Institute for Ag Professionals

Institute for Ag Professionals Proceedings 2016 Crop Pest Management Short Course & Minnesota Crop Production Retailers Association Trade Show http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/ag-professionals/ Do not reproduce or redistribute without the written consent of author(s).

Are you getting the most out of your beans? A maturity group update Seth Naeve Extension Soybean Agronomist University of Minnesota

Outline Planting date effects on soybean yield Maturity group (MG) selection for soybean Planting date x maturity interactions Soybean seed treatments

Planting date Is planting date really that important in soybean? What is the yield penalty for late planted soybean?

DeBruin and Pedersen, 2008 Mean 1.0 bu/a/wk 2.0 bu/a/wk 6.0 bu/a/wk

Egli and Cornelius, 2009

~1% per day

Planting Date summary April planting may provide some upside, but comes with additional downside risk. Early (1 st week of May) provides the greatest chance of maximum yields Yield penalties for delays through May are small Culminate in a 10% (~6 bu.) penalty for June 1 planting Delays past June 1 are costly (~1% per day). July 1 planting should give a 60% yield

Soybean Maturity Groups Scott and Aldrich (1970) codified the modern soybean MG system with 10 MGs from 00 to VIII 13 MG are now recognized Both temperature and photoperiod affect soybean s reproduction and development But, because early development is more heavily driven by photoperiod, latitude is a larger diver of zones of adaptation than temp.

Scott and Aldrich, 1970

Modifications of Optimum Adaptation Zones for Soybean Maturity Groups in the USA Zhang et. al. 2007

139 locations 1998-2003 Region Latitude Planting period States included North > 46 5/15 6/25 ND, MN (n) North-central 46-42 5/05 6/20 SD, MN (s), IA (n), WI, MI, NE (n), NY Central 42-38 4/25 6/15 OK, IA (s), NE (s), IL, KS (n), MO(n), OH, IN, PA, WA, VA (n), NJ, DE, MD South-central 38-34 4/15 6/10 KS (s), MO (s), KY, AK (n), TN, MS (n), AL (n), GA (n), NC, SC (n) South 34-30 4/05 6/05 AK (s), LA, MS (c, s), AL (c, s), GA (c, s), SC (s), TX

But Both Climate AND Varieties are changing over time

Climate induced reduction in U.S.-wide soybean yields underpinned by regionand in-season-specific responses Mourtzinis, et al, 2015

Rountree et al, 2014

Delineating Optimal Soybean Maturity Groups Across the United States Mourtzinis, Gaska, and Conley - 2017 310 sites in 27 states ~203,500 location*mg combinations

Planting Date and Maturity Group Selection Maturity group selection: Location Planting Date Harvest logistics (manure or other crops) maximizing solar radiation interception High yields Are we utilizing proper MG s as we plant earlier? Adverse spring weather conditions may require replanting. Replant decisions are outdated and mainly based upon experience, not science Increased interest in cover crops. What are the yield and economic penalties associated with delayed soybean planting.

2014-16 Study Description Environments: Arlington, WI Hancock, WI *Irrigated St. Paul, MN Spooner, WI RCBD in a split-plot arrangement with 4 reps Whole Plot: Planting Date Sub-Plot: Variety (MG)

Planting Dates Actual date of planting for each environment (year x location) in 2014, 2015, and 2016 Arlington, WI Hancock, WI St. Paul, MN Spooner, WI Planting Date 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 1 2 3 06- May 30-Apr 03- May 21-18- 20- May May May 30-31- 01-Jun May May 05- May 27- May 01- May 20- May 02- May 20- May 05-Jun 01-Jun 02-Jun 07- May 30-Apr 04- May 23-20- 19- May May May 04-Jun 12-Jun 01-Jun 10- May 06- May 06- May 21-20- 20- May May May 30- May 01-Jun 31- May 4 11-Jun 10-Jun 09-Jun 18-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 25-Jun 29-Jun 20-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 10-Jun 5 26-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 25-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 10-Jul 09-Jul 01-Jul 20-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun

List of varieties planted within each planting date at the three different locations. Location Arlington Hancock St Paul Spooner Planting Date Variety MG 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P25T51R 2.5 + + - - - - - - - - P24T05R 2.4 + + - - - - - - - - P22T69R 2.2 + + + + - - - - - - P19T01R 1.9 + + + + - - - - - - P16T04R 1.6 + + + + + + + - - - P15T83R 1.5 + + + + + + + - - - P10T91R 1.0 - - + + + + + + + - P10T02R 1.0 - - + + + + + + + - P06T28R 0.6 - - - - + + + + + + P05T24R 0.5 - - - - + + + + + + P01T06R 0.1 - - - - - - - + + + 90Y02 0.0 - - - - - - - + + + P002T04R 00.2 - - - - - - - - - + 900Y71 00.7 - - - - - - - - - + A positive symbol means that variety was planted within that planting date.

Planting Date effect on Yield Yield (bu/a) 80 70 60 50 40 ARL 2014 (circle) ARL 2015 (square) ARL 2016 (diamond) HAN 2014 (circle) HAN 2015 (square) HAN 2016 (diamond) STP 2015 (square) STP 2016 (diamond) SPO 2014 (circle) SPO 2015 (square) SPO 2016 (diamond) 30 20 120 140 160 180 Day of the Year May 1 = 122 June 1 = 153 July 1 = 183

MG Selection Table 4. P-value for MG effect on yield within each location by planting date combination for 2014, 2015, and 2016. Planting Date Arlington Hancock St. Paul Spooner P > F 1 0.070 (2.5) 0.008 (2.5) 0.159 (2.5) 0.268 (1.5) 2 0.0001 (2.5) 0.002 (2.5) 0.326 (2.0) 0.628 (1.5) 3 0.002 (2.0) 0.001 (2.0) 0.417 (2.0) 0.890 (1.0) 4 0.430 (2.0) 0.015 (2.0) 0.429 (2.0) 0.555 (0.5) 5 0.876 (1.5) 0.647 (1.5) 0.335 (1.0) 0.044 (0.5) Numerically highest yield MG within each location by planting date combination is displayed within parenthesis ().

1.1 Planting Date By Maturity (only common varieties) May 1 June 1 July 1 1.0 Relative Yield 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 '14 ARL '14 HAN '14 SPO '14 STP '15 ARL '15 HAN '15 SPO '15 STP '16 ARL '16 HAN '16 SPO '16 STP 0.4 0.3 120 140 160 180 Day of Year

1.1 Planting Date By Maturity (all) May 1 June 1 July 1 1.0 Relative Yield 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 '14 ARL '14 HAN '14 SPO '14 STP '15 ARL '15 HAN '15 SPO '15 STP '16 ARL '16 HAN '16 SPO '16 STP 0.4 0.3 120 140 160 180 Day of Year

1.1 Planting Date By Maturity (longest MG @ ea. date) May 1 June 1 July 1 1.0 Relative Yield 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 '14 ARL '14 HAN '14 SPO '14 STP '15 ARL '15 HAN '15 SPO '15 STP '16 ARL '16 HAN '16 SPO '16 STP 0.4 0.3 120 140 160 180 Day of Year

1.1 Planting Date By Maturity (only common varieties) May 1 June 1 July 1 1.0 Relative Yield 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 '14 ARL '14 HAN '14 SPO '14 STP '15 ARL '15 HAN '15 SPO '15 STP '16 ARL '16 HAN '16 SPO '16 STP 0.4 0.3 86% 82% 61% 120 140 160 180 Day of Year

1.1 Planting Date By Maturity (all) May 1 June 1 July 1 1.0 Relative Yield 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 '14 ARL '14 HAN '14 SPO '14 STP '15 ARL '15 HAN '15 SPO '15 STP '16 ARL '16 HAN '16 SPO '16 STP 0.4 0.3 94% 83% 61% 120 140 160 180 Day of Year

1.1 Planting Date By Maturity (longest MG @ ea. date) May 1 June 1 July 1 1.0 Relative Yield 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 '14 ARL '14 HAN '14 SPO '14 STP '15 ARL '15 HAN '15 SPO '15 STP '16 ARL '16 HAN '16 SPO '16 STP 0.4 0.3 98% 87% 58% 120 140 160 180 Day of Year

Planting Date x Maturity - summary Planting date is a MUCH larger effector of yield than MG But, one MG does not fit all Although (because) MG s selected were somewhat conservative, the longest MG tended to yield best at all planting dates Early planting dates benefitted more by long maturities than late did with short MG s -or- Benefits of early planting are only likely to be evident when paired with long MG varieties

Planting Date x Maturity - summary When should a farmer switch MG with delayed planting or replanting? It all depends on the starting point If farmers are conservative with their original MG choice they can hold until well into June (then decrease by 0.5 MG units) Famers who choose very long season lines initially, can pull back by late May, then again in mid-june But in the real world, harvest timing tends to trump yield potential.

Seed Treatments for Minnesota Soybeans Shawn Conley in WI, has found a 70% chance of a positive ROI for using CuiserMaxx on soybeans at $9 grain price.

Gaspar, Conley and Mitchell, 2014

Seed Treatments for Minnesota Soybeans Our Kitchen Sink

North Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan SOYA - Foliar Fung - Inect SOYA - Foliar Fung SOYA - Nitrogen SOYA + Cobra SOYA Nitrogen Foliar F+I Foliar Insecticide Foliar Fungicide Cobra Foliar Fertilizer Fung + Inect + Bio ST Fung. + Insect. ST Fung ST Bio-Forge UTC 61.2 63.6 Red bars indicate statistically greater than UTC at p 0.05 65.1 68.5 54 59 64 69 74

2016 Research 14 Sites South Lamberton, Westbrook, Waseca, Fairfax Central Becker, Morris, Rosemount North Moorhead, Gary, Callaway, Downer, Shelly Far North Crookston, Roseau

2016 Research 10 treatments Untreated control ApronMaxx CruiserMaxx + Vibrance Clariva Complete Clariva Complete + Mertec Clariva (alone) EvergolEnergy (EE) EE + Poncho VOTiVO EE + Poncho VOTiVO + ILeVO ILeVO (alone)

South - Lamberton, Westbrook, Waseca, Fairfax 70 65 60 55 50

Central - Becker, Morris, Rosemount 70 65 60 55 50

North Moorhead, Gary, Callaway, Downer, Shelly, 70 65 60 55 50

Far North Roseau, Crookston 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50

2016 14 Minnesota Locations 70 65 60 55 50

Seed treatment summary Any yield differences noted by site, region, or statewide were not supported by statistics Becker and Morris had large experimental errors (I will investigate further) Across 14 locations, none of the treatments yielded more than the untreated control

Thank you! Seth Naeve naeve002@umn.edu