was topdressed at planting.
I/
'
LSD1s are for comparisons of all treatments at this location., not
just those.shown.
Spring Wheat, Location 777
At location 777, treatments receiving 50 kg N/ha had lower total
N contents and dry matter production than the other treatments for the
first two sampling dates (Figure 12).
The third samples show a re­
versal of the total N content pattern with treatments receiving 50 kg
N/ha having higher total N contents than the other treatments, while
dry matter production remained equal to or lower than that of the other
treatments.
c
Nitrogen uptake (Table 23) reflects the pattern of total N content
and dry matter production.
Nitrogen uptake was less for treatments
Dry Matter (kg/ha)
8,000
1 4.0
6,000
-3.0
-
4,000
-
2.0
X - * --2,000
-i.o
__ %N
60 64 73
90
120
130
Days since planting
Figure 12.
Spring wheat dry matter production and N content as
influenced by fertigation treatments at location 777
Points represent sampling dates
73
receiving 50 kg N/ha at planting than for other fertigation treatments
in the first two samples and about the same in the third sample.
Table 23.
Growing season N uptake by spring wheat as influenced by
fertigation treatments at location 777
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
TMT
Std (7)
12
13
14
15
16 I/
LSD.05
'
100
75
75
50
50
100
25
——
50
25
——
—
25
——
25
"—
—
——
—
25
1st Sampling
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
2nd Sampling
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
9.89
9.92
8.73
6.15
5.73
9.89
3.47
10.49
10.20
10.48
7.65
7.06
12.34
4.45
3rd Samplinc
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
8.91
8.68
• 9.78
7.05
11.28
8.42
5.65
All N was applied as ammonium nitrate. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash was topdressed at planting.
I/LSD's are for comparisons of all treatments at this location, not
just those shown.
Early in the growing season, plants in those plots receiving 50
kg N/ha at planting had less N available than plants in treatments
receiving 75 or 100 kg N/ha.
As a consequence, plant total N, dry mat­
ter production and N uptake was lower in the 50 kg N/ha treatments.
This pattern was the same for the second samples.
By the time the
third samples were collected, a total of 100 kg N/ha had been added to
all treatments.
Since the early N deficiency in treatments, receiving
50 kg N/ha resulted in less dry matter production than the other treat-
74
merits, there was less plant material in those plots, and therefore,
more nitrogen per plant.
As a result, total N content was now higher
in 50 kg N/ha treatments than in the other treatments.
The increased
N content offset decreased dry matter production so that total N up­
take for 50 kg N/ha treatments was the same as that of other fertigation treatments.
The increased N content in the third samples of the 50 kg N/ha
treatments helps explain why these treatments had higher grain protein
percentages them the other fertigation treatments.
Table 24 lists
yield, protein and grain, straw and total N uptake for spring wheat at
location 777.
The higher total N content of dry matter compared to
other fertigation treatments, coupled with the Ibw grain yield, result­
ed in the higher grain protein percentage of the 50 kg N/ha treatments.
At the time of grain filling, there was more of the total 100. kg N/ha
available for grain protein formation since less had been used for
vegetative growth early in the growing season.
Because of the. higher
grain protein in 50 kg N/ha treatments, total N uptake for these treat­
ments was the same as the other fertigation treatments, even though
significantly less grain was produced.
Treatment 16 which received 100 kg N/ha at planting plus 25 kg
N/ha at the third irrigation had the highest N uptake (significant at
P < .001 level) of any of the fertigation treatments.
Interestingly,
75
grain yield and. percent protein for treatment 16 were not significantly
different from the standard treatment.
Table 24. Spring wheat yield, protein, and N uptake of grain and straw
'
_______ as influenced by fertigation treatments at location 777
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
TMT
Std (7)
12.
13
14
15
16 I/
LSD.05
'
100 .
75
75
50 '
50
100
25
—
50
35
----25 —
---35 —
—
25
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
40.1
35.3
35.5
29.6
59.9
41:6
7.3
Udy Grain
•Protein
%
N Uptake (kg/ha)
Grain Straw Total
11.1
.67.8 ' 11.9
12.3
71.7 11.9
78.9 13.2
12.0
13.3
75.3 10.5
14.8
80.5 13.5
11.3 89.5 15.2
1.4
14.0
4.5
79.7
83.6
92.1
85.8
94.0
104.7
15.4
All N applied as ammonium nitrate. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super­
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash was topdressed at planting.
I/
LSD's are for comparisons of all treatments at this location/
not just those shown.
-Barley, Location 876
For barley at location 876, total N content, dry matter production
and N uptake response was different than for spring wheat at locations
577 and.777, reflecting a difference in experimental crops and treat­
ments (Table 25 and Figure 13).
Figure 13 illustrates the relationship
between percent N and dry matter production.
At the first sampling,
there was very little variation in percent N, dry matter production
or N uptake except for treatment 16.
At location 876, treatment 16
76
received 25 kg N/ha at planting (see Table 3) so it is not surprising
to find that percent N , dry matter production and N uptake are signi­
ficantly less for treatment 16 than for the other fertigation treat­
ments .
Table 25. Growing season N uptake by barley as influenced by
___________fertigation treatments at location 876______ ______
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
TMT
Std (7)
12
13
14
15
I/
LSD.05 Z
100
75
75
50
50
25
25
50
25
50
—— ——
25 —
-——
25 ——
25 —
1st Sampling
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
2nd Sampling
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
3rd Sampling
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
24.19
17.12
18.35
21.83
18.31
10.38
8.25
33.02
24.32
17.26
19.74
27.79
14.24
■ 8.69
26.10
27.86
28.30
20.19
35.07
24.77
10.76
All N applied as ammonium nitrate. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super­
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash was topdressed at planting.
I/
LSD's are for comparisons of all treatments at this location,
not just those shown.
There were no significant differences in percent N at the second
sampling. . Dry matter production for all fertigation treatments was less
than for treatment 7 (the standard treatment) (Figure 13).
As a result,
N xiptcdce was also less for all fertigation treatments than for treat­
ment 7, (the standard treatment) (Table 25).
s
1 0 ,0 0 0 -I
r 4.0
*
Dry Matter (kg/ha)
7,500 -
N75
-3.0
D.M.
5,000 ~
2,500 _
-
60 66 75
1.0
120 130
Days since planting
Figure 13.
Barley dry matter production and N content as influenced
by fertigation treatments at location 876
Points represent sampling dates
78
By the third sampling date, treatment 16 had significantly higher
total N content than other fertigation treatments.
As at the second
sampling, all fertigation treatments produced less dry matter than the
'
standard treatment. Low dry matter production was offset by high per­
cent N so that there were no differences from the standard treatment
(7) in N uptake.
As discussed earlier, it's possible that barley at location 876
matured more slowly than the spring wheat at locations 577 and .777.
Therefore, N added at the second fertigation may have been utilized jfpr
tillering and vegetative production.
Therefore, by the third sampling,
dry matter production was nearly the same for all treatments except
treatments 14 and 16.
It should be noted again, however, that at the
third sampling, all fertigation treatments had produced less dry matter
than the standard treatment.
At harvest, it was noted that barley plants in treatments receiv­
ing late (2nd irrigation) N applications, had developed secondary
tillers.
Treatment 16 produced enough secondary tillers and heads so
that its grain yield was the same as the standard treatment, but with
significantly higher protein (Table 26).
In fact, treatment 16 had
significantly higher N uptake than the standard treatment.
Treatment
15 produced a higher percent protein, but less grain yield, than the
standard treatment.
As a result, grain N uptake was not significantly
different from the standard treatment.
Yield, protein and grain N
79
uptake for treatments 12, 13 and 14 were not significantly different
from the standard treatment.
Table 26. Barley yield, protein, and N uptake of grain as influenced
___________by fertigation treatments at location 876_________________
N Ratesi (kg/ha)
Irrigation
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
TMT
Std (7)
12
13
14
15
16 I/
LSD.05 '
100
75
75 .
50
50
25
25
—
50
25
50
25
——
25
25
—
——
——
—
Grain
Yield
(q/ha)
Udy Grain
Protein
%
Grain N
Uptake (kg/ha)
42.5
44.0
41.7
41.5
37.0
41.1
6.1
9.4
9.0
9.3
10.0
10.2
10.6 .
1.1
58.2
67.2
' 65.1 '
67.3
57.6
76.4 ■
14.0
All N applied as ammonium nitrate. 22.5 kg P/ha as triple super­
phosphate was drilled with the seed and 45 kg K/ha as muriate of
potash was topdressed at planting.
"^LSD1s are for comparisons of all treatments at this location,
not just those shown.
It should be noted that harvest straw samples for each treatment
were not taken at location 876.
Total grain plus straw samples were
taken for chemical analysis but it was not possible to calculate straw
N uptake.
Analysis of those samples for total N followed by sub­
traction of the amount of N in the grain resulted in negative values
for some treatments. Therefore, no total or straw N uptake data are
available.
Data on percent N uptake support the conclusions reached after
80
examining yield and protein data.
If 50% of the required N fertilizer
is applied at planting, the rest must be applied prior to cessation of
tillering, or yield will be less than if all N fertilizer was applied
at planting.
It also becomes evident that barley utilized split ap­
plications of N more efficiently than did spring wheat because late
tillers compensated for early season N deficiency.
Spring wheat on the
other hand did not exhibit late tillering and yields were reduced with
split applications of N.
Efficiency of Uptake of N Fertilizer
Nitrogen fertilizer uptake efficiency, the percentage of applied
N fertilizer that was used by the plant, was to have been determined
using fertilizer labelled with ^ N .
Subplots within certain treatments
received labelled N and samples were collected for
15
N analysis.
Un­
fortunately it was not possible to analyze these samples using exist­
ing equipment at Montana State University.
efficiency of fertilizer uptake based on
this report.
Therefore, information on
15
N data is not available for
It is hoped that this analysis can be accomplished at a
later date.
Since data from labelled fertilizer is not available, efficiency
of N fertilizer uptake discussed here is based on the "difference
method".
The amount of fertilizer N taken up by the crop is calculated
as the difference in total N uptake between fertilized and unfertilized
81
treatments. It must be assumed that immobilization, mineralization,
•
\
and other N transformations during the course of the experiment are
the same for treated and untreated soils.
In most cases this assump­
tion is not valid (Hauk and Bremner, 1976).
There have been several mechanisms proposed to explain the
effect of nitrogen fertilizers on the release of soil N.
Most
investigators agree that mineralization of soil N increases upon ad­
ditions of fertilizer N (Broadbent, 1968; Fried and Broeshart, 1974;
Westerman and Kurtz, 1974).
The explanation of this phenomenon is
under debate.
Broadbent (1968) , in a review article, found four proposed ex­
planations of the "priming effect".
Some researchers feel that the
stimulation of soil mineralization is due to stimulation of microbial
activity.
Since much of the data on the "priming effect" compare N
content of plants, some researchers feel that plant roots in higher N
plots are stimulated and explore a larger volume of soil and therefore
take up more soil N.
While this may be a partial explanation, other
researchers have shown fertilizer N increased amounts of available
soil N in pots in whiph no plants were growing.
Still other research­
ers feel that non-biological exchange reactions are responsible for
the priming effect, especially when ammonium fertilizers are used.
That is ammonium ions were fixed by reactions involving clay minerals.
Broadbent (1968), however, shows that clay fixed ammonium is not
82
involved in the priming effect.
Another proposed mechanism is the Salt
Effect. The fertilizer added increases the osmotic potential of the
soil solution, plasmolyzing microbes which might result in mineral­
ization of soil N without mobilization taking place.
It appears that none of these explanations accounts for the
stimulating effect that is known to occur.
Rather a combination of
several mechanisms is probably responsible for the observed effect.
It was felt, however, that even though use of the difference
method involves overlooking the priming effect of N fertilizers, as
long as the assumptions in its use are known and understood, uptake
values calculated in this manner are useful.
Table 27 reports fertilizer uptake efficiency for all three loca­
tions.
The percent of applied fertilizer recovered is higher for
grain than straw at locations 577 and 777.
The amount of applied N
recovered was higher at locations 777 and 876 than at location 577 re­
flecting the high amount of available soil N at location 577.
There
are, however, no differences in amount of applied N recovered at­
tributable to amount of applied N, or method of application or N source.
Table 27.
TMT
I
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Efficiency of N fertilizer uptake at three locations as calculated by
difference method
N Rates (kg/ha)
Irrigations
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
— —
— —
—
— —
% of Applied N Recovered
577 Spring Wheat
777 Spring Wheat
Grain
Straw
Grain
Straw
— —
—
— —
— —
876 Barley
Grain
— —
100
100
100
16.77
12.53
44.33
2.53
11.97
11.70
44.23
46.13
44.23
11.63
8.70
8.73
44.53
49.87
46.97
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
100
25
38.67
46.40
24.53
30.03
22.77
33.20
27.23
37.33
23.83
21.00
26.80
—
NS
6.33
13.03
11.83
14.07
7.10
11.80
7.27
10.83
6.87
12.30
10.13
27.67
42.20
45.83
49.07
40.17
42.40
46.47
53.07
49.27
55.30
51.23
3.67
6.93
8.50
7.33
9.87
5.30
6.93
8.33
5.60
9.00
9.20
53.87
38.97
37.83
50.70
32.43
37.53
47.27
45.10
47.43
38.67
25
— —
50
25
— —
—
25
—
— —
— —
25
— —
— —
— —
25
50
25
— —
LSD.05
^Spring wheat locations 577 and 777
2/
Barley location 876
—
— —
— —
NS
NS
NS
— —
56.47
NS
CONCLUSIONS
The primary objectives of this study were to determine the effect
of applying various proportions of the required N fertilizer to small
grains at different times through sprinkler systems, and to determine
optimum timing of such applications.
Data from all three locations indicated that the amount of N ap­
plied at planting is directly related to yield and inversely related
to grain protein percentage. Lower yields of spring wheat in treat­
ments receiving less N than the standard treatment were due to fewer
heads per unit area.
Barley yields were less affected by the amount of
N applied at planting, probably due to slower maturation and stimulation
of secondary tillering in the barley.
Nitrogen applied later in the growing season was used by the
plants to produce protein rather than grain.
In order to insure that
yields are not reduced by inadequate N in early growth stages, 75% of
the total N requirement should be applied at planting, and the rest
should be applied before tillering ceases, so the number of heads per
unit area is not adversely affected.
Nitrogen fertilizer uptake efficiency was calculated using the
"difference method", since analysis of plants from;15N labelled sub­
plots was not completed.
Sprinkler application of N did not affect
efficiency of fertilizer N uptake compared to topdressing at planting.
85
Data were also collected to compare crop response to other
sources of N fertilizer with response to ammonium nitrate.
no differences in response to N sources in spring wheat.
There were
However, urea
produced higher barley yields than the other N sources while ammonium
nitrate sulfate produced significantly less protein in barley than the
other N sources.
Since the barley and one spring wheat experiment were
adjacent to one another in the same field, this indicates that barley
responded differently than spring wheat to N source.
sources also provided data on response to sulfur.
The various N
At all locations,
there were no responses attributable to additions of sulfur.
Data were also collected to strengthen correlations between soil
test values and crop response to P and K fertilizers.
Data from the
K treatments was consistent with present fertilizer guides for irrigated
spring grains.
Correlations for P soil test values and crop response
to P fertilizer need to be strengthened, however, since the fertilizer
guide predicted a response to P and none was observed.
SUMMARY
Fertigation, applying fertilizers with irrigation water, a common
practice in many areas, is a new method of fertilizer application in
Montana.
Since fifty percent or more of Montana's precipitation falls
early in the growing season, irrigation initiation is delayed restrict­
ing the timing of fertilizer application through sprinklers.
Conse­
quently, extrapolation of data from areas where irrigation begins earlier
in the growing season may not be valid.
In order to ensure proper
fertilizer utilization, guidelines for fertigation in Montana need to be
developed.
During the summer of 1977, three experiments were established at
two locations to determine the yield response of spring wheat and
barley to N fertilizer applied in part through sprinklers.
Various
proportions of the total N fertilizer ranging from 50 to 100 percent,
were applied at planting.
The remainder of the N fertilizer was applied
in one or two simulated fertigation treatments during the growing,
season.
Since the experiments consisted of a large number of small
plots, fertigation was simulated by topdressing N as dry material im­
mediately before an irrigation.
The factor that had the greatest affect on grain yield, yield
components and grain protein was the amount of N fertilizer applied at
planting.
The application of 50 or 75 percent of the total N fertilizer
at planting resulted in lower grain yields and higher grain protein
87
than applying 100 percent of the N fertilizer at planting.
Reduced
grain yields of spring wheat in fertigation treatments were the result
of an early growing season N deficiency which resulted in the production
of fewer heads per meter of row.
Reduced yields of barley in fertiga­
tion treatments were due to an, early growing season N deficiency which
resulted in fewer kernels per head.
The difference in response of
•spring wheat and barley may have been due to slower maturation of the
barley plants.
High grain protein in fertigation treatments, was as­
sociated with high late growing season N contents.
That is, low grain
yield coupled with a high late growing season N content resulted in
high grain protein.
Experiments at each location included comparisons of,grain yield
response to ammonium nitrate with ammonium nitrate sulfate, urea and
urea ammonium sulfate.
There were no significant differences in spring
wheat grain yields attributable to N source.
However,•U produced
i
higher barley grain yields than the other N sources.
It was concluded that splitting N fertilizer applications in
Montana with part applied in irrigation water during the growing season
may result in yield reductions and increased grain protein.
This is
due in part to the delay in applying growing season N fertilizers
dictated by spring rains in Montana.
LITERATURE CITED
89
Aleksie, Z., H. Broeshart and V. Middleboe. 1968. The effect of
nitrogen fertilization on the release of soil nitrogen. Plant
and Soil. 29:474-478.
Alessi, J., and J. F. Power. 1972. Influence of nitrogen source and
rate on growth of spring grain and soil pH. Agron. J. 64:506-508.
American Association of Cereal Chemists. 1962. Cereal Laboratory
Methods.
(7th Edition). The Association, St. Paul, Minn.
Ayoub, A. T. 1974. Effect of nitrogen source and the time of appli­
cation on wheat nitrogen uptake and grain yield. J. Agric. Sci.
82:567-569.
Baiba, A. M., H. M. Hassan, and F. M. Mody. 1972. Effect of time of
nitrogen application on its absorption by what from soil as
labelled ammonium sulfate. Plant and Soil. 37:27-31.
Bardsley, C. E. and J. D. Lancaster. 1960. Determination of reserve
sulfur and soluble sulfates in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
24:265-268.
Beaton, J. D. and D. W. Bixby. 1974.
elements. Fertilizer Solutions.
Mixing techniques of secondary
May - June 1974.
Bremner, J. M. 1965 a. Total Nitrogen in Methods of Soil Analysis,
Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Ed. C. A. Black,
p. 1149-1178 ASA.
"""
Bremner, J. M. 1965 b. Inorganic forms of nitrogen in Methods of
Soil Analysis, Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Ed. .
C. A. Black, p. 1179-1237 ASA.
Broadbent, F. E . 1965. Effect of fertilizer nitrogen on the release of
soil nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:692:696.
Caldwell, A. C., F. G. Bargsrud, M . J. Wiens, D . S. Fairchild. 1973.
Nitrogen trials on Chris and Era wheat under irrigation at
Staples in 1973. Minnesota Research Progress Report p. 144-145.
Caldwell, A. C., L. S . Murphy, B . B. Tucker, R. A. Wiese, and J. C.
Zubriski. 1977. Roundtable: Irrigation - Fertigation. Crops
and Soils. 77:14-21.
90
Christensen, N . W., A. L. Dubbs, E . 0. Skogley, V. A. Haby, D. E .
Baldridge, H . A. R. Houlton, and D. R. Graham. 1976. 1975.
Summary, statewide nitrogen fertilizer source evaluation.
Montana Cooperative Extension Service. July 1976.
Duis, J. H . and K. A. Burman. 1969.
systems. Fertilizer Solutions.
Polyphosphates in irrigation
March - April 1969.
Fenn, L. B . and R. Escarzaga. 1977.
surface applications of ammonium
VI Effects of initial soil water
water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
Ammonia volatilization from
compounds to calcareous soils:
content and quantity of applied
41:358-363.
Fischbach, P. E., W. Burbank, K. Frank and H. R. Mulliner. 1973. :
Extracting nitrates from ground water. Nebraska Cooperative
Extension Service Pub. QR-12-73.
Fischbach, P. E. 1972.
Dec. p. 23-47.
Fertigation.
Fertilizer Solutions.
Fischbach, P . E. 1976. Irrigate, fertilize in one operation.
Cooperative Extension Service. Pub. QR-90.
Nov. -
Nebraska
Fischbach, p. E . 1970. Apply chemicals through the irrigation system.
Fertilizer Solutions, Sept. - Oct. p. 20-26.
Fried, M. and H . Broeshart. 1974. Priming effect of nitrogen ferti­
lizers on soil nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38:858.
Haby, V. A. and R. A. Larson. 1976. Soil nitrate - nitrogen analysis
by the chromotropic acid procedure. Proceedings, 27th Annual
Northwest Fertilizer Conference at Billings, Montana. July 13-15.
p. 85-89.
Hamid, A. and G. Sarwar. ^76. Effect of split application on N
uptake by wheat from
N labelled ammonium nitrate and urea.
Exper. Agric. 12:189-193.
Hargrove, W. L., D. E. Kissel, and L. B . Fenn. 1977. Field measure­
ments of ammonia volatilization from surface applications of
ammonium salts to a calcareous soil. Agron. J. 69:473-477.
Hauck, R. D. and J. M . Bremner. 1976. Use of tracers for soil and
fertilizer nitrogen research. Advances in Agron. 28:219-267.
91
Hucklesby, D. P . 1971. Late spring applications of nitrogen for
efficient utilization and enhanced production of grain and grain
protein of wheat. Agron. J. 63:274-276.
Hunter,.A. S ., and G. Sanford. 1973. Protein content of winter wheat
in relation to rate and time of nitrogen fertilizer application.
Agron. J. 65:772-774.
Jain, N. K., 0. P . Maurya and H . P . Singh. 1971. Effects of time and
method of applying nitrogen to dwarf wheat. Exper. Agric. 7:21-26.
Khalifa, M. A. 1973. Effects of nitrogen on leaf area index, leaf
area duration, net assimilation rate, and yield of wheat.
Agron. J. 65:253-256.
MacGregor, J., D. Fairchild, R. Munter and R. Schoper. 1974. A report
of a three year study (1971 - 72 - 73) of rate and time of nitrogen
fertilization for corn growing on a hubbard loamy coarse sand in
Sherburne County. . Minnesota research progress report: p. 51-53.
MacLeod, J. A. and L. B. MacLeod. 1975. Effects of spring N ap­
plication on yield and N content of four winter wheat cultivars.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:359-362.
McNeal, F . H., M. A. Berg, and C . A. Watson. 1966. Nitrogen and dry
matter in five spring wehat varieties at successive stage of
development. Agron. J. 58:605-608.
Mehrotra, 0. N., N . S . Sinha, and R. D. L. Srivastava. 1962. Studies
on nutrition of Indian cereals. I. The uptake of nitrogen by
wheat plants at various stages of growth as influenced by
phosphorus. Plant and Soil. 26:361-367.
Mitchell, R. L. 1970 a. Crop growth and Culture.
University Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 30-31.
Iowa State
Mitchell, R. L. 1970 b. Crop Growth and Culture.
sity Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 157.
Iowa State Univer­
Mitchell, R. L. 1970 c. Crop Growth and Culture.
sity Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 163-165.
Iowa State Univer-
92
Morton, J. 1976. Fertigation management of irrigated grains in
light textured soils. Proceedings, 27th Annual Fertilizer
Conference of the Pacific Northwest, Billings, Montana, p. 63-72.
Murphy, L., M. C. Axelton, and P. Gallagher. 1970. Iron fertigation
of grain sorghum. Kansas Fertilizer Research Progress Report,
p. 133-135.
Rankin, W. H. 1946. Effect of nitrogen supplied at various stages
of growth on the development of the wheat plant. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 11:384-387.
Rich, C. I. 1965. Elemental analysis by flame photometry in Methods
of Soil Analysis, Chemical and Microbiological Properties. C. A. ,
Black. Ed. p. 849-865 ASA.
Russell, E . W. 1973.
p. 346-348.
Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. IOth Ed.
Schneider, E . 0., L. Chesnin, and R. M. Jones. 1968. The elusive
nutrient - iron, part 4 of micronutrients - the fertilizer shoe
nails. Fertilizer Solutions, July - August.
Sims, J. and V. Haby. 1971. Simplified colorimetric determination of
soil organic matter. Soil Science. 112:137-141.
Smith, F . W., B . G. Ellis and J. Grava. 1957. Use of acid-fluoride
solutions for the extraction of available phosphorous in calcareous
soils and in soils to which rock phosphate has been added. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 21:400-404.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1969. Statistical Methods.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 269-271.
6th Ed.
Spratt, E . D. 1974. Effect of ammonium and nitrate forms of ferti­
lizer N and their time of applications on utilization of N by
wheat. Agron. J. 66:57-61.
Spratt, E . D. and J . K. R. Gasser. 1970. Effect of ammonium and nitrate
forms of nitrogen and restricted water supply on growth and
nitrogen uptake of wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci. 50:263-273.
93
Thorup, R. M. 1977. "Nitrigation" principles and practices.
Agricultural Nitrogen News. p. 28-30.
Tisdale, S . L. and W. L. Nelson. 1975. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers.
3rd Ed. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
U. S . Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1969 a. pH reading of soil suspension
in diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Ag.
Handbook No. 60. USDA p. 102.
U. S . Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1969 b. Electrical conductivity of
solutions in diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils.
Ag. Handbook No. 60. USDA p. 89.
Van Dobbin, W. H. 1966. Systems of management of cereals,for improved
yield and quality in Milthorpe, F . L. and J. D. Ivins. 1966.
The Growth of Cereals and Grasses. Butterworths. p. 320-334.
Watts, D. G. 1977. Irrigation water management: one way to lower
production costs. Solutions. 21:20-31.
Westermcm, R. L . and L. T. Kurtz. 1974. Reply to Fried and Broeshart.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1974. 38:858-859.
Wilson, R. L. and N. W. Christensen. 1977. Fertilizer Guide. Cereal
grain - irrigated. AG 55.610:26 and AG 55.610:34. Cooperative
Extension Service, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
APPENDIX I
SOIL SERIES DESCRIPTIONS
95
APPENDIX I, SOIL SERIES DESCRIPTIONS
Soil Series Description, Location 577
The Mussel series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed
(calcareous), frigid family of Ustic Torriorthents.
Typically, Mussel
soils have light brownish gray loam A horizons and stratified C horizons
with faint accumulations of calcium carbonate,
Typifying Pedon
Mussel loam - cultivated
Colors are for dry soil unless otherwise noted.
Ap
0-7"— Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)loam, very dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2) moist; weak medium blocky structure;
hard, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
slightly effervescent; moderately alkaline (pH 8.2);clear
smooth boundary.
Clca
(4 to 8 inches thick).
7-41”— Light gray (10YR 7/2) loam, brown (IOYR 5/3) moist; weak
coarse prisms separating to weak platy structure; slightly
hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
common fine roots and tubular pores; common fine filaments
of calcium carbonate; violently effervescent; moderately
alkaline (pH 8.2); clear smooth boundary.
thick).
(30 to 40 inches
96
C2
41-47"— Light brownish gray (IOYR 6/2) loamy sand, dark grayish
brown (10YR 4/2) moist; single grained; loose; 30 percent
by volume of fine gravel? strongly effervescent; moderately
alkaline (pH 8.2); clear smooth boundary.
(5 to 15 inches
thick).
C3
47-59"— Very pale brown (10YR 7/3) silt loam, pale brown (10YR
6/3) moist; massive? slightly hard, very friable, slightly
sticky, slightly plastic; strongly effervescent; moderately
alkaline (pH 8.2); clear smooth boundary.
(10 to 20 inches
thick).
C4
59-73"— Very pale brown (10YR 7/3) sandy loam, brown (10YR 5/3)
moist; massive; slightly hard, very friable, slightly
sticky, slightly plastic; strongly effervescent; moderately
alkaline (pH 8.2).
Type Location
Broadwater County, Montana; 1,300 feet west and 450 feet north of the
SE c o m e r of Sec. 3, T.4N., R.1E.
Range in Characteristics
Mean annual soil temperature ranges from 40° to 47° F.
Calcium carbonate
content ranges from 8 to 12 percent, occurring as filaments and soft
masses in some horizons and disseminated in others.
The A horizon has
hue of IOYR through 5Y, dry value of 5 through 7, moist value of 3
through 5, and chroma of 2 or 3.
It ranges from sandy loam to silt
97
loam, containing 0 to 30 percent coarse fragments, mainly fine gravel.
The C horizon has hue of IOYR through 5Y, dry value of 5 through 7, and
moist value of 4 through 6, and chroma of 2 or 3.
It is stratified
silt loam to loamy sand with loam the dominant texture.
The 10 to 40-
inch section averages 18 to 30 percent clay and 15 to 35 percent fine
and coarser sand.
Subhorizons as much as six inches thick containing
as much as 30 percent by volume of coarse fragments occur in some pedons
Competing Series and Their Differentiae
There are the Delphill, Hillon, and Patent series.
Delphill soils have
platy siltstone bedrock at depths of 20 to 40 inches.
Hillon soils
formed in loam-textured glacial till and have a dry bulk density of 1.7
or greater below depths of about 30 inches.
Patent soils lack a Cca
horizon.
Setting
Mussel soils are on nearly level to sloping fans and terraces at
elevations of 3,800 to 4,500 feet.
alluvium.
They formed in stratified calcarous
The climate is cool, semiarid.
Mean annual temperature is
38° to 45° F.; mean summer temperature is 60° to 65° F.
precipitation is 10 to 14 inches.
Annual
The frost-free period is 90 to 120
days.
Principal Associated Soils
These are the Amesha, Crago, Musselshell and Scravo soils, all of which
have calcium horizons.
Amesha soils have coarse-loamy control sections.
98
Crago soils have loamy-skeletal control sections. Musselshell
soils have carbonatic mineralogy.
Scravo soils have sandy-skeletal
control sections.
Drainage and Permeability
v
Well-drained; slow or medium runoff? moderate permeability.
Use and Vegetation
Mainly dry-farmed to wheat and barley.
Native plants are bluebunch
wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, western wheatgrass, blue grama, prairie
junegrass, and fringed sagewort.
Distribution and Extent
Valleys in western and central Montana.
The soils are moderately
extensive.
Series Established
Broadwater County Area, Montana, 1971
Remarks
Mussel soils were formerly classified as Regosols.
Additional Data
Lincoln Laboratory SVOMont 4-5 and SVOMont 4-6
Soil Series Description, Locations 777 and 876
The Hysham series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed (calcareous),
mesic family of Ustic Torrifluvents.
Typically, Hysham soils are very
strongly alkaline soils with weak horizonation, developed in calcareous,
99
strongly and very strongly alkaline, light yellowish brown, stratified
loam alluvium.
Typifying Pedon
Hysham loam - native grass and shrubs
Colors are for dry soil unless otherwise noted.
Al
0-3"— Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) loam, very dark grayish brown
(2.5Y 3/2) moist; vesicular massive crust as uppermost
1/2 inch with weak thin to thick platy structure below;
soft, very friable; slight effervescence; strongly alkaline
(pH 9.0); abrupt boundary.
B2
(I to 3 inches thick).
3-8"— Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) loam, alive brown
(2.5Y 4/2) and very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) moist;
weak coarse columnar structure; extremely hard, friable,
slightly sticky, slightly plastic; column faces have very
thin coatings that make them very slippery when wet;
insides of columns are slightly sticky and slightly plastic;
strong effervescence; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.5);
clear boundary.
Cl
(0 to 5 inches thick).
8-12"--Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) loam, olive brown
(2.5Y 4/3) and very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) moist;
weak coarse blocky structure; very hard, very friable,
strong effervescence; very strongly alkaline (pH 9.5).
(I to 4 inches thick).
100
C2
12-60"— Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) stratified loam, very
fine sandy loam and silt loam; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3)
moist; massive; slightly hard, very friable; strong ef­
fervescence ; few threads of salt in middle part; very
strongly alkaline (pH 9.3).
Type Location
Treasure County, Montana; 300 feet east and 100 feet north of SW corner
of SE1/4NE1/4 Sec. 24, T.6N., R.24E.
Range in Characteristics
Hysham soils are usually dry between depths of 4 and 12 inches when
soil temperature at a depth of 20 inches is warmer than 41°F., but
they are not dry in all parts above 12 inches for more than 1/2 the time
during this period. Mean annual soil temperature ranges from 47° to 50°
F.. Hue is 10YR through 5Y.
The materials between depths of 10 to 40
inches are loam or clay loam with 20 to 35 percent clay.
horizon has value of 5 or less dry and 3 or less moist.
incipient A2 horizon is present in some pedons.
The Al
A thin
The B2 horizon ranges
from weak medium or coarse columnar to weak medium or coarse blocky
structure with very hard or extremely hard consistence.
In some
pedons there are coatings of brown as streaks or bands on the surface
of the peds.
In some pedons there are mycelial segregations of both
lime and salts.
101
Competing Series and Their Differentiae
These are the Arvada, B a m u m , Bone, Haverson, San Mateo and Vananda
series.
Arvada and Bone soils have distinct horizonation with albic and
natric horizons and have more than 35 percent clay in the control
section.
Bamran soils have hue of 5YR or IOR in the C horizon.
Haverson soils lack very strong alkaline reaction or compact and.
hard consistence of subsurface horizons and they do not have a crusted
surface in cultivated fields.
San Mateo soils are moderately alkaline.
Vananda soils have more than 35 percent clay.
Setting
Hysham soils are on level to sloping alluvial fans and stream
terraces. They formed in calcareous, very strongly alkaline alluvium
of mixed mineral origin.
The climate is cool semiarid with mean
annual temperature ranging from 45° to 50° F., and mean annual precip­
itation ranging from 10 to 14 inches.
Principal Associated Soils
These are the Heldt, Lohmiller, and McRae soils and the competing
Haverson soils.
Heldt soils have more than 35 percent clay in the con­
trol section and have less than 15 percent exchangeable sodium in the
subsoil. Lohmiller soils are fine textured, light colored soils of
the valley bottom lands.
McRae soils have cambiv horizons and Cca
horizons.
S
102
Drainage and Permeability
WeII-drained; slow permeability.
Use and Vegetation
Used mainly as native pasture.
Some areas are in cultivation, but
poor crops reflect the high alkali and salt conditions in the soil.
Vegetation is mainly western wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, sagebrush,
greasewood, and pricklypear.
Distribution and Extent
Moderately extensive in southeastern Montana.
Series Established
Treasure County, Montana, 1961.
Remarks
Hysham soils were formerly classified as Alluvial soils.
APPENDIX II, YIELD AND N UPTAKE DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
SPRING WHEAT AT LOCATION 577
Table 28.
Irrigated Newana spring wheat yield, yield components, as influenced by N
fertilizer rates, sources, and amount of N applied at irrigation. Robert
___________Hensley location - experiment 577________________________________________
TMT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
_________ Fertilizer Treatments______________
Nitrogen (kg/ha)_________
P
K
banded
bdc. @
w.seed
Irrigation1^
Total
Bdc. @
planting
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
N
(kg/ha)
(kg/ha)
n 2/
Source
„
100
100
100
—
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
100
—
—
—
25
—
50
25
—
—
25
—
25
—
—
——
—
—
25
100
100
100
—
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
—
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
45
45
—
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
Grain
Yield
(kg/ha)
3746
3967
3188
4775
3300
4462
4948
4291
4026
3887
4314
4499
4180
4065
3728
3921
NS
1^Ammonium nitrate broadcast just prior to irrigation: 1st - 6/1/77 - tillering.
2nd - 6/21/77 - last leaf visible, 3rd - 7/7/77 - ears out.
2/
AN-ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), UR-urea (46-0-0), ANS-ammonium nitrate sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S), UAS-urea ammonium sulfate (40-0-0-6 S).
Table 28.
TMT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
Total Dry
Matter Yield
(kg/ha)
6956
7357
7148
9228
6173
8385
9315
8543
8377
7714
8566
8532
7754
7830
8276
7787
HS
Test
Weight
(kg/hl)
Grain
Protein
%
Plant
Height
cm
80.7
80.0
74.9
79.5
80.3
80.4
79.9
77.3
78.3
79.0
79.5
78.7
76.5
77.8
78.0
79.3
NS
11.0
13.5
14.2
13.3
10.8
11.8
13.0
14.4
13.6
13.7
12.7
13.3
13.6
13.9
13.5
14.5
NS
77.3
79.7
77.7
81.0
76.0
79.3
83.0
85.7
83.0
81.7
79.7
83.0
81.3
82.0
78.0
80.3
NS
Spikes/m
of row
121.8
152.2
146.5
190.2
141.8
154.0
202.3
156.0
172.2
187.8
156.0
167.5
144.7
189.8
164.2
147.5
NS
Yield Components
1000
Kernels/ Kernel wt.
spike
(q)
23.8
21.1
20.9
21.2
18.9
22.7
20.3
24.8
21.0
17.3
22.7
24.1
28.7
19.6
21.4
21.6
NS
39.4
37.8
32.4
36.7
37.9
39.5
36.6
33.8
34.3
36.4
37.1
34.3
31.6
33.5
34.4
37.8
NS
Grain
wt/spike
(g)
.939
.797
.667
.780
.715
.893
.744
.827
.727
.628
.845
.826
.905
.655
.723
.816
NS
106
Table 29.
Analysis of variance for grain yield (Ibs/a) at spring
wheat location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean. Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
106991.521
8076076.064
13588110.303
21771177.889
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
53495.761
538405.071
452937.010
.118
1.189
549.507 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 30.
Analysis of variance for total spring wheat dry matter yield
(Ibs/a) at location 577
Source
Sum Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
1259469.845
24556492.862
35099534.697
60915497.404
DF
Mean Square
F
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
629734.923
1637099,524
1169984.490
.538
1.399
883.170= Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 31.
Source
)
Reps*
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance for test weight(Ibs/bu) of spring wheat
at location 577
Sum Square
2.069
67.563
86.636
156.268
DF
Mean Square
F
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
1.035
4.504
2.888
.358
1.560
1.388= Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
107
Table 32.
Source
Analysis of variance of spring wheat protein percentage at
location 577
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
I
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
3.316
54.747
55.024
113.086
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
1.658
3.650
1.834
.904
I .990
1.106= Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table. 33. Analysis of variance of the number of heads per meter of row
•
_________ for spring wheat at location 577_____ ______________________
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
2196.259
20891.222
19380.573
42468.054
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
1098.129
1392.748
646.019
1.700
2.156
20.753= Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 34 .
Analysis of variance for plant height (cm) of spring wheat
at location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
81.167
291.917
746.833 .
1119.917
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
40.583
19.461
24.894
1.630
.782
4.074= Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
108
Table 35. Analysis of variance for 1000 kernel weight (g) of spring
~
______ wheat at location 577_________ ______ ___________________
Source
■ Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
15.983
26.2.910
349.528
628.421
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
Mean Square
7.992
17.527
11.651
F
.686
1.504
2.787 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 36.
Analysis of variance for the number of kernels per head for
spring wheat at location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
25.856
317.083
548.867
891.807
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
12.928
21.139
18.296
.707
1.155
3.492=Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 37. Analysis of Variance for the grain weight per head for
___________spring wheat at location 577__________________________
Source
Sum Square
DF
Meam Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.060
.381
.735
1.176
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
.030
.025
.024
.128 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
F ■
1.229
1.037
Table 38.
Irrigated Newana spring wheat nitrogen uptake as influenced by N fertilizer
rates, sources, and amount of N applied at irrigation. Robert Hensley
___________ location - experiment 577____________________________________________ _____
__________________________Fertilizer Treatments___________________ _
_________Nitrogen (kg/ha)___________
P
K
.
banded
bdc. @
Bdc. @
Irrigation
Total
w/seed
planting
N
TMT_________Planting
1st
2nd
3rd_____N_________ (kg/ha)_____ (kg/ha)_____ Source
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
——
100
100
100
——
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
100
100
100
100
25
— —
50
25
——
——
25
—
25
——
—
—
—
——
25
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
—
—
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
—
45
45
—
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
——
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
^Ammonium nitrate broadcast just prior to irrigation: 1st - 6/1/77 - tillering,
2nd - 6/21/77 - last leaf visible, 3rd - 7/7/77 - ears out.
2^AN - ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), UR - urea (46-0-0), ANS - ammonium nitrate sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S), UAS - urea ammonium sulfate (40-0-0-6 S).
Table 38. (Continued)
TffT
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
—
1.64
1.99
3.12
3.42
2.49
458.7
—
—
——
333.2
411.6
282.3
435.2
392.0
5.55
—
——
—
5.46
8.19
8.81
14.88
9.76
2.53
3.24
1.90
2.49
2.46
.96
454.8
317.5
364.6
411.6
501.8
NS
11.51
10.29
6.93
10.25
12.34
4.16
1.21
— 4/
— —
—
3rd Irrigation
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
1.13
1.69
2.13
2.05
1.33
1.67
2.24
2.46
1.96
933.1
1255.0
921.3
1239.0
987.9
1074.0
960.5
1149.0
1003.6
10.57
21.21
19.42
27.75
13.23
17.18
19.81
26.16
20.08
1.75
2.35
1.83
2.09
1.20
.64
1215.0
917.4
1153.0
933.1
1055.0
NS
21.56
19.59
22.18
18.49
12.30
NS
N Content
%
3^No samples were taken at the first irrigation because of the small size of the plants
at that time.
4/
Thesepiots were not sampled.
lie
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
2nd Irrigation3^
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
N Content
%
Table 38.
TMT
N Content
%
2.00
2.12
2.44
2.36
2.08
1.99
2.31
2.43
2.38
2.26
2 -545/
2.26?/
2 -39V
2.54V
NS
Grain
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
3746
3967
3188
4775
3300
4462
4948
4291
4026
3887
4314
4499
4180
4065
3728
3921
NS
5/
Average of two subsamples.
6/
Average of three subsamples
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
74.9
84.1
77.8
112.7
68.6
88.8
114.3
104.3
95.8
87.8
93.6
95.8
106.2
91.9
89.1
99.6
NS
N Content
%
.28
.31
.46
.45
.29
.29
.49
.61
.53
.39
*416/
::::
.17
Straw
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
3210
3390
3960
4453
2873
3923
4367
4252
4351
3826
4252
4033
3574
3764
4548
3866
NS
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
9.0
10.5
18.2
20.0
8.3
11.4
21.4
25.9
23.1
14.9
18.3
15.3
18.6
15.4
20.9
21.3
NS
111
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
112
Table 39. Analysis of variance of N content (%) at the second
___________irrigation of spring wheat at location 577_________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
.595
14.618
6.677
21.890
DF
Mean Square
F
2
10
20
32
1.4618
.3339
4.38**
.47 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 40. Analysis of variance of spring wheat dry matter production
___________ (kg/ha) at the second irrigation at location 577__________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
16020
13390
183500
333400
DF
Mean Square
F
2
10
20
32
13390
9177
1.450
78.2 « Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 41.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat N uptake (kg/ha)
at the second irrigation at location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
3.000
237.113
119.410
369.522
2
10
20
32
24.711
5.971
2.00 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
AA
Significant at the .01 probability level
.F
4.13**
113
Table 42.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of N content (%) at the third
irrigation of spring wheat at location 577
Sum Square
.315
6.979
3.649
10.942
DF
Mean Square
F .
2
13
26
41
.5368
.1403
3.82**
.31 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 43. Analysis of variance of spring wheat dry matter production
___________ (kg/ha) at the third irrigation at location 577__________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
66,929.3
601,687.0
3,305,353.5
3,973,969.8
DF
Mean Square
2
13
26
41
33,464.7
46,283.6
127,129.0
F
.3643
303 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 44.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of spring wheat N uptake (kg/ha) at
the third irrigation at location 577
Sum Square
8.3
904.5
1046.3
1959.1
DF
Meam Square
F
2
13
26
41
69.58
40.24
1.73
5.2 - Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
114
Table 45.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of spring wheat grain N content (%)
at harvest at location 577
Sum Square
.1156
1.4267
2.3401
3.8824
DF
Mean Square
F
2
15
30
47
.0951
.0780
1.22
.23 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 46.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat grain N uptake
(kg/ha) at harvest at location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
257.1
5827.4
8307.7
14,392.0
2
15
30
47
288.49
276.92
1.40
13.6 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 47.
Analysis of variance of N content (%) of spring wheat straw
at harvest at location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.0075
.4543
.4536
.9154
2
15
30
47
.0303
.0151
2.00*
.I = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
* Significant at the .05 probability level
115
Table 48.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat straw dry matter
(kg/ha) at harvest at location 577
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
1,877,652.6
9,910,614.4
15,365,200.7
27,153,467.7
2
15
30
47
■
Mean Square
F
660,707.6
512,173.4
1.29
584.3 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 49. Analysis of variance for spring wheat straw N uptake
___________ (kg/ha) at harvest at location 577___________.
______
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
20.8
1193.0
1297.0
2511.0
DF
Mean Square
F
2
15
30
47
79.56
43.24
1.84
5.4 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
APPENDIX III, YIELD AND N UPTAKE DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
SPRING WHEAT AT LOCATION 777
Table 50.
Irrigated Newana spring wheat yield, yield components, as influenced by N
fertilizer rates, sources, and amount of N applied at irrigation. Earle
__________ Wallingford location - experiment 777____________________________________
TMT
——
100
100
100
——
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
100
——
-
-
25
—
50
25
—
—
25
—
25
——
——
—
—
25
n 2/
Source
——
-
-
K
Bdc. @
Planting
(kg/ha)
100
100
100
——
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
45
45
——
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
Grain
Yield
(kg/ha)
926
3310
3435
4247
1099
2310
4010
4845
3764
3794
3540
3531
3554
2963
2994
4163
728
^Ammonium nitrate broadcast just prior to irrigation on: 1st - 6/24/77 - ears visible,
2nd - 7/2/77 - flowering, 3rd - 7/19/77 - watery kernel.
2/
AN-ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), UR-urea (46-0-0), ANS-ammonium nitrate sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S), UAS-urea ammonium sulfate (40-0-0-6 S).
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
Fertilizer Treatments
P
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
banded
Total
w.seed
Bdc. @
Irrigation^
N
1st
2nd
3rd
(kg/ha)
Planting
TMT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
Total Dry
Matter Yield
(kg/ha)
1776
6396
6662
8009
2061
4539
7418
8828
6921
7180
6566
6735
6692
5802
5934
7859
1248
Test
Weight
(kg/hl)
79.0
79.0
79.5
79.3
79.9
78.9
79.0
78.9
79.3
79.1
78.7
79.0
79.3
78.0
78.0
79.8
0.98
Grain
Plant
Protein Height
%
cm
12.0
10.3
10.8
10.9
13.2
10.1
11.1
12.4
11.6
10.3
11.2
12.3
12.0
13.3
14.8
11.6
1.35
69.3
73.3
73.0
78.7
60.7
64.0
74.0
73.7
62.3
67.0
73.7
76.7
70.3
71.0
70.7
75.3
10.4
Spikes/m
of row
49.0
140.8
109.3
146.3
50.2
87.7
105.5
166.5
144.2
126.2
102.2
93.3
111.0
86.0
84.0
117.2
36.2
Yield Components
1000
Kernels/ Kernel wt.
spike
(q)
14.4
18.1
24.0
21.4
17.8
20.9
21.0
22.9
20.5
24.7
26.7
28.6
22.7
24.5
24.9
28.9
9.7
40.2
40.1
40.5
41.6
39.8
39.7
39.8
40.1
40.9
40.1
40.3
42.4
42.9
43.8
44.2
41.1
1.6
Grain
wt/spike
(g)
.578
.725
.970
.891
.702
.829
1.152
.918
.836
.986
1.078
1.215
.976
1.070
1.100
1.184
0.392
8 IT
Table 50.
119
Table 51.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance for spring wheat grain yield (Ibs/a)
at location 777
Sum Square
396681.966
40234901.743
4554009.169
45185592.878
DF
Mean Square
F
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
198340.983
2682326.783
151800.306
1.307
17.670**
318.120 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means.
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 52.
Analysis of variance <jf spring wheat total dry matter
production (Ibs/a) at location 777
Source
. Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
220784.842
134875930.675
13366493.851
148463209.368
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
110392.421
8991728.712
445549.795
.248
20 .181**
545.007 * Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 53.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance for spring wheat test weight (Ibs/bu)
at location 777
Sum Square
2.282
7.382
6.179
15.843
DF
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
.
Mean Square
F
1.141
.492
.206
5.539
2.389*
.371 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
* Significant at the .05 probability level
120
Table 54.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of spring wheat protein percentage
at location 777
Sum Square
.395
72.092
13.714
86.201
DF
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
F
Mean Square
.197
4.806
.457
.432
10.514**
.552 so standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 55. Analysis of variance of the number of heads of spring wheat
._________per meter of row at location 777___________________________
Source
Sum Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
3129.094
48795.018
14100.782
66024.894
DF
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
Mean Square
.1564.547
3253.001
470.026
F
3.329
6.921**
17.702 == Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 56.
Analysis of variance of spring wheat plant height (cm) at
location 777
Source
Sum Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
38.792
1176.646
1162.542
2377.979
DF
Mean Square
F
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
19.396
78.443
38.751
.501
2.024
5.083 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
121
Table 57.
Analysis o f variance o f 1000 k e rnel w e i g h t
at location 777
(g) spring w h e a t
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
11.387
96.570
26.402
134.358
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
5.693
6.438
.880
F
6.469
7.315**
.766 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 58.
Analysis of variance of the number of kernels per head of
spring wheat at location 777
Source
Sum Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
228.439
795.758
1012.744
2036.941
DF
Mean Square
F
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
114.220
53.051
33.758
3.383
1.571
4.744 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 59.
Analysis of variance for the grain weight per head for
spring wheat at location 777
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
.Error
Total
.351
1.513
1.665
3.529
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
Mean Square .
.175
.101
.056
.192 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
F
3.158
1.817
Table 60.
Irrigated Newana spring wheat nitrogen uptake as influenced by N fertilizer
rates, sources, and amount of N applied at irrigation. Earle Wallingford
___________ location - experiment 777__________________________________________________
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
TMT
Irrigation1^
1st 2nd 3rd
K
Bdc. @
Planting
(kg/ha)
n 2/
Source
—
100
100
100
——
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
100
——
—
—
25
——
50
25
—
—
25
—
25
—
——
—
——
—
25
100
100
100
—
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
AN
AN
AN
——
AN
AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
1^Airanonium nitrate broadcast just prior to irrigation on: 1st - 6/24/77 - ears visible,
2nd - 7/2/77 - flowering, 3rd - 7/19/77 - watery kernel.
2/
AN - ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), UR - urea (46-0-0), ANS - ammonium nitrate sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S), UAS - urea ammonium sulfate (40-0-0-6 S).
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
Bdc. @
Planting
Fertilizer Treatments
P
banded
w.seed
Total
(kg/ha)
N
Table 60.
(Continued)
_____1st Irrigation______ _____ 2nd Irrigation______ _____3rd Irrigation_____
N
Dry
N
N
Dry
N
N
Dry
N
Content Matter
Uptake
Content Matter
Uptake
Content Matter
Uptake
TMT_______ %_____ (kg/ha)
(kg/ha)_____ %_____ (kg/ha)
(kg/ha)_____ %_____ (kg/ha)
(kg/ha)
2.66
2.74
2.91
2.76
2.46
1.98
2.40
3.17
2.43
86.3
356.8
348.9
342.9
66.7
337.2
411.6
439.1
474.1
2.29
9.83
10.12
9.40
1.59
6.73
9.97
13.94
11.67
1.70
1.90
1.92
1.82
1.80
1.39
1.65
2.28
1.83
168.6
776.2
537.1
576.3
199.9
611.6
642.9
603.7
509.6
2.82
14.99
10.30
10.53
3.54
8.61
10.49
13.64
9.31
1.47
1.16
1.32
1.25
1.37
.96
1.12
1.33
1.28
250.9
909.5
756.6
1023.0
278.3
882.1
784.1
1047.0
929.1
3.67
10.37
10.66
13.34
3.75
8.49
8.91
13.91
12.23
2.34
2.44
1.87
2.05
2.65
.44
423.4
357.4
329.3
297.9
372.4
118.3
9.79
8.65
6.14
6.07
9.85
3.47
1.70
1.69
1.53
1.50
2.20
.42
595.9
627.3
505.7
478.3
564.5
240.6
10.20
10.48
7.65
7.06
12.34
4.45
1.10
1.16
1.42
1.45
1.14
.27
788.0
854.6
494.0
811.5
690.0
390.6
8.68
9.78
7.05
11.28
8.42
5.65
123
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
Table 60.
TMT
N
Content
%
2.40
2.12
2.04
1.64
2.31
1.71
1.69
1.95
1.98
1.73
1.92
2.03
2.22
2.54
2.69
2.15
.22
Grain
Dry
Matter
(kg/ha)
N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
N
Content
%
Straw
Dry
Matter
(kg/ha)
N
Uptake
(kg/ha)
926
3310
3455
4747
1099
2310
4010
4845
3764
3794
3540
3531
3554
2963
2994
4163
728
22.2
70.2
70.5
69.7
25.4
39.5
67.8
94.5
74.5
65.6
68.0
71.7
78.9
75.3
80.5
89.5
14.0
.44
.54
.43
.36
.51
.31
.35
.45
.39
.44
.34
.37
.42
.37
.46
.41
.08
850
3087
3207
3762
962
2229
3408
3983
3157
3386
3026
3204
3138
2839
2941
3696
464
3.7
16.7
13.8
13.5
4.9
6.9
11.9
17.9
12.3
14.9
10.3
11.9
13.2
10.5
13.5
15.2
4.5
124
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
125
Table 61.
Analysis of variance of the total N content (%) of spring
wheat at the first irrigation at location 777
Source
Sum Sguare
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.0290
5.1118
1.5810
6.9918
2
13
26
41
.3932
.0712
5.52*6
.22 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 62. Analysis of variance of total dry matter production (kg/ha)
___________of spring wheat at the first irrigation at location 777
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
. F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
2,299.8
545,190.0
130,960.0
678,450.0
2
13
26
41
4193.8
5036.8
8.33*6
58.0 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 63. Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha) at the first
___________irrigation by spring wheat at location 777_________________
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
2.37
452.35
110.79
565.51
2
13
26
41
34.80
4.26
8.17*6
1.69 = S t a n d a r d e r r o r for any two ferti l i z e r t r e a tment m e a n s
** Significant at the
.01 p r o b a b i l i t y level
\
126
Table 64.
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of spring wheat
at the second irrigation at location 777
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.2537
2.3606
1.6507
4.2651
2
13
26
41
Mean Square
. .1816
.0635
F
2.86»
.21 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
* Significant at the .05 probability level
I
Table 65 . Analysis of variance, of total dry matter production (kg/ha)
of spring wheat at the second irrigation at location 777
Source
Reps.
Tirts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
43,390
1.038.000
534,100
1.615.000
DF
Mean Square
F
2
13
26
41
79,800
20,540
3.89**
117.0 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 66
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha) at the
second irrigation by spring wheat at location 777
Sum Squares
18.46
448.93
182.83
650.22
DF
2
13
26
. 41
Mean Square
34.533
7.032
2.17 = S t a ndard e r r o r for any t wo fertil i z e r tr e a t m e n t means
** Signif i c a n t at the
.01 p r o b a b i l i t y level
F
4.91**
127
Table 67,
Analysis o f variance of total N content (%) o f spring
_____________w h e a t at the third i rrigation at location 777_________
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
1.03
.91
.68
1.62
2
13
26
41
F
Mean Square
.07
.026
.13 - Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
2.67*
I
* Significant at the .05 probability level
Table 68 .
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of total dry matter production (kg/ha)
of spring wheat at the third irrigation at location 777
Sum Square
29,100
2,387,000
1,408,000
3,824,000
DF
Mean Square
F
2
13
26
41
183,600
54,140
3.39**
190.0 =. Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 69.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha) at the third
irrigation by spring wheat at location 777
Sum Square
2.38
368.48
294.88
665.74
DF
Mean Square
F
2
13
26
41
28.345
11.342
2.50*
2.8 = S t a n d a r d e r r o r for any two f e r t i l i z e r tr e a t m e n t m e a n s
* Signif i c a n t at the
.05 probab i l i t y level
128
Table 70.
Analysis o f variance of g rain N content
at h a r v e s t at location 777
(%) of spring w h e a t
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.1620
4.3010
.5178
4.9808
2
15
30
47
.28673
.01726
F
16.6**
.11 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table '71.
Analysis of variance of grain N uptake (kg/ha) at harvest
by spring wheat at location 777
Source
. Sum Square
DF
Meem Square
F
Reps.
Trts. .
Error
Total
212
14,927
2,129
17,268
2
15
30
47
995.16
70.95
14.0**
6.9 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 72.
Analysis of variance of straw N content (%) of spring wheat
at harvest at location 777
Source
Sum Square
DF
Meam Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.0091
.1787
.1310
.3188
2
15
30
47
.0119
.0044
.05 = S t a ndard e r r o r for any two f e r t i l i z e r treatment m e a n s
** Signif i c a n t at the
.01 p r o b a b i l i t y level
F
2.73*6
129
Table 73. Analysis of variance of straw dry matter production (kg/ha)
___________by spring wheat at harvest at location 777______ _______ '
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
33,725.4
35,412,421.3
3,361,139.3
38,807,286.0
2
15
30
47
2,360,828.1
112,038.0
F
21,07**
273.3 - Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
2
15
30
47
46.80
7.28
6.43**
CD
Source
Analysis of variance of N uptake (kg/ha) by the straw of
spring wheat at harvest at location 777
00
Table 74.
702.1
218.5
929.3
2.2 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
APPENDIX IV, YIELD AND N UPTAKE DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
______BARLEY AT LOCATION 876 ___________________
'
Irrigated Shabet barley yield, yield components, and grain uptake of nitrogen
as influenced by N fertilizer rates, sources, and amount of N applied at
___________irrigation. Earle Wallingford location - experiment 876_____________________
TMT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
Fertilizer Treatments
P
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
Banded
Total w.seed
Bdc. @
Irrigation1^
N
(kg/ha)
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
— —
■ —
100
100
100
100
100
100
—
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
25
K
Bdc. @
Planting
(kg/ha)
25
—
50
25
50
25
——
——
— —
25
25
—
—
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
——
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
45
45
—
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
n 2/
Source
— —
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
Grain
Yield
(kg/ha)
Total Dry
Matter Yield
(kg/ha)
1119
4532
4383
4351
1240
3021
4246
4568
4857
4007
3995
4395
4171
4152
3695
4107
613
2023
8397
8058
8691
2065
5354
8633
9120
8954
7998
7598
8047
7907
8101
6586
7977
1039
^Ammonium nitrate broadcast just prior to irrigation: 1st - 6/1/77 - tillering,
2nd - 6/21/77 - last leaf visible, 3rd - 7/7/77 - ears out.
2/
AN - ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), UR - urea (46-0-0), ANS - ammonium nitrate sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S), UAS - urea ammonium sulfate (40-0-0-6 S).
ILT
Table 75.
Table 75.
TMT
Test
Weight
(kg/ha)
Grain
Protein
%
Grain
Plumpness
%
67.3
65.3
65.1
65.2
68.0
65.2
65.1
65.1
65.1
65.3
65.7
66.4
65.8
66.2
66.5
64.8
1.43
9.6
8.1
8.7
8.9
9.5
7.3
9.4
9.4
8.4
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.3
10.0
10.2
10.6
1.06
96.9
94.5
94.8
94.4
97.0
97.5
94.6
91.2
92.9
96.9
92.2
97.5
98.0
96.9
97.2
93.2
3.97
= all down; 5 = none down.
Lodging3^
Score
1.0
3.3
2.0
4.2
1.0
1.0
2.8
5.0
3.7
2.3
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.73
Plant
Height
cm
49.7
81.3
79.0
81.3
49.7
67.7
78.7
81.3
81.0
77.0
88.0
74.3
72.0
69.3
67.0
58.7
9.5
132
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
Table 75.
(Continued)
Yield Components
TMT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Kernels/
spike
73.3
115.2
112.2
156.2
48.0
119.0
118.0
140.2
157.8
140.0
131.8
116.2
104.8
140.0
157.5
180.5
52.7
12.0
29.3
24.9
17.1
15.4
15.7
24.0
20.0
18.6
17.8
19.0
22.4
26.6
18.6
15.4
13.0
10.6
1000
Kernel wt.
(g)
Grain
wt/spike
(9)
49.9
50.3
49.7
50.3
51.0
49.7
51.1
49.8
50.7
49.4
49.4
52.3
50.9
53.1
51.7
54.0
1.9
.603
1.488
1.238
.856
.786
.781
1.221
.993
.945
.880
.938
1.172
1.353
.985
.792
.700
0.55
133
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
Spikes/m
of row
134
Table 76.
Analysis of variance of barley grain yield (Ibs/a) at
location 876
Source
Sum Square
DP
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
102840.490
43529142.174
3227808.904
46859791.568
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
51420.245
2901942.812
107593.630
F
.478
26.971**
-
267.823 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 77.
______
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of total dry matter yield (Ibs/a) of
barley at location 876___________________________ _______
Sum Square
384831.652
175669956.239
9263597.894
185318385.786
DF
Mean Square
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
192415.826
11711330.416
308786.596
F
.623
37.927**
453.715 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 78.
Analysis of variance of test weight (Ibs/bu) of barley at
location 876
Souirce
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
23.800
22.261
13.346
59.407
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
11.900
1.484
.445
.545 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
F
26.749
3.336**
13 5
Table 79.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of barley protein percentage at
location 876
Sum Square
,
5.929
34.061
12.211
52.200
DF
2.000
15.000
• 30.000
47.000
Mean Square
2.964
2.271
.407
F.
7.283
5.579**
.521 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 80.
Analysis of variance of percent plump kernels of barley at
location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
30.345
210.191
170.262
410.797
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
15.172
14.013
5.675
2.673
2.469*
1.945 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
* Significant at the .05 probability level
Table 81.
Source
Sum Square
O
CN
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total .
Analysis of variance of lodging scores of barley at
location 876
78.98
5.80
84.98
DF
Mean Square
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
5.265
.193
.36 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
/
F
27.23*6
136
Table 82.
Analysis of variance of the number of barley heads per
meter of row at location 876
Source
Sum Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
10498.878
49005.176
28313.084
87817.139
DF
Mean Square
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
5249.439
3267.012
943.769
F
5.562
3.462*6
25.083 == Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 83.
Analysis of variance of plant height (cm) of barley at
location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Meem Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
102.375
5842.333
976.292
6921.000
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
51.187
389.489
32.543
F
1.573
11.968**
.
4.658 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 84.
Analysis of variance of: barley 1000 kernel weight
location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
5.472
81.591
38.324
125.386
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
2.736
5.439
1.277
.923 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
'(g) at
F
2.142
4.258*6
137
Table 85.
Analysis of variance of the number of kernels per head of
barley at location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
230.705
1084.121
1214.461
2529.287
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
115.353
72.275
40.482
F
2.849
1.785
5.195 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 86. Analysis of variance for the grain weight per head for
________ barley at location 876
___________________ _________
■
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.675
2.761
3.233
6.669
2.000
15.000
30.000
47.000
.337
a 84
.108
3.130
1.709
.268 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 87.
TMT
Fertilizer Treatments
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
P
./
Banded
Irrigation
Total
w .seed
Bdc. @
N
(kg/ha)
Planting 1st 2nd 3rd
——
100
100
100
—
50
100
150
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
25
——
——
——
——
—
—
25
——
50
25
50
——
25
—
25
25
——
——
——
—
——
——
100
100
100
——
50
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
——
—
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
K
Bdc. @
Planting
(kg/ha)
—
45
45
——
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
n 2/
Source
——
AN
AN
AN
——
AN
AN
AN
UR
ANS
UAS
AN
AN
AN
AN
AN
1^Ammonium nitrate broadcast just prior to irrigation: 1st - 6/1/77 - tillering,
2nd - 6/21/77 - last leaf visible, 3rd - 7/7/77 - ears out.
2/
AN - ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), UR - urea (46-0-0), ANS - ammonium nitrate sulfate
(30-0-0-6.5 S), UAS - urea ammonium sulfate (40-0-0-6 S) .
138
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
Irrigated Shabet barley N uptake as influenced by N fertilizer rates,
sources and amount of N applied at irrigation. Earle Wallingford
location - experiment 876________________________________________
Table 87.
TMT
1st Irrigation
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
2.09
2.23
1.74
1.77
1.83
1.64
2.01
2.48
1.84
176.42
1085.95
1125.15
1544.63
262.67
1066.34
1203.56
1650.48
991.86
3.69
23.89
19.57
27.34
4.81
17.49
24.19
40.93
18.25
1.60
1.66
1.74
1.73
1.54
.47
1070.27
1105.55
1254.52
1058.50
674.31
324.2
17.12
18.35
21.83
18.36
10.38
8.25
N Content
%
2nd Irrigation
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
1.32
1.34
1.21
1.16
1.25
1.06
1.39
1.31
1.23
337.15
1944.51
1623.04
2093.49
395.96
1058.50
2375.75
1881.79
1470.15
4.45
26.03
19.64
24.28
4.95
11.22
33.02
24.65
18.08
1.32
1.19
1.35
1.43
1.43
NS
1842.58
1450.54
1462.30
1803.38
995.78
615.2
24.32
17.26
19.74
27.79
14.24
8.69
N Content
%
139
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
Table 87.
TMT
N Content
%
.96
.84
.98
.79
.90
.76
.89
1.02
.79
——
——
.95
.96
1.00
1.26
1.35
.23
3rd Irrigation
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
387.72
2242.46
2881.49
2724.67
788.00
2234.62
2932.21
2881.49
3061.82
——
——
2932.45
2948.13
2019.00
2783.48
1834.74
587.6
3.72
18.84
28.24
21.52
7.09
16.98
26.10
29.39
24.19
——
——
27.86
28.30
20.19
35.07
24.77
10.76
N Content
%
1.51
1.42
1.59
1.53
1.59
1.55
1.37
1.66
1.45
1.30
1.44
1.53
1.56
1.62
1.56
1.86
.09
Grain
Dry Matter
(kg/ha)
1119
4532
4383
4351
1240
3021
4246
4568
4857
4007
3995
4395
4171
4152
3695
4107
613
N Uptake
(kg/ha)
16.9
64.4
69.7
66.6
19.7
46.8
58.2
75.8
70.4
52.1
57.5
67.2
65.1
67.3
57.6
76.4
14.0
140
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LSD.05
(Continued)
141
Table 88.
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of barley at
the first irrigation at location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.2339
2.7071
2.0652
5.0063
2
13
26
41
.2082
.0794
F
2.62*
.23 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
* Significant at the .05 probability level
Table 89. Analysis of variance of total dry matter production (kg/ha)
___________at the first irrigation by barley at location 8 7 6 ______
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
21,550
7,587,000
969,800
, 7,579,000
DF
Mean Square
2
13
26
41
506,700
37,300
F
13.59**
157.7 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 90. Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha) at the
___________ first irrigation by barley at location 876___________
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
79.15
3437.20
627.90
4144.30
2
13
26
41
Mean Square
264.40
24.15
4.0 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
F
10.9**
Table 91.
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of barley at the
second irrigation at location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.0273
.4347
.6067
1.0686
2
13
26
41
.0334
.0233
1.43
.12 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 92. Analysis of variance of total dry matter production (kg/ha)
___________at the second irrigation by barley at location 8 7 6 _____
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
59,890
14,120,000
3,491,000
17,670,000
DF
2
13
26
41
Mean Square
1,086,000
134,300
F
8.09**
299.2 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 93. Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha) at the
_______ second irrigation by barley at location 876_____________
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
11.1
2628.2
696.9
3336.2
2
13
26
41
Mean Square
202.17
26.80
4.23 = Standard error for any. two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
F
7.54**
143
Table 94.
Analysis of variance of total N content (%) of barley at
the third irrigation at location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
F
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.0063
1.1095
.5075
1.6233
2
13
26
41
.0853
.0195
4.37**
.11 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 95. Analysis of variance of total dry matter production (kg/ha)
___________at the third irrigation by barley at location 876_________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
477,700
26,240,000
3,184,000
29,900,000
DF
Mean Square
2
13
26
41
2,018,000
122,500
F
16.48**
285.8 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 96.
Analysis of variance of total N uptake (kg/ha) at the third
irrigation by barley at location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
20.6
3223.8
1069.8
4314.3
2
13
26
41
Mean Square
247.98
41.15
5.24 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
F
6.06**
144
TcJole 97.
Analysis of variance of grain N content (%) of barley at
harvest at location 876
Source
Sum Square
DF
Mean Square
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
.1507
.7258
.3666
1.2431
2
15
30
47
.0484
.0122
F
3.96**
.18 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
Table 98.
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Analysis of variance of grain N uptake (kg/ha) by barley
at harvest at location 876
Sum Square
250.4
11019.0
1675.9
12745.0
DF
Mean Square
2
15
30
47
734.6
55.9
6.1 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
** Significant at the .01 probability level
F
13.1**
APPENDIX V, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF FERTILIZER N.
_______UPTAKE AT LOCATIONS .'577, 777, 876'
146
APPENDIX V, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF FERTILIZER N UPTAKE AT
____________LOCATIONS 577, 777, 876_______________ _______
Table 99. Analysis of variance of amount of grain N (S) that was taken.
_.________ up from applied N fertilizer at location 577________ ________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
3,509
3,434
5,729
12,670
DF
2
13
26
41
F
Mean Square
*
264.1
220.4
1.199
12.1 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 100. Analysis of variance of amount of straw N (%) that was taken
__________ up from applied N fertilizer at location 577_________________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
107.5
418.9
1131.0
1657.0
DF
Mean Square
F
2
13
26
41
32.22
43.50
.7408
5.4 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
Table 101. Analysis of variance of amount of grain N (%) that was taken
___________ up from applied fertilizer N at location 777_______________
Source
Reps.
Trts.
Error
Total
Sum Square
421.5
1754.0
2554.0
4730.0
DF
2
13
26
41
Mean Square
134.90
98.24
8.1 = Standard error for any two fertilizer treatment means
F
1.373