Paper · 2016 · Agronomy Journal

Winter Wheat Cropping System Response to Seed Treatments, Seed Size, and Sowing Density

Brian L. Beres; T. Kelly Turkington; H. Randy Kutcher; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
39
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Poor stand establishment resulting in lower yield is a major constraint to expanding winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) across western Canada. To address this issue, we conducted a study totaling 26 site‐years over three growing seasons (2011–2013) to observe crop responses to system manipulations involving seeding rate (200 and 400 seeds m −2 ), seed size as a proxy for plant vigor (light/thin, moderate, heavy/plump), and a dual fungicide/insecticide seed treatment, on crop establishment, yield, and seed quality. Fall and spring plant density was about 10 plants m −2 greater for heavy seed vs. light seed. Seed treatment improved fall and spring plant density slightly more than 10 plants m −2 . The dual seed treatment improved yield and test weight for thin seed size. Hypothesized weakest agronomic systems (low seeding rate and untreated, light seed) that often included the 200 seeds m −2 seeding rate were the poorest performing (suboptimal responses and highly variable) systems; however, a favorable response to seed treatments allowed for partial compensation and grain yield comparable to systems with high seeding rates. Greater instability was generally observed in weak systems irrespective of seed treatment. The economic advantage of the seed treatment was more apparent with thinner winter wheat stands as it resulted in greater gross (CAN+$31 ha −1 ) and net (+$22 ha −1 ) returns. This study reaffirms the importance of a strong and integrated agronomic system and indicates seed treatments can help offset weak systems comprised of poor stand establishment and lower yield performance. Core Ideas Poor stand establishment resulting in lower yield is a major constraint to expanding winter wheat acreage across western Canada. Hypothesized weakest agronomic systems (low seeding rate and untreated, light seed) that often included the 200 seeds m −2 seeding rate were the poorest performing (sub‐optimal responses and highly variable) systems; however, a favorable response to seed treatments allowed for partial compensation and grain yield comparable to systems with high seeding rates. Winter wheat crop establishment and grain yield results indicated that producers that intentionally use low seeding rate should use a dual fungicide/insecticidal seed treatment; however, the inherent variability is not entirely overcome with seed treatment. Inclusion of a dual fungicide/insecticide seed treatment provided the highest gross returns for both levels of sowing density; however, the added input cost of the seed treatment relative to the magnitude of change for grain yield reduced overall net returns at the 400 seeds m −2 seeding rate compared to the check (–$11 ha −1 ). This study reaffirms the importance of a strong and integrated agronomic system and indicates seed treatments can help offset weak systems that tend to have poor stand establishment and lower yield performance.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy seed gave about 10 plants m −2 greater fall and spring plant density than light seed.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
heavy seede1
Outcome
Fall and spring plant densitye1
Direction
greatere1
Value
10 plants m −2e1
Comparator
light seede1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fall and spring plant density was about 10 plants m −2 greater for heavy seed vs. light seed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–614 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed treatment improved fall and spring plant density by slightly more than 10 plants m −2.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Seed treatmente1
Outcome
fall and spring plant densitye1
Direction
improvede1
Value
slightly more than 10 plants m −2e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“Seed treatment improved fall and spring plant density slightly more than 10 plants m −2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 616–703 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The dual seed treatment improved yield and test weight for thin seed size.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
dual seed treatmente1
Outcome
yield and test weighte1
Direction
improvede1
Qualifier
for thin seed sizee1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“The dual seed treatment improved yield and test weight for thin seed size”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–779 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weakest hypothesized systems (low seeding rate, untreated light seed) were the poorest performing systems.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
low seeding rate and untreated, light seede1
Outcome
performinge1
Direction
pooreste1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“Hypothesized weakest agronomic systems (low seeding rate and untreated, light seed) that often included the 200 seeds m −2 seeding rate were the poorest performing (suboptimal responses and highly variable) systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–995 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Greater instability was observed in weak systems irrespective of seed treatment.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
weak systemse1
Outcome
instabilitye1
Direction
Greatere1
Qualifier
irrespective of seed treatmente1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“Greater instability was generally observed in weak systems irrespective of seed treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1231 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed treatment gave greater gross returns (CAN+$31 ha −1) with thinner winter wheat stands.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
seed treatmente1
Outcome
grosse1
Direction
greatere1
Value
CAN+$31 ha −1e1
Qualifier
with thinner winter wheat standse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“The economic advantage of the seed treatment was more apparent with thinner winter wheat stands as it resulted in greater gross (CAN+$31 ha −1 ) and net (+$22 ha −1 ) returns”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1407 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed treatment gave greater net returns (+$22 ha −1) with thinner winter wheat stands.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
seed treatmente1
Outcome
nete1
Direction
greatere1
Value
+$22 ha −1e1
Qualifier
with thinner winter wheat standse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“The economic advantage of the seed treatment was more apparent with thinner winter wheat stands as it resulted in greater gross (CAN+$31 ha −1 ) and net (+$22 ha −1 ) returns”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1407 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Producers using low seeding rate should use a dual fungicide/insecticidal seed treatment.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
should use a dual fungicide/insecticidal seed treatmente1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“Winter wheat crop establishment and grain yield results indicated that producers that intentionally use low seeding rate should use a dual fungicide/insecticidal seed treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2117–2293 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inclusion of a dual fungicide/insecticide seed treatment gave the highest gross returns at both sowing densities.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Inclusion of a dual fungicide/insecticide seed treatmente1
Outcome
gross returnse1
Direction
higheste1
Qualifier
for both levels of sowing densitye1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inclusion of a dual fungicide/insecticide seed treatment provided the highest gross returns for both levels of sowing density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2375–2500 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The added input cost of the seed treatment reduced net returns at the 400 seeds m −2 seeding rate compared with the check, by –$11 ha −1.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
added input cost of the seed treatmente1
Outcome
net returnse1
Direction
reducede1
Value
–$11 ha −1e1
Qualifier
at the 400 seeds m −2 seeding ratee1
Comparator
the checke1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 · show in text ↑
e1

“the added input cost of the seed treatment relative to the magnitude of change for grain yield reduced overall net returns at the 400 seeds m −2 seeding rate compared to the check (–$11 ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2511–2704 · show in text ↑

seed treatment · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 19 positive, 2 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.