IRRIGATION SOYBEAN TRIAL REPORT 2001-2002 SEASON

Introduction The effect of ComCat was investigated on soybeans in terms of its potential to affect yield under irrigation conditions. The trial was conducted in the Prieska area, Northern Cape Province of South Africa.

Material and methods

Treatments were applied with a rug bag sprayer and laid out in a randomized block design with each treatment replicated three times. The following treatments were applied:

1. Control (untreated) 2. ComCat ROW applied at 200 g/ha on the 3-4 leaf stage

Soybeans were harvested and each replicate was weighed separately. The amount of water sprayed per hectare was 300 liters. Statistical analysis was performed using the NCSS 2000 statistical program at a 95% significance level. Differences between treatments were calculated using the Tukey-Kramer multicomparison test.

Results and discussion

Two trials were conducted under irrigation in the Prieska area during 2001 and 2002. ComCat applied as a single foliar spray at the 3-4 leaf growth stage increased the final soybean yield by 0.63 ton ha (Figure 1; LSD (T)5% = 0.12 ton ha ) and 1.01 ton ha
-1 -1 -1 -1

(Figure 2; LSD(T)5% = 0.27 ton ha ) during 2001 and 2002

respectively. In both cases the yield increase was statistically significant.

Yield on soybean under irrigation 2001-Prieska 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 control LSD(T)(5%) = 0.12 Treatm ents Com Cat

Figure 1 Yield on soybean under irrigation during 2001 in the Prieska area.

Yield (ton/ha) Yield (ton/ha)

Yield on soybeans under irrigation 2002 Prieska

4 3 2 1 0 LSD(T)(5%) = 0.27 control Treatm ents Com Cat

Figure 2 Yield on soybean under irrigation during 2002 in the Prieska area.

Statistical analysis SOYBEAN: IRRIGATION

Trial 1 (2001) (Figure 1)

Analysis of Variance Table

Source Term DF

Sum of Squares

Mean Square F-Ratio

Prob Level

Power

(Alpha=0.05) A: Treatments B: Replication 1 3 0.7843781 0.7843781 271.62 3.81 0.000486* 1.000000 0.150660 0.286316

3.297338E-02 1.099113E-02

S Total (Adjusted) Total

3 7 8

8.663375E-03 2.887792E-03 0.8260149

* Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means Plots Section

Means of Yield
2.80

2.55

Yield

2.30

2.05

1.80 1 2

Treatments

Means of Yield
2.80

2.55

Yield

2.30

2.05

1.80 1 2 3 4

Replication

Tukey-Kramer Multiple-Comparison Test

Response: Yield Term A: Treatments

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(AB) DF=3 MSE=2.887792E-03 Critical Value=4.499438

Different Group 1 2 Count 4 4 Mean 2.00875 2.635 From Groups 2 1

Tukey-Kramer Multiple-Comparison Test

Response: Yield Term B: Replication

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(AB) DF=3 MSE=2.887792E-03 Critical Value=6.822779

Different Group 2 4 3 1 Count 2 2 2 2 Mean 2.256 2.2875 2.3175 2.4265 From Groups

Trial 2 (2002) (Figure 2)

Analysis of Variance Table Source Term DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Ratio Prob Level Power

(Alpha=0.05) A: Treatments B: Replication S Total (Adjusted) Total 1 3 3 7 8 2.0402 0.060425 0.044825 2.14545 2.0402 2.014167E-02 1.494167E-02 136.54 1.35 0.001347* 0.999832 0.405988 0.132239

* Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means Plots Section

Means of Yield
4.00

3.60

Yield

3.20

2.80

2.40 1 2

Treatments

Means of Yield
4.00

3.60

Yield

3.20

2.80

2.40 1 2 3 4

Replication

Tukey-Kramer Multiple-Comparison Test Response: Yield Term A: Treatments

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(AB) DF=3 MSE=1.494167E-02 Critical Value=4.499438

Different Group 1 2 Count 4 4 Mean 2.69 3.7 From Groups 2 1

Tukey-Kramer Multiple-Comparison Test Response: Yield Term B: Replication

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(AB) DF=3 MSE=1.494167E-02 Critical Value=6.822779

Different Group 1 4 3 2 Count 2 2 2 2 Mean 3.0725 3.1675 3.23 3.31 From Groups

IRRIGATION SOYBEAN TRIAL REPORT 2005 SEASON

Introduction The effect of ComCat was investigated on soybeans in terms of its potential to affect yield under irrigation conditions. The trial was conducted in the Vaalharts area, North West Province of South Africa.

Material and Methods Experimental design Using a single soybean cultivar, Egret, the trial was structured as a complete randomized design (CRD) with five replications.

Experimental conditions and plant material The trial was conducted on a Hutton light sandy-loam soil type containing 6-10% clay. The plot size was 12 m (4 x 3 m) and the total plot area 874 m . Soybean seeds were sown by hand on December 14, 2005 in six rows at 528 seeds per plot. The in-row spacing was 5 cm and between-row spacing 50 cm extrapolating to 440 000 plants per hectare. However, on average only 240 plants per plot reached maturity representing an average total population of 200 000 plants per ha. Plots were spaced 1 m apart. The average monthly irrigation and precipitation at the trial site over the five month growing period are shown in Fig. 3.
2 2

250 = Irrigation (Total = 196 mm)

Rainfall / Irrigation (mm)

= Rainfall (Total = 478.8 mm) 200

150

100

50

0
20 06 Fe br ua ry 20 06 M ar ch 20 06 be r2 00 5 20 06 Ap ril

D ec em

Ja nu ar y

Month
Figure 3 Irrigation and rainfall over the five month growing period at Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme during the 2005/2006 growing season.

Based on a soil analysis performed before planting (Table 1), no fertilizer was added to the soil. A second soil analysis (Table 1) was performed after pods were harvested.

Table 1: Soil analysis before planting and after harvest. Clay (%) K Action pH (KCl) Soil analysis before planting Soil analysis after harvest Planting date Harvest date

and soil Ca (mg/kg) Mg (mg/kg) Na (mg/kg) Ca/M g Ca+ Mg/K type

P (mg/kg)

(mg/ kg)

6-10% (Hutton) 6.72 28.76 137 553 130 16 4.25 4.98

6-10% 150.9 5.9 14/12/20 05 12/05/20 06

475 (61)

127 (27)

21.5 (2)

2.28

8.85

14.9

(10)

Lasso was used to control weeds and Cypermethrin to control insects.

Foliar application and combined seed and foliar treatments All foliar treatments were applied till run-off at 300 L ha by using a back sprayer. ComCat was applied at 200g ha . Soybeans were harvested and each replicate was weighed separately. The amount of water sprayed per hectare was 300 liters. Statistical analysis was performed using the NCSS 2000 statistical program at a 95% significance level. Differences between treatments were calculated using the TukeyKramer multi-comparison test.
-1 -1

Results and discussion

Subsequently, in order to consider the difference in number of plants harvested per plot, the yield calculation was employed namely on an area basis, but as a percentage of the control plant population. A significant difference in yield was observed when expressed on the above procedure (Figure 3).

Yield on soybean under irrigation 2005 - Vaalharts

3.4 3.3 3.2

Yield (ton/ha)

3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 control Treatments ComCat

Figure 4 Effect of treating soybean (cv. Egret) with ComCat on the final yield calculated on an area basis, but as a percentage of the number of control plants harvested per plot. LSD (T0.05) = 0.388 Statistical analysis SOYBEAN: IRRIGATION

Trial 3 (2005) (Figure 4)

Analysis of Variance Report Page/Date/Time Database Response Yield_oes_area 1 08-25-2009 19:47:45

Expected Mean Squares Section Source Term A: Treatment S(A) DF 1 8 Term Fixed? Yes No Denominator Term S(A) Expected Mean Square S+sA S

Note: Expected Mean Squares are for the balanced cell-frequency case.

Analysis of Variance Table Source Term A: Treatment S Total (Adjusted) DF 1 8 9 Sum of Squares 0.75076 0.567 1.31776 Mean Square 0.75076 0.070875 F-Ratio 10.59 Prob Level Power (Alpha=0.05)

0.011620* 0.812710

Total

10

* Term significant at alpha = 0.05

Means and Standard Error Section Standard Term All A: Treatment 1 2 5 5 2.758 3.306 0.1190588 0.1190588 Count 10 Mean 3.032 Error

Plots Section

Means of Yield_oes_area
3.80

3.45

Yield_oes_area

3.10

2.75

2.40 1 2

Treatment

Tukey-Kramer Multiple-Comparison Test

Response: Yield_oes_area Term A: Treatment

Alpha=0.050 Error Term=S(A) DF=8 MSE=0.070875 Critical Value=3.261214

Different Group 1 2 Count 5 5 Mean 2.758 3.306 From Groups 2 1

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Table 2: Summary of irrigation soybean over seasons

Control YEAR 2001 2002 2005 Average (ton/ha) 2.009 2.690 2.758 2.458

ComCat (ton/ha) 2.635 3.700 3.306 3.21