Eastern Ontario Crop Conference 2016

1. Dave Hooker, PhD
Email: dhooker@uoguelph.ca
@cropdoc2
Intensive Mgmt. in Corn
with a focus on the
-- OCC Trials in 2015 --
#ECC16

3. Dave Hooker, PhD
Email: dhooker@uoguelph.ca
@cropdoc2
Intensive Mgmt. in Corn
with a focus on the
-- OCC Trials in 2015 --
-- Hybrid-specific Mgmt. --
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16

4. Overview ……..
1. Background of G x E x M
 Interactions from
#OntAg research to 2014
2. OCC Intensive
management trial results
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

5. Nitrogen x Fungicide Synergy
SMART 2008-2010
Brinkman and Hooker, UG (2012)
90 lbs
N
150 lbs
N
---- bu/ac ---
-Fungicide 90 98
+Fungicide 98 109
Fungicide = T2+T3 applications
+19 bu/ac response over 90 lbs N/ac
Untreated
@cropdoc2

6. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
A7866RR
DKC52-59
36V75
35F44
HL B337
6226VT3
A7646BT
DKC52-63
N45A-3000GT
5338VT3
MZ 535
34P89
A8168G3
DKC57-86
N51-T8
35H42
MZ 546
N45-A6
HL 2677
N53-W5
35F37
A7450BtRR
MZ 540
35F40
MZ 535HX
Mean Fungicide
No. ComparisonsYield Response (bu/ac)
Hybrid Response to Fungicide at Ridgetown 2008-2011
0 10 20
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
+
+
**
Average
+, *, ** statistically different from zero at p=0.10, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively
@cropdoc2

7. No fungicide Fungicide @ VT
Visual “Stay Green” in late Sept with a Foliar Fungicide
@cropdoc2

8. CHANGE
FROM Std.
Mgmt.
Hybrid
Ave H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
+12K plants +10
+120 lbs N
+ fung @ VT
POP + N + F
POP + N
POP + F
N + F
Multifactor Analysis 2-Year
Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide
Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

9. CHANGE
FROM Std.
Mgmt.
Hybrid
Ave H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10
+120 lbs N
+ fung @ VT
POP + N + F
POP + N
POP + F
N + F
Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide
Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT
Multifactor Analysis 2-Year
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

10. CHANGE
FROM Std.
Mgmt.
Hybrid
Ave H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10
+120 lbs N +11 +4 +6 +10 +15 +21 +6
+ fung @ VT
POP + N + F
POP + N
POP + F
N + F
Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide
Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT
Multifactor Analysis 2-Year
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

11. CHANGE
FROM Std.
Mgmt.
Hybrid
Ave H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10
+120 lbs N +11 +4 +6 +10 +15 +21 +6
+ fung @ VT +3 0 +5 +1 0 +13 0
POP + N + F
POP + N
POP + F
N + F
Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide
Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT
Multifactor Analysis 2-Year
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

12. CHANGE
FROM Std.
Mgmt.
Hybrid
Ave H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6
+12K plants +10 +9 +4 +7 +5 +26 +10
+120 lbs N +11 +4 +6 +10 +15 +21 +6
+ fung @ VT +3 0 +5 +1 0 +13 0
POP + N + F +22 +19 +19 +20 +22 +40 +22
POP + N
POP + F
N + F
Std. Mgmt. 32K ppa, 120 lbs N/ac, no fungicide
Intensive: POP=44K ppa, 240 lbs N/ac; Quilt or Acapela @ VT
Multifactor Analysis 2-Year
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16

13. Hybrid x Nitrogen Rate Interaction 2012/13
N rate (lbs N/ac)
GrainYield(bu/ac)
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

14. N x Hybrid Interactions
N rate (kg/ha)
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

15. Notables from 2009-2014
1. Hybrid x N interactions
2. x POP interactions
3. x fungicide interactions
4. “Racehorses” responsive to 1+2+3
5. High G x E in some hybrids
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

16. The
Ontario
Corn
CommitteeGoal: to provide accurate relevant data to assist
in hybrid-selection decisions
#ECC16

17. OCC in 2015!
• Continued traditional hybrid trials
• NEW: Intensive mgmt. hybrid trials
• Investigate hybrid-specific mgmt
Treatment
N
(lbs/ac)
Population
plants/ac
Fungicide
@ VT
Standard Mgmt.
110-170
via N calc.
32,000 No
Intensive Mgmt. +50 +6,000 Yes
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

18. Conceptual OCC Strip-Plot Design
Example: 16 hybrids x 2 mgmt levels x 4 reps
Rep 1 SPRAYER Rep 2 Rep 3 SPRAYER Rep 4
> 10
180
< 1 ^ B ^ 1 10
> 2 ^ B ^ 2 10
< 3 ^ B ^ 3 10
> 4 ^ B ^ 4 10
< 5 ^ B ^ 5 10
> 6 ^ B ^ 6 10
< 7 ^ B ^ 7 10
> 8 ^ B ^ 8 10
< 9 ^ B ^ 9 10
> 10 ^ B ^ 10 10
< 11 ^ B ^ 11 10
> 12 ^ B ^ 12 10
< 13 ^ B ^ 13 10
> 14 ^ B ^ 14 10
< 15 ^ B ^ 15 10
> 16 ^ B ^ 16 10
< 10
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
FEET
320
Buffer range
between
standard and
intensive
Buffer range
with tramlines
for VT fung.
Intensive
strip
Standard
strip
#ECC16

19. OCC Intensive Mgmt 2015
OCC Table
or Zone
Locations
2 Elora Alma
3 Winchester Waterloo
4 Exeter Belmont
5 Ridgetown Dresden
• 62 hybrids were entered by seed companies in
consultation with the OCC
• 992 plots in total
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

20. 6.5” = 32,000 ppa
5.5” = 38,000 ppa
Plant population:
• All plots were overseeded,
then thinned before V3
Hooker (UG)@cropdoc2

21. Nitrogen:
• All plots broadcast PP @ same rate
• All plots sidedressed @ V6, rate
depending on mgmt.
Hooker (UG)

22. Foliar fungicide application:
• When >75% of hybrids VT-R1
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

23. Main Measurements all plots:
• Final stand
• Silking date
• Leaf disease severity by disease
• “Stay green” late in season
• Weather data (WIN)
• Harvest data (yield, lodge, twt, mc)
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

24. Acknowledgements:
• Byron Good (UG) for Elora, Alma and Waterloo
• Katina Wren and Holly Byker (UG) for Winchester
• Jonathan Brinkman (UG) for Exeter
• Ken VanRaay and Scott Jay (UG) for Belmont, Ridgetown
and Dresden
• Greg Stewart and others from the OCC (Industry partners, UG,
OMAFRA, GFO, AAFC, CSTA, OSCIA, Chair David Morris)
• Seed Companies (11)
• AgReliant Genetics, Country Farm Seeds, Dow AgroSciences, Horizon Seeds, La
Coop federee, Maizex Seeds, Monsanto, Pickseed, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Sevita
International, Syngenta Seeds
• BASF (for sponsorship and fungicide)
• Weather INnovations Inc.
• Summer students
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

25. RESULTS!!
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

26. Questions we’ll address today ~
1. What were the yield responses to mgmt. at each location?
2. How did mgmt. affect harvest moisture?
3. Were there differential hybrid yield responses to mgmt.?
4. Were hybrid response diffs related to leaf disease?
5. Were hybrid response diffs related to “stay green”?
6. How does disease affect stay green ratings?
7. Were hybrid response diffs related to hybrid CHU rating?
8. Conclusions
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

27. 1. What were the yield
responses to mgmt. at each
location?
Hooker (UG)

28. 100
150
200
250
300
Alma Elora Waterloo Winchester Belmont Exeter Dresden Ridgetown
OCC Intensive Trials 2015
Grain Yield (bu/ac): Standard vs. Intensive Mgmt.
*
*
*
*
* * ns
ns
* Statistically significant at P=0.10 using Fisher’s Protected LSD Test
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

29. 34
24
25
17
26
21
9
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Alma Elora Waterloo Winchester Belmont Exeter Dresden Ridgetown
Yield Response to Intensive Mgmt. Across Hybrids
6,000 seeds/ac @ $275/bag = $20.50/ac or 4.1 bu corn
Fungicide + application = $26.00/ac or 5.2 bu corn
50 lbs N/ac, UAN @ $400/t = $32.00/ac or 6.4 bu corn
(bu/ac)
= top hybrid at each location Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

30. 2. How did mgmt. affect
harvest moisture?
@cropdoc2

31. 22.2
23.9
26
20
20.5
22.1
16.8
21.5
23.6
25
27.7
20.6
21.9
23.4
17.2
21.6
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Alma Elora Waterloo Winchester Belmont Exeter Dresden Ridgetown
OCC Intensive Trials 2015
Grain Moisture @ Harvest
Standard vs. Intensive Mgmt.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ns
* Statistically significant at P=0.10 using Fisher’s Protected LSD Test
%
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

32. 3. Were there hybrid-specific
yield responses to mgmt.?
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

33. 173
181
188
189
191
195
197
197
202
207
209
214
217
221
222
224
229
232
205
200
224
215
227
229
220
228
226
228
231
241
243
245
248
252
244
258
252
234
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
LR9573
CF15301
8211RA
PS 2793GSX RIB
LR9579
40J380 G.T.
PS 2676VT2P RIB
P8542AM
MZ 3066DBR
8295RA
A6455G8 RIB
MZ 3202SMX
CF15204
P9188AM
DKC38-03RIB
HZ 877
SG2043 3011A
5EXP SH2642
AVE
Alma and Elora
bu/ac
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)

34. y = -0.1745x + 64.757
R² = 0.2612
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management
Elora and Alma, 2015
Responsetointensive(bu/ac)
Standard mgmt. yield (bu/ac)
Grain yield average
(Standard Mgmt)
Average response
to Intensive
29
205
Std mgmt. yield above ave,
Above ave response
Std mgmt. above ave yield,
Below ave response
Std mgmt. below ave yield,
Above ave response
@cropdoc2

35. y = -0.1745x + 64.757
R² = 0.2612
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management
Elora and Alma, 2015
Responsetointensive(bu/ac)
Standard mgmt. yield (bu/ac)
Grain yield average
(Standard Mgmt)
Average response
to Intensive
29
205
45 degree line
Std yield + response
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

36. 179
183
189
189
190
191
192
192
194
195
197
199
200
201
205
205
210
195
211
203
215
209
213
215
211
214
220
217
220
218
215
212
226
223
223
216
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
DS90R27RA
P9224AM
MZ 3484SMX
HZ 922
CF441
CF466
DKC46-07RIB
5084
MZ 3515DBR
N45P-3011A
P9644AM
P9188AM
8315RA
E57L60 R
PS 2902VT2P RIB
N35T-3110
XP6848
MEAN
Waterloo and Winchester Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)

37. y = -0.435x + 105.61
R² = 0.4708
10
15
20
25
30
35
175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210
Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management
Waterloo and Winchester, 2015
Responsetointensive(bu/ac)
Standard mgmt. yield (bu/ac)
Grain yield average
(Standard Mgmt)
Average response
to Intensive
21
195
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

38. 212
214
215
220
220
222
224
225
229
230
232
233
236
243
247
227
234
239
234
253
244
266
242
250
265
249
253
261
249
260
258
251
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
LR9496
MZ 4107SMX
DKC50-78RIB
X13526VX
P0496AMX
PS 3035VT2P RIB
N45P-3011A
4425
HZ 1026A
CF474
CF626
E70G30 LR
MZ 4092DBR
A7270G8 RIB
P0157AM
MEAN
Belmont and Exeter Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)

39. y = -0.3601x + 105.36
R² = 0.1789
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250
Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management
Exeter and Belmont, 2015
Responsetointensive(bu/ac)
Standard mgmt. yield (bu/ac)
Grain yield average
(Standard Mgmt)
24
227
Average response
to Intensive
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

40. 231
234
238
240
245
247
247
248
250
252
254
255
245
244
252
256
249
259
270
254
264
265
251
256
267
256
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
5EXP SJ5082
CF662
P0216AM
8695RA
CF686
8598RA
DKC57-75RIB
A8303G8 RIB
MZ 4525SMX
DKC52-61RIB
MZ 4676DBR
P0506AM
MEAN
Ridgetown and Dresden Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)

41. y = -0.3731x + 103.79
R² = 0.1749
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
230 235 240 245 250 255
Corn hybrid yield responses to intensive management
Ridgetown and Dresden, 2015
Responsetointensive(bu/ac)
Standard mgmt. yield (bu/ac)
Grain yield average
(Standard Mgmt)
12
245
Average response
to Intensive
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

42. 4. What was the impact of leaf
disease on hybrid responses?
@cropdoc2

43. Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

44. 0
5
10
15
20
Alma Elora Waterloo Winchester Belmont Exeter Dresden Ridgetown
OCC Intensive Trials 2015
Northern Leaf Blight @ Mid-Milkline
Standard vs. Intensive Mgmt.
*
*
*
*
* ns
* Statistically significant at P=0.10 using Fisher’s Protected LSD Test
*
ns
*
% severity
Most severe
hybrid
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
= top hybrid at each location
Hooker (UG)

45. 13
18
21
13
14
11
8
10
5
10
13
8
10
13
8
8
8
9
11
9
14
10
11
9
5
5
4
6
6
5
4
6
4
3
6
5
0 5 10 15 20 25
HYBRID 1
HYBRID 2
HYBRID 3
HYBRID 4
HYBRID 5
HYBRID 6
HYBRID 7
HYBRID 8
HYBRID 9
HYBRID 10
HYBRID 11
HYBRID 12
HYBRID 13
HYBRID 14
HYBRID 15
HYBRID 16
HYBRID 17
HYBRID 18
Northern leaf blight severity by hybrid at dent (R5)
Alma, 2015
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Leaf disease severity (%)
Hybrid x mgmt. interaction
P <0.05
Hooker (UG)

46. 5. What was the impact of
“stay green” on hybrid
responses?
@cropdoc2

47. Visual “stay green”
Older hybrid Newer hybrid
Tollenaar (2009)

48. Visual “Stay Green” in late Sept
Hooker (UG)

49. 0
20
40
60
80
100
Alma Elora Waterloo Winchester Belmont Exeter Dresden Ridgetown
OCC Intensive Trials 2015
Stay Green (early-late Sept)
Standard vs. Intensive Mgmt.
*
*
*
*
ns
* Statistically significant at P=0.10 using Fisher’s Protected LSD Test
*
% green left
in canopy
Top hybrid
*
*
n/a
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

50. 7
29
23
38
55
29
55
63
80
58
45
55
78
58
58
73
65
70
33
58
38
53
78
43
68
68
90
68
53
68
80
73
80
88
86
90
0 20 40 60 80 100
HYBRID 1
HYBRID 2
HYBRID 3
HYBRID 4
HYBRID 5
HYBRID 6
HYBRID 7
HYBRID 8
HYBRID 9
HYBRID 10
HYBRID 11
HYBRID 12
HYBRID 13
HYBRID 14
HYBRID 15
HYBRID 16
HYBRID 17
HYBRID 18
Stay green by hybrid ~mid-Sept
Alma, 2015
% Leaf area still green
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt

51. y = 0.5768x + 184.59
R² = 0.4706
y = 0.5301x + 213.04
R² = 0.3131
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
0 20 40 60 80 100
Grain yield vs. stay green across hybrids
Alma, 2015
Grainyield(bu/ac)
Leaf area still green (%)
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

52. 6. How does disease affect
stay green?

53. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stay green vs. NLB disease severity across hybrids
Alma, 2015
%Leafareastillgreen
Leaf disease severity (%)
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

54. Timing and Source of N Uptake
 New hybrids (1991-2011) took up
29% more N post-flowering than
old hybrids (1940-1990)1
1Ciampitti and Vyn (2012)
2Ciampitti and Vyn (2013)
 New hybrids (1991-2011) less N
remobilized to grain N2

55. Tollenaar (2009)
7. Were hybrid-specific
responses related to CHU rating?

56. y = 0.079x + 4.0682
R² = 0.4643
y = 0.0772x + 43.03
R² = 0.4339
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900
Grain yield vs. CHU across hybrids
Alma, 2015
Grainyield(bu/ac)
Hybrid CHU rating
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

57. y = 0.1161x - 257.15
R² = 0.7079
y = 0.096x - 188.55
R² = 0.6022
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900
Stay green ~mid-Sept vs. hybrid CHU rating
Alma, 2015
%Leafareastillgreen
Hybrid CHU rating
Intensive mgmt
Standard mgmt
Hooker (UG)

58. Visual “Stay Green” in late Sept
Hooker (UG)

59. Conclusions
1. What were the yield responses to mgmt. at each location?
• One year, limited number of locations.
• 9-34 bu/ac averaged across hybrids depending on location
• Approx. 16 bu needed to B/E on intensive package.
2. How did mgmt. affect harvest moisture?
• 0-1.5% higher with intensive
3. Were there hybrid-specific yield responses to mgmt?
• 0-54 bu/ac response depending on location and hybrid.
• Causes of differential yield responses difficult to ID.
4. What was the impact of leaf disease on hybrid responses?
• NLB main disease; Alma > Elora > Exeter = Waterloo; rest low
• Differential hybrid response to disease
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

60. Conclusions (cont’d)
5. What was the impact of “stay green” on hybrid responses?
• Diff. hybrid/mgmt. response related to stay green late in season.
• High grain yields were associated with stay green late in season.
6. How does disease affect stay green?
• Stay green associated with disease, but N status also impt.
7. Were hybrid response diffs related to hybrid CHU rating?
• Yield response to intensive not related to CHU rating.
• Early maturing hybrids = lower yield, lower stay green
Hooker (UG)
@cropdoc2

61. Conclusions (cont’d)
More questions …
8. Repeatability? Only 2 locations one year.
9. ID workhorse, racehorse, and stable hybrids?
10. Contribution of each input?
11. Does the contribution-by-input vary by hybrid?
Hooker (UG)
#ECC16
@cropdoc2

62. YOUR QUESTIONS? 
Dave Hooker
dhooker@uoguelph.ca
@cropdoc2