Owen Alternativeto Glyphosate ICM11

Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
Integrated Crop Management Conference

November 30 - December 1, 2011 Iowa State University Ames, Iowa
2 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University
Prepared by Brent A. Pringnitz, program coordinator
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Services 2101 Agronomy Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011-1010 Phone: (515) 294-6429 FAX: (515) 294-1311 anr@iastate.edu www.aep.iastate.edu Copyright 2011 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
All trademarks, service marks, registered marks, or registered service marks contained in this document are the property of their respective owners, and their use does not imply endorsement by Iowa State University. Mention of trade names does not imply endorsement of one product over another, nor is discrimination intended against any similar product not named.
and justice for all The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Many materials can be made available in alternative formats for ADA clients. To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cathann A. Kress, director, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. This document is available at www.aep.iastate.edu.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 3
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Integrated Crop Management Conference

November 30 - December 1, 2011
Iowa State University Ames, Iowa
Table of Contents
Speaker contact information ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Crop management 1. Growin good corn: Rocket science or common sense? ....................................................................................... 7
RL (Bob) Nielsen, Extension corn specialist, Agronomy, Purdue University
2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Long silks, short pollena long year? .............................................................................................................. 15

Roger W. Elmore, professor and Extension corn agronomist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Making silage from Iowas forage crops............................................................................................................. 17

Stephen K. Barnhart, professor and Extension forage agronomist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Midwest crop weather 2011-2012: What follows a strong La Nia? ................................................................. 21

Elwynn Taylor, professor and Extension climatologist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Crop and biofuel outlook for 2012................................................................................................................... 23

Chad Hart, assistant professor and Extension economist, Economics, Iowa State University
Sustainable production and distribution of bioenergy for the Central US ......................................................... 27

Energy management for crop production ......................................................................................................... 31

H. Mark Hanna, Extension ag engineer, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Dana Petersen, program coordinator, ISU Farm Energy, Iowa State University
Pest management 10. Herbicide resistance in waterhemp: Past, present, and future ...........................................................................37
Patrick J. Tranel, professor, Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
11. Weed management for 2012 ............................................................................................................................ 41

Micheal D. K. Owen, professor and Extension weed specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
12. Herbicide-resistant weeds: An evolving problem of importance in Iowa crop production................................. 45

13. A reintroduction to soil applied herbicides ....................................................................................................... 49

Bob Hartzler, professor and Extension weed specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
14. Diversified weed management tactics in diversified cropping systems: ............................................................ 55 Foundations for durable crop production and protection
Matt Liebman, professor and H.A. Wallace Chair for Sustainable Agriculture, Agronomy, Iowa State University
16. Update on the soybean aphid efficacy program ................................................................................................ 59

Erin W. Hodgson, assistant professor and Extension entomologist, Entomology, Iowa State University; Greg VanNostrand, research associate, Entomology, Iowa State University
17. Japanese beetle biology and management in corn and soybean ........................................................................ 63
Erin W. Hodgson, assistant professor and Extension entomologist, Entomology, Iowa State University; Cody Kuntz, graduate student, Entomology, Iowa State University; Matt ONeal, associate professor, Entomology, Iowa State University; and Greg VanNostrand, research associate, Entomology, Iowa State University Michael McCarville, graduate student, Entomology, Iowa State University; Matthew E. ONeal, associate professor, Entomology, Iowa State University; Walter R. Fehr, distinguished professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. This document is available at www.aep.iastate.edu.
18. Assessing the benefits of pyramids and seed treatments for soybean aphid host plant resistance ...................... 67

20. Gosss wilt: Get the facts ................................................................................................................................... 73
Alison Robertson, associate professor and Extension plant pathologist, Plant Pathology, Iowa State University; Charlie Hurburgh, professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Lisa Shepherd, assistant scientist, Seed Science Center, Iowa State University; Charlie Block, assistant professor, Plant Pathology; Roger Elmore, professor and Extension corn agronomist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Nutrient management 23. Fertilizer situation and outlook ........................................................................................................................77

David Asbridge, president, NPK Fertilizer Advisory Service
24. Corn and soybean response to soil pH level and liming ....................................................................................93
Antonio P. Mallarino, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Agustin Pagani, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; John E. Sawyer, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University
25. Nutrient uptake by corn and soybean, removal, and recycling with crop residue ...........................................103
Antonio P. Mallarino, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Ryan R. Oltmans, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Jacob R. Prater, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Carlos X. Villavicencio, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Louis B. Thompson, ag specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University John E. Sawyer, professor and Extension soil fertility specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Jose L. Pantoja, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Daniel W. Barker, assistant scientist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
26. Effect of a rye cover crop and crop residue removal on corn nitrogen fertilization ..........................................115
27. Nitrate loss in subsurface drainage as affected by nitrogen application rate and .............................................123 timing under a corn-soybean rotation system
Matthew J. Helmers, associate professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Reid D. Christianson, Extension program specialist, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; John Sawyer, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Soil and water management 29. Can conservation complement agriculture? .................................................................................................... 129
John Doudna, graduate research assistant, Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University; Matt Helmers, associate professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Matt ONeal, assistant professor, Entomology, Iowa State University Mahdi Al-Kaisi, associate professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Jose Guzman, research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University
30. Residue biomass removal and potential impact on production and environmental quality.............................. 131 31. Water quality benefits of perennial filter strips in row-cropped watersheds .................................................... 139
Matthew J. Helmers, associate professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Xiaobo Zhou, assistant scientist, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Heidi Asbjornsen, associate professor, Natural Resource and the Environment, University of New Hampshire; Randy Kolka, soil scientist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station; Mark D. Tomer, soil scientist, USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment
Speaker contact information

Mahdi Al-Kaisi Associate Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2104 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1923 malkaisi@iastate.edu David Asbridge President, NPK Fertilizer Advisory Service Chesterfield, MO 636/778-8680 david@npkfas.com Steve Barnhart Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2104 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1923 sbarnhar@iastate.edu Madan Bhattacharyya Associate Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University G303 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-2505 mbhattac@iastate.edu Betsy Buffington Extension Program Specialist, Entomology Iowa State University 9 Insectary Ames, IA 50011-3140 515/294-7293 bbuffing@iastate.edu Silvia Cianzio Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2017 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1625 scianzio@iastate.edu Rick Cruse Professor, Agronomy and Director, Iowa Water Center Iowa State University 3212 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-7850 rmc@iastate.edu Matt Darr Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University 202 Davidson Ames, IA 50011-3080 515/294-8545 darr@iastate.edu John Doudna Graduate Teaching/Research Assistant, Ecology/Evolution and Organismal Biology Iowa State University 251 Bessey Ames, IA 50011-1020 515/294-3523 jdoundna@iastate.edu Roger Elmore Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2104 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1923 relmore@iastate.edu Mark Hanna Extension Ag Engineer, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University 200B Davidson Hall Ames, IA 50011-3080 515/294-0468 hmhanna@iastate.edu Chad Hart Assistant Professor, Economics Iowa State University 468E Heady Hall Ames, IA 50011-1070 515/294-9911 chart@iastate.edu Bob Hartzler Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2104 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1164 hartzler@iastate.edu Matt Helmers Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University 209 Davidson Hall Ames, IA 50011-3080 515/294-6717 mhelmers@iastate.edu Erin Hodgson Assistant Professor, Entomology Iowa State University 103 Insectary Ames, IA 50011-3140 515/294-2847 ewh@iastate.edu Laura Jesse Extension Program Specialist, Plant Pathology Iowa State University 327 Bessey Ames, IA 50011-1020 515/294-0581 ljesse@iastate.edu David Laird Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2505 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1581 dalaird@iastate.edu

Leonor Leandro Assistant Professor, Plant Pathology Iowa State University 325 Bessey Ames, IA 50011-1020 515/294-8855 lleandro@iastate.edu Matt Liebman Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 1401 Agronomy Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-7486 mliebman@iastate.edu Antonio Mallarino Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 3216 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-6200 apmallar@iastate.edu M.T. McCarville Graduate Research Assistant, Entomology Iowa State University 113A Insectary Ames, IA 50011-3140 515/294-8663 mikemcc@iastate.edu R.L. Bob Nielsen Professor, Agronomy Purdue University 915 W. State St. West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054 765/494-4802 rnielsen@purdue.edu Bill Northey Secretary of Agriculture/IDALS Wallace State Office Bldg 502 E 9th St Des Moines, IA 50319 515/281-5321 Ken Ostlie Professor, Entomology University of Minnesota 1980 Folwell Ave, Rm 219 St. Paul, MN 55108-6125 612/750-0993 ostli001@umn.edu Micheal D. K. Owen Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 3218 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-5936 mdowen@iastate.edu Alison Robertson Associate Professor, Plant Pathology Iowa State University 317 Bessey Hall Ames, IA 50011-1020 515/294-6708 alisonr@iastate.edu Erika Saalau Extension Program Specialist, Plant Pathology and Microbiology Iowa State University 351 Bessey Ames, IA 50011-1020 515/294-1741 esaalau@iastate.edu John E. Sawyer Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2104 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1923 jsawyer@iastate.edu Kristine Schaefer Extension Program Specialist, Entomology Iowa State University 8 Insectary Ames, IA 50011-3140 515/294-4286 schaefer@iastate.edu S. Elwynn Taylor Professor, Agronomy Iowa State University 2104 Agronomy Hall Ames, IA 50011-1010 515/294-1923 setaylor@iastate.edu Patrick Tranel Professor, Crop Sciences University of Illinois 320 ERML 1201 W. Gregory Dr. Urbana, IL 61801 217/333-1531 tranel@illinois.edu Greg Tylka Professor, Plant Pathology Iowa State University 321 Bessey Ames, IA 50011-1020 515/294-3021 gltylka@ia
Growin good corn: Rocket science or common sense?

RL (Bob) Nielsen, Extension corn specialist, Agronomy, Purdue University
Background
For 70 years, beginning in 1866, national corn grain yields in the U.S. were essentially flat (Fig. 1) and averaged only 26 bpa (bushels per acre) during that entire 70-year time period. The absence of noticeable yield improvement throughout all those years is remarkable given that farmers of the day were essentially also plant breeders practicing a recognized form of plant breeding (mass selection) as they saved the best ears from each years crop for planting the next. As the nation began to emerge from the Great Depression and Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, U.S. corn growers began to replace their traditional open-pollinated corn varieties with the new technology of double-cross hybrid seed corn. Within a few years, a significant shift in national corn grain yield was evident. During the period 1937 1955, average corn yields changed from no annual yield improvement to an annual rate of gain equal to roughly three quarters of a bu per ac per year (Fig. 1). Such a shift in the rate of improvement in corn grain yield represented a quantum leap shift in productive capacity. A second quantum leap in the annual rate of yield gain in corn occurred in the mid-1950s with the greater adoption of single-cross hybrids and other new improved production technologies including mechanization, herbicides, and inorganic fertilizers (especially nitrogen). Beginning around 1956, the rate of annual yield gain dramatically changed from about three quarters of a bu per ac per year to nearly 2 bu per ac per year and has remained at that rate in the succeeding 55 years (Fig. 1). The exponential population growth on this planet mandates that we increase the rate of yield improvement in corn and other major food crops around the world. If the average annual rate of yield improvement remains constant at just under 2 bu per ac per year, then achieving a national average corn yield of 300 bpa would not be expected to occur until about 2086; a far cry from the often quoted promise that biotechnology will result in a national U.S. corn grain yield average of 300 bpa by the year 2030. To reach that lofty goal by 2030, another quantum leap shift in the rate of annual yield gain would have to occur beginning NEXT YEAR that would take us to an annual increase of about 7.5 bu/ac/yr for the next 19 years. Such a quantum leap shift in yield improvement would be unprecedented in the history of corn production. Contrary to the hype and hoopla over transgenic corn traits by the farm press and seed corn industry in recent years, there is little evidence that a third quantum leap shift in corn productivity has yet begun (Fig. 1). Another disconcerting fact is that relative to trend yields, the annual relative rate of yield gain has been steadily decreasing for the past 50+ years (Fig. 2). Shortly after the second quantum leap shift occurred in the mid-1950s, the relative rate of yield improvement was about 3.5% per year. Since then the absolute rate of yield gain per year has remained unchanged at 2 bu per ac per year. However, since todays average grain yield is significantly higher than those in the 1950s, the relative rate of annual yield gain today is only about 1.2% per year.
300 Bushels per acre is achievable today!

Even though the goal of achieving a national AVERAGE corn yield of 300 bpa by 2030 is likely out of reach unless a miraculous improvement in technology occurs soon, it is true that individual growers have demonstrated in national corn yield contests that they can produce 300 bpa with todays technologies and genetics (NCGA, 2010). Furthermore, the physiological yield components necessary to produce a 300+ bu crop are not terribly out of reach today. Potential ear size is easily 1000 kernels with todays hybrids. That would be equal to an ear with 18 kernel rows and 56 kernels per row. If (admittedly a big IF) that ear size could be maintained at a harvest population of only 30,000 plants per acre and IF kernel weight could be maintained at about 85,000 kernels per 56 lb. bushel (a modest kernel weight), those yield components would multiply to equal a yield potential of 356 bpa!

Historical U.S. Corn Grain Yields 1866 to date 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Data source: USDA-NASS y = 0.7644x - 1452.4 R2 = 0.7224 1866-1936 1937-1955 Since 1956 y = 1.9135x - 3690.6 R2 = 0.9193
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
Figure 1. National average corn grain yield since 1866. Data source: USDA-NASS (2011).
Current Annual Rate of Yield Gain As A Percent Of Historical Trend Yield U.S. Corn Grain, 1956 - 2011 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0
Data source: USDA-NASS
Relative annual yield gain (% of trend yield)
1956
Current (2011) annual rate of yield gain is equal to 1.9 bu/ac/yr or 1.2% of current (2011) trend yield (157 bu/ac)
2011
50
100 Trend yield (bu/ac)
150
200
Figure 2. Relative annual rate of yield gain for U.S. corn since 1956 based on current annual rate of 1.9 bu/ac/yr. Data source: USDA-NASS (2011).
The secret to producing 300+ bushel corn

Given that the yield potential of that bag of seed corn is already 300+ bpa, then what is preventing all of us from routinely producing those high yields on our farms? The answer to that question is simple Once that seed is planted, that crop is subjected to a season-long array of yield influencing factors, most of which are stresses that reduce yield potential. So, the secret to improving yields on your farm is simply to sharpen your focus on identifying the yield-influencing factors specific to the fields you farm. Once you have successfully done that, then you are better equipped to identify the appropriate agronomic management strategies to alleviate those factors holding back your yield and, perhaps, enhance those factors that promote high yields. Pretty simple, eh?
Rocket science or common sense?

The trouble with the way many folks go about the business of improving yields on their farms is that they always look for the silver bullets or the one-size-fits-all answer to their problems. They read farm magazine articles that highlight what one guy has done in Timbuktu that supposedly resulted a 20 bpa jump in his corn yields and figure that they ought to try the same thing on their farm in northwest Iowa. They listen to the testimonials of someone in the next county over that used Bobs High Yield Snake Oil & Emolument on his crop and rush over to their local crop input retailer to buy some of the stuff to try on their farm. They take notes on the best management strategies presented at a crops conference by some guy from Purdue University who has never been on their farm and make plans to adopt those BMPs for next years crop. The problem or challenge, you see, is that you need to invest your own time and effort to identify the important yieldlimiting factors that are specific to your own fields. As I stated earlier, once you have successfully identified the yieldlimiting factors specific to your production fields, then you are better equipped to identify the appropriate agronomic management strategies to alleviate those factors holding back your yield and, perhaps, enhance those factors that promote high yields. It aint rocket science. It is hard work and common sense, coupled with a sound knowledge of agronomic principles.
Yield influencing factors (YIFs)

The process of identifying the YIFs that are important to your specific fields is not an easy one. First of all, these YIFs can be either negative or positive in their effects on yield. Pay attention to both. These YIFs may occur every year in a given field or they may not. These YIFs often interact with other YIFs to influence yield. Think about the compounded effects of heat + drought + soil compaction. These YIFs often affect different crops differently. For example, most of us do not worry about gray leaf spot disease in soybeans. Frankly, as a corn guy, I dont worry about soybeans anyway, but thats another story. These YIFs often interact with soil type / texture / drainage conditions. These YIFs almost always interact with weather conditions. Ultimately, the effects of YIFs on corn yield are equal to their effects on the four components that constitute grain yield. The timing of the occurrence of YIFs relative to crop growth stage greatly determines their effect on these yield components because they develop at different times throughout the season (Fig. 1).
Plants per acre (population or stand) Ears per plant (degree of barrenness) Kernels per ear (potential vs. actual)
Kernel rows per ear Kernels per row
Weight per kernel

Figure 3. Phenological timeline of the development of yield components in corn. (Source: Nielsens imagination) Once you sit down to list the possible YIFs that may influence corn yields on your farm, you will easily reach the conclusion that there must be a gazillion YIFs to consider. Where do you begin? If you have farmed a particular field for a while, your own experience in that field is invaluable to identifying the YIFs specific to that field. You can probably come up with a short list of obvious YIFs based on that alone. In future cropping seasons, strive to keep thorough notes on what happens with the crop during the entire growing season. Dont just plant it and come back at harvest. Visit your fields regularly. Sure, you can hire a crop scout to walk your fields for you, but there is a lot to be said for you walking your fields yourself. Take advantage of the agronomic skills and knowledge of both the private and public sectors. Work closely with the sales or technical agronomists from your crop input retailers. Consider hiring the services of an independent crop consultant. Dont forget the Extension resources available at your own land-grant university. You say you dont know the name of your states Extension corn or soybean agronomist? Shame on you! You can find them in the following Web directories. These specialists can also put you in contact with other, more specific, content matter specialists at your land-grant university. http://www.kingcorn.org/experts/CornSpec.html http://www.kingcorn.org/experts/soyspec.html Stay up to date during the growing season by reading Extension newsletters from around the Midwest. You can find most of them linked at my Chat n Chew Caf Web site: http://www.kingcorn.org/cafe. Yes, I know this is shameless promotion of my own Web activity, but what can I say? Spend time perusing two good university Web sites that focus on corn production issues. Mine at Purdue: http://www.kingcorn.org/news/archive.html Roger Elmores at Iowa State Univ: http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn Did your wife buy you a smartphone or tablet for your birthday with 3G cellular connectivity? Install a GIS app on it and use the thing to map problem areas in the field for future reference. I have used an app called GISRoam with my Apple iPad to map problem areas or field features with reasonably good success. Theres another app called iGIS that I have not used enough to comment on, but its worth checking out. If you use your iPhone, I would recommend considering an after-market phone case that contains an additional battery to provide you with more hours of GIS field scouting. Take advantage of previous years yield maps to physically direct you to specific spots in a field to continue your hunt for YIFs. Target those field areas for specific soil sampling. Target those areas to intentionally scout the following crop season. Do you have access to aerial imagery during the growing season? Recognize that aerial imagery by itself often cannot identify the cause of visual differences in a field. That is usually your job using the imagery to guide you to spots in the field. The bottom line with this discussion is Get out into your fields during the growing season, identify problem areas early while the evidence is still there to aid diagnostics, and figure out whats going on with your crops!
Key factors to consider

Even though I hinted earlier in this treatise that you should not blindly believe any expert who has not been on your farm, here are a few key factors I can offer to you for your consideration as you go about the business of identifying the important YIFs for your farm. Because I am Iowa-challenged, these factors will by necessity be influenced by my experiences with growing good corn in Indiana.
Field drainage
In my area of the eastern Corn Belt, naturally poorly-drained soils constitute a major perennial challenge to establishing vigorous stands of corn by virtue of their effects on the success and uniformity of rooting and plant development. The adequacy of field drainage (tile or surface) greatly influences whether corn will produce 200-plus yields or nothing (ponded out) or somewhere in between. By improving tile or surface drainage in a field, you can reduce the risks of ponding or soggy soils, loss of soil nitrate by denitrification, and soil compaction by tillage and other field equipment. Reducing these risks enables more successful root development and stand establishment of the corn crop, which in turn will enable the crop to better tolerate stresses later in the growing season.
Supplemental water
Some soils in the eastern Corn Belt suffer from the opposite problem of drying out too easily when rainfall is inadequate. Obviously, fields with those soils will usually respond to supplemental water provided by above-ground irrigation (center pivots, shotguns, rows) or below-ground supplementation by virtue of pumping water back into tile drains or drainage ditches. Either choice requires informed decision-making relative to irrigation scheduling based on crop demand and soil water availability (Joern & Hess, 2010). Maintenance and proper operation of center pivot irrigation systems is crucial to optimize efficiency in terms of irrigation costs and crop benefit.
Hybrid selection
Most of us spend too little time evaluating the documented performance of potential hybrids for use in our operations. Look at any hybrid trial that includes good hybrids from a range of seed companies and you will easily see a 50 to100 bushel range in yield between the top and bottom of the trial. Mind you, this spread from high to low occurs in variety trials where supposedly every hybrid entered into the trial is a good hybrid. I doubt that seed companies enter bad hybrids on purpose. The key challenge is to identify hybrids that not only have good yield potential, but that also tolerate a wide range of growing conditions (Nielsen, 2010). The best way to accomplish this is to evaluate hybrid performance across a lot of locations. University trials are good for this exercise (Iowa State Univ, 2011; Devillez, 2011). If you use seed company trials, be aware that often there are few competitor hybrids included in variety trial results. Recognize that no hybrid wins every trial in which it is entered. Look for hybrids that consistently yield no less than about 90% of the highest yield in the trial no matter where they are grown. For example, if the top hybrid in a particular trial yielded 230 bpa, then look for hybrids in the same trial that yield at least 207 bpa (230 x 0.90). That may not sound like much of a challenge, but you will be surprised how few hybrids will meet that goal when evaluated over a lot of locations. Once youve identified some promising hybrids based on their consistency of performance, then concentrate on other important traits like resistance to important diseases in your area of the state.
Manage trash in no-till

If you no-till corn on soils that are poorly drained, then you simply must strive to manage surface trash to enable drying / warming of surface soils, facilitate effective planter operation, and improve crop emergence / stand establishment. Aim to burn-down winter annual weeds or cover crops before their growth becomes unmanageable. Use row-cleaners on the planter units to remove a narrow band of trash from the seed furrow area. Avoid planting on the wet side in order to minimize the risk of furrow sidewall compaction or topside compaction.
Avoid soil compaction

If you improve soil drainage, you will also minimize the risk of working or planting fields on the wet side and, therefore, the risk of creating soil compaction with tillage or other field operations that can limit root development.

Minimize the number of tillage trips, consider strip-till or no-till systems. Remember, though, that no-till or strip-till is not immune to the risk of soil compaction.
Continuous corn or not?

Frankly, continuous corn simply does not yield as well as rotation corn. Numerous long-term rotation trials have documented this across a number of states. The yield drag is especially likely for no-till corn after corn. Folks who claim to do well with continuous corn are often fairly aggressive with their management of the stover from the previous crop. Corn stover delays the drying / warming of the soil and thus delays crop emergence and development. Corn stover (including old root balls) often interferes with planter operation, causing poor / uneven seed depth or seed-2-soil contact and thus causes delayed or uneven crop emergence. Decomposing corn stover immobilizes soil nitrogen early in the season and can retard corn growth and development early in the season until root development reaches a critical mass. Corn stover can intercept soil-applied herbicide and reduce the effectiveness of weed control. Finally, corn stover harbors inoculum of important diseases like gray leaf spot or Goss wilt. Any way you look at it, a continuous corn cropping system is fraught with challenges.
Starter fertilizer or not?

Starter fertilizer, especially nitrogen, is important for maximizing corn yields in the eastern Corn Belt. I offer the following explanation and leave it to you to decide whether your situation is similar. A little background: Young corn plants depend heavily on stored kernel reserves until roughly the V3 stage of development (three leaves with visible leaf collars). At that point, the plants begin to wean themselves from dependence on the stored kernel reserves (which are playing out) to dependence on the developing nodal root system. If life up to that point has been hunky-dory, the transition to dependence on the nodal roots will go smoothly and the crop will continue to develop into a vigorous and uniform stand that will tolerate future stresses nicely. However, if conditions have been challenging during emergence and early stand establishment, then nodal root development has probably been stunted and the young plants will struggle to wean themselves from the kernel reserves. Consequently, the plants will appear to stall out, their development will become uneven, they will turn light green to yellow, and the resulting stand will not be as vigorous and uniform as you want. Such a stand of corn will likely continue to struggle the remainder of the season. It is the latter situation wherein a robust 2x2 starter fertilizer program will aid the young plants as they struggle in the transition to dependence on nodal roots. Our experience in the eastern Corn Belt suggests that starter nitrogen is the primary important nutrient and starter N rates should be no less than 20 to 30 lbs actual N per acre; perhaps higher than that for no-till continuous corn.
Nitrogen management
Nitrogen management in the eastern Corn Belt is challenging because of our poorly drained soils, ample rainfall, and the risk of N loss by either denitrification or leaching. Consequently, yields are often lower than desired because of inadequate levels of soil N during the growing season, resulting in lower grain income for the grower. Alternatively, growers sometimes apply more N than the crop requires in an effort to mitigate the consequences of excessive N loss on the crop and, thus, incur higher crop production expenses. Best management practices that target the efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers in corn are well documented (Camberato et al., 2011; Sawyer, 2011) and include avoiding fall N applications, avoiding surface application of urea-based fertilizers without incorporation, and adopting sidedress N application programs where practical. These practices, plus the implementation of a robust starter fertilizer program, will help reduce the loss of soil N and maximize the bushels produced per pound of N fertilizer applied.
Disease management
Warm, humid conditions typical of the eastern Corn Belt during the summer months are conducive for the development of several important foliar fungal corn diseases, including gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight. Gosss Wilt, a potentially severe bacterial disease, has migrated into Indiana in recent years and represents a new challenge for growers in the eastern Corn Belt. Yield losses from these foliar corn diseases can easily decrease corn grain yields by 20% or more.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 13 Best management practices that target efficient management of these important corn diseases are well documented (Wise; 2010a, 2010b, 2011) and include:
Hybrid selection for good disease resistance characteristics. Avoiding continuous corn cropping systems. Avoiding no-till cropping systems. Responsible use of foliar fungicides (except for Gosss Wilt)
Remember, it aint rocket science!

It should be obvious at this point that achieving higher, more consistent yields does not require rocket science. Rather, were talking about a lot of common sense agronomic principles that work together to minimize the usual crop stresses that occur every year and allow the crop to better tolerate uncontrollable weather stresses. Other agronomic practices not discussed in this presentation include a sound weed control program that focuses on the use of residual herbicides and an attitude that you will aim to kill weeds when they are small. Make the effort to identify those yield limiting factors that are most important for your specific farming operation. This requires good crop detective skills and a sound understanding of agronomic principles. Together with your crop advisor(s), work toward identifying and implementing good agronomic management practices that target those yield limiting factors.
References
Camberato, Jim, RL (Bob) Nielsen, Eric Miller, and Brad Joern. 2011. Nitrogen Management Guidelines for Indiana. Applied Crop Research Update, Purdue Extension. online at http://www.kingcorn.org/news/timeless/ NitrogenMgmt.pdf [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Elmore, Roger. 2011. Corn Production. Iowa State Univ. online at http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Iowa State Univ. 2011. Iowa Crop Performance Tests. online at http://www.croptesting.iastate.edu [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Joern, Brad and Phil Hess. 2010. Irrigation Scheduler. Purdue Research Foundation. download online at http://www.agry.purdue.edu/irrigation [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Devillez, Phil. 2011. Purdue Crop Performance Program. Purdue Univ., online at http://www.ag.purdue.edu/agry/ PCPP/Pages/default.aspx [URL accessed Oct 2011]. NCGA. 2010. Winners Corn Yield Guide. National Corn Growers Association. online at http://www.ncga.com/ uploads/useruploads/ncyc2010.pdf [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Nielsen, RL (Bob). 2010. Hybrid Selection: Wheres the Beef? Corny News Network, Purdue Univ. online at http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/HybridSeln.html [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Nielsen, RL (Bob). 2011. Chat n Chew Cafe. Purdue Univ. online at http://www.kingcorn.org/cafe [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Nielsen, RL (Bob). 2011. Corny News Network Archives. Purdue Univ. online at http://www.kingcorn.org/news/ archive.html [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Nielsen, RL (Bob). 2011. State Extension Corn Specialists. Purdue Univ. online at http://www.kingcorn.org/experts/ CornSpec.html [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Nielsen, RL (Bob). 2011. State Extension Soybean Specialists. Purdue Univ. online at http://www.kingcorn.org/experts/ SoySpec.html [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Sawyer, John. 2011. Nitrogen; a sub-section of the Iowa State Univ Soil Fertility Web Site. online at http://www. agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/nutrienttopics/nitrogen.html [URL accessed Oct 2011]. USDA-NASS. 2011. QuickStats. United States Dept Agric Natl Ag Statistics Service. Online at http://quickstats.nass.

usda.gov [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Wise, Kiersten. 2010a. Gosss Bacterial Wilt and Leaf Blight. Purdue Extension publication BP-81-W. online at http:// www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/bp/BP-81-W.pdf [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Wise, Kiersten. 2010b. Gray Leaf Spot. Purdue Extension publication BP-56-W. online at http://www.extension. purdue.edu/extmedia/bp/BP-56-W.pdf [URL accessed Oct 2011]. Wise, Kiersten. 2011. Northern Corn Leaf Blight. Purdue Extension publication BP-84-W. online at http://www. extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/BP/BP-84-W.pdf [URL accessed Oct 2011].
Long silks, short pollena long year?

Roger W. Elmore, professor and Extension corn agronomist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Corn harvest is nearly complete in Iowa as I write this, 19 days ahead of the 5-year normal and slightly behind that of last year (USDA-NASS, 2011a). Many farmers already report corn and soybean yields are better than expected. Does that mean the crop is turning out better than they expected at planting, in early July, in early August? It depends on the baseline. In early July I heard many talk about being in the garden spot, things were looking really good! But then the straight-line winds of July 11th flattened corn across a wide strip of central, eastern and northeast Iowa. Later, hail and wind storms decimated more of our corn even into September. Then, with such a hot July we were very concerned about poor pollination (Elmore, 2011). Reports of long silks suggested we either were short on pollen or we had missed the nick. The high temperatures certainly sped up crop development to where it was pushing growth stages faster than we would have liked. Of course, it could have been worse. Some fields were flooded out, some were dried out, many were badly lodged. Not surprisingly, 2011 yields are across the board from lower than expected to higher than expected. The current state yield forecast (USDA-NASS, 2011b) is for 169 bushels per acre. If realized, that is 4 bushels above last year but 8 below the 30-year trend line (Figure 1). The USDA expects 13,650,000 acres harvested, 600,000 more than last year, and 450,000 less than we planted.

Figure 1. Thirty-year corn yield trendline (tl) & 2011 October Forecast (fc), Iowa and U.S.A. from USDA-NASS, 2011b and previous years.
Yield variation
Regional differences are obvious this year. For example, the current estimate of 178 bushels per acre as the average for the Northwest Iowa district is about 7 bushels below that of 2010 but the 135 bushel per acre estimate for Southeast

Iowa is 37 bushels above that of 2010!
Lessons from 2011

Is there anything we should take away from their 2011 corn growing experience? What can we learn from this year and do differently next year to try to improve their yield? There are always things to learn, Im always on the learning curve. We need to keep thinking, comparing and learning year-to-year. This year with the extremely high heat in July, Im not sure we could have avoided a yield reduction, even with good hybrid selection, management practices, etc. In any case, its wise to plant a diverse set of hybrids the crop silks at different times. That way you can avoid the consequences of a week or several days perhaps of stress occurring during the pollination period. But when we have three or four weeks of extremely hot weather like we did in July this year, theres not much gained by having different silking dates resulting from different hybrids planted. They were all stressed! Nevertheless, always plant a diversity of corn hybrids, in order to spread out the silking dates and maturity dates. It may not help in a year like 2011, but there is a good chance it will in other years. Better than expected, thats something for which to be thankful. Lets try to do what we can to do much better than expected next year!
References
Elmore, R. 2011. Long silks? Integrated Crop Management News. Iowa State Univ. Extension. 9 August 2011. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2011/0729elmore.htm Elmore, R. and S. Taylor. 2011. August 2011 Iowa corn yield forecast. Iowa State Univ. Extension. 12 August 2011. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2011/0812elmoretaylor.htm Taylor, E. and R. Elmore. 2011. Weather impact on Midwest corn 2011. Integrated Crop Management News. Iowa State Univ. Extension. 29 July 2011. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2011/0809elmoretaylor.htm USDA-NASS. 2011a. Crops & Weather. 31 Oct. 2011. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Iowa/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/2011/ Vol35__10_31_11.pdf USDA-NASS. 2011b. Crop Production. 12 October 2011. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProd/CropProd-10-12-2011.pdf
Making silage from Iowas forage crops

Stephen K. Barnhart, Extension forage agronomist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Proper ensiling is a controlled fermentation, which converts perishable wet forage plant material to a stable, stored feed energy source. Good ensiling management is required for high silage quality and dry matter (DM) recovery. To guide silage management practices, it is important to understand the biological and chemical processes that occur during ensiling, their effects on silage quality, and how these processes can be managed to help produce a more consistent feedstuff.
The ensiling process

There are four phases during the ensiling process: Aerobic phase or the pre-seal management, fermentation phase, stable phase, and the feed-out phase.
Aerobic, pre-seal phase

During the aerobic phase, forage is cut, chopped, moved to the site of ensiling, packed, and sealed. Management practices at each step will influence the success of the final ensiling. The management goal(s) during the aerobic phase is to store the chopped forage and create an anaerobic environment as soon as possible. In the presence of oxygen, plant and microbial respiration dominates, causing changes and nutrient losses from the chopped crop. Respiration is a necessary step, because it uses the oxygen trapped in the chopped forage material, but at the same time is a wasteful process, because it uses some of the plant sugars needed for further fermentation, thus, wasting some energy and dry matter (DM). An important, first step is to harvest the forage crop(s) at the proper time. In making this decision, several plant maturity-related and livestock needs factors must be considered. Table 1 provides descriptive harvest maturities for several commonly used forage crops. When harvested at these stages, there is generally a good compromise for yield and nutritive quality. Some of these corps can be chopped directly as a standing crop at these stages, some may require cutting, windrowing and wilting to a more appropriate whole plant moisture content before chopping. Table 1. Maturity stages at which commonly used forage crops are chopped for silage Crop Corn Sorghum, grain and forage Cereal grains Alfalfa Red Clover Summer annual grasses Grass mixtures, orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass, and timothy Legume - grass mixtures Stage of maturity Proper whole plant moisture; or kernels at to 2/3 milk- line Kernels at mid- to late-dough Late boot to early-flowering, or kernels at mid- to late-dough stage Late-bud to early-bloom Late-bud to early bloom Late vegetative to late-boot Boot to early-heading Grasses at boot early-heading
The next important practice during pre-seal management is to chop the forage at the proper particle length. The recommended cutting length is 3/8 to 1/2 inch. Forage chopped in this particle size range packs well. When forage is too coarsely chopped, it is difficult to pack tightly, maintains excess trapped air, and allows respiration to continue for an extended period. Chopping too finely wastes fuel and may adversely affect the normal rumen function of cattle that eat the silage. Forage chopper knives are adjusted to cut at 3/8 to 1/2 inch, however, there will be some longer particles, which are actually useful in ruminant feeding.

To further reduce respiration losses during the aerobic phase, fill the silo or silage bag quickly, pack the chopped forage well, cover and seal the chopped material as soon as possible. If managed well, the aerobic phase will last about one day. The heat produced as a product by respiration raises silage temperature and increases the rate of microbial processes, both good (fermentation) and bad (respiration). A noticeable increase in temperature is normal, and it is not uncommon for 50 and 70 percent moisture forage to reaches a temperature as high as 115F during ensiling. Forage chopped and stored at moisture contents lower than 50 percent is more difficult to pack, thus providing more oxygen for a longer period during this initial, aerobic phase. More oxygen generally results in temperatures above about 120F which can lead to an undesirable high-temperature reactions that causes heat-damage-browning, and decreased silage protein and DM digestibility. Silage producers can reduce excessive respiration losses by chopping the forage crop at the appropriate (60 to 70 percent) moisture content. The appropriate moisture content is the same for all crops, but each forage crop being used will require slightly different growth stages or management to achieve the desirable moisture content.
Fermentation phase
During the fermentation phase, the goal is for desirable bacteria to ferment sugars and carbohydrates to lactic acid, and to lower the pH of the ensiled forage to around 3.8-4.2, a level normally required for good quality silage. Processes during this phase occur under anaerobic (oxygen-free) conditions and should be dominated by growth of lactic acid-producing bacteria. This period lasts for two to four weeks. During the first days of ensiling, however, plant enzymes and acetic acid producing bacteria compete with lactic acid bacteria for sugars and proteins. Plant enzymes also break down some plant proteins to soluble non-protein nitrogen (NPN). Protein breakdown is highest during the first day after sealing and decreases rapidly as oxygen is used up. Very little protein breakdown occurs after one week under proper ensiling conditions. After ensiling, NPN in the silage can range from 20 percent to as much as 85 percent of total N. Fermentation is carried out by two main groups of lactic acid bacteria are homofermenters, which produce only lactic acid from sugar; and heterofermenters, which produce carbon dioxide, ethanol, acetic acid, and lactic acid. The homofermenters are the most desirable because their activity does not cause DM loss as do heterofermenters. High levels of less desirable acetic acid and ethanol reduce the palatability of silage and, thus, animal intake. Large numbers of lactic acid bacteria, and other types of bacteria, occur naturally on plants and grow under warm, humid conditions. As a result, corn and other forage crops, chopped at appropriate moisture contents, finish fermenting within 2 to 3 weeks. Fermentation occurs faster at silage mass temperatures between 80 and 100F but may require , several more weeks if the chopped forage is < 50F .
Stable phase
When lactic acid bacteria have reduced the silage pH sufficiently to stop their growth (pH 4.0 - 4.2 or lower), the stable phase begins. As long as the silo remains sealed and anaerobic, little biological activity occurs during this period.
Feed-out phase
After the silo is opened and during feed-out, the surface is reexposed to oxygen where yeast, mold, and aerobic bacteria can again degrade the silage. These organisms convert remaining plant sugars, lactic acid, or other energyrich nutrients in the silage to carbon dioxide, water, and heat. In addition, residual plant proteins can be converted to ammonia. Because fermentation acids can be broken down during aerobic spoilage, silage pH can increase to levels sometimes exceeding 7.0. Heating and a yeast aroma are the most common symptoms of aerobic deterioration of silages. Thus, feed-out spoilage causes increased DM losses, degraded feed, and a higher risk of toxic organisms and their spoilage products. When good feed-out management is practiced, aerobic feed-out losses are minimal. Recommended management is to remove a minimum of 2 to 3 inches of silage per day in the winter and 4 inches of silage per day in the summer from tower silos. For bunker silos, it is best to remove at least 4 inches per day in the winter and 6 to 10 inches per day from the silage surface in the summer. Also, feed silage to the livestock in small amounts two to four times per day instead of in one large feeding.
Silage additives
Producers hear and read advertisements and promotions about products to help make better silage. To determine whether to use a silage additive or which one is best, it is important that you know how the additive influences silage fermentation. Remember that an effective additive may help make good silage a bit better, but it will not make poor silage good. The most commonly used silage additives can be divided into five categories: bacterial inoculants, nonprotein nitrogen (NPN) sources, and sugar sources.
Bacterial inoculants
These are the most common silage additives in the United States and are primarily homofermenter lactic acid bacteria. Effectiveness of the applied inoculant depends on the natural lactic acid bacterial population, the sugar content of the crop, and strains of bacteria in the inoculant. The inoculant must provide at least a tenfold increase in the lactic acid bacteria numbers in the silo to be economically practical. Currently there is no method for quick determination of natural lactic acid bacteria numbers on the chopped crops. A common recommendation for the addition of inoculant lactic acid bacteria is to add a minimum of 100,000 colonyforming units (CFU) of lactic acid bacteria per gram of fresh forage. Inoculants are most consistently effective when the chopped forage has low numbers of naturally occurring bacteria, or when the chopped forage has low concentrations of fermentable sugars and carbohydrates, as is more often the case with chopped forage grasses and legumes, particularly when chopped at 70 percent moisture or higher. Some strains of a bacterial species have been selected for use on particular crops. Therefore, buy the inoculant product that is selected for the crop you are ensiling. If that is not possible, try a product for a similar crop within the same classification (i.e. legumes and grasses). A relatively new approach in silage inoculant additives is to include an inoculant to direct the fermentation, aid in preventing spoilage during feed-out, and to improve feed bunk stability. The bacteria Lactobacilus buchneri has been demonstrated to improve aerobic stability of silages by reducing the growth of yeasts. The beneficial impact of L. buchneri appears to be related to the production of some acetic acid in addition to lactic acid during fermentation. Aerobic stability is likely improved because acetic acid inhibits growth of specific species of yeast that are responsible for heating and spoilage upon exposure to oxygen as compared to untreated silages. Treating silage with inoculants including L. buchneri most likely would be beneficial under circumstances where problems with aerobic instability are expected. Corn silage, small grain silage and high moisture corn are more susceptible to spoilage once exposed to air than legume or grass silage, and therefore L. buchneri inoculation may be a benefit.
Non-protein nitrogen sources (NPN)

Both ammonia and urea are common additives for improving corn, sorghum, and other cereal silages with low protein concentrations. These additives are used to increase the total crude protein and NPN concentration of silage and to improve aerobic stability during feed-out. Application rates are typically 5 to 10 pounds of an hydrous ammonia or 10 to 20 pounds of urea per ton of fresh chopped forage. Addition of NPN can raise the pH of the crop, with ammonia having the greatest effect. Urea is preferred over ammonia because urea is safer and easier to handle since no special application equipment is required. NPN must be carefully managed in ruminant animal diets. Its feeding value varies and must be balanced with the other constituents in rations
Added carbohydrate sources

Whey, molasses, and starchy cereal grains are sometimes used to improve preservation of low energy crops. Additions of 1 to 10 percent dried whey of fresh silage weight have been successful in improving fermentation of low sugar forage crops, such as alfalfa and grass. Molasses, applied at 2 to 5 percent of fresh silage weight, improves fermentation in high moisture (> 70 percent) crops and in crops with naturally low sugar content, such as alfalfa. The addition of molasses combined with an inoculant to a low sugar crop may improve conditions for fermentation of sugar to lactic acid.
20 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University When the ensiling process goes wrong!
Ensiling is usually successful. However when important steps are mismanaged, it can lead to undesirable results. Plant material chopped too dry and inadequate packing can trap excess oxygen. As the aerobic phase stretches too long, some naturally occurring bacteria produce less lactic and more acetic acid and, This can also occur in the absence of enough sugars for proper fermentation. This condition can also occur when a silo is opened mid-way through the fermentation phase, as when a producer puts additional forage on the existing fermenting silage. Rexexposure to added oxygen can cause a gradual growth of undesirable bacteria, a reduction in lactic acid and increased acetic acid concentrations, reducing silage palatability Clostridium bacteria and other undesirable bacteria that may be present on the chopped crop can convert already formed lactic acid to foul smelling butyric acid and produce ammonia from plant protein. This is called a secondary fermentation, and is characterized by butyric acid levels greater than lactic acid levels, ammonia-N levels greater than 10 percent of total N, pH above 5.0, and a rancid butter odor. Clostridial fermentation may sometimes dominate in silage with a moisture content above 70 percent. Other problems can develop during the stable phase if oxygen slowly enters through silo walls and through plastic covers. This can reactivate aerobic microorganisms. The growth of yeasts, molds, and other aerobic bacteria, including Listeria bacteria, grow in silage exposed to oxygen. Listeria can become a serious animal health concern.
Summary
To achieve good silage fermentation, the crop must be harvested at the proper moisture (60 to 70 percent) level. Silage that is too wet causes seepage losses from the silage and growth of undesired microorganisms, which result in a less palatable feed for ruminants. Too dry (< 50 percent moisture) silage, however, increases DM losses due to respiration and heating and reduces the opportunity for lactic acid bacteria to grow. The key for successful ensiling is to chop the forage to a minimum cutting length of 3/8 to1/2 inch, pack the forage tightly in the silo, and seal the silo well to prevent air passages through covers and walls. When these conditions are met, silage quality can be further improved with silage additives. Bacterial inoculants can increase the number of lactic acid bacteria in the silage. The desirable lactic acid bacteria use sugar to produce lactic acid, which decreases pH to 4.0 to 4.2. A rapid pH drop results in stable, high quality silage. Fermentable sugar concentration can be raised with molasses, whey, or cereal grains. Non-protein nitrogen products are used in crops with low protein concentrations, such as corn and sorghum, to increase their crude protein level and to improve silage stability during feed-out.
Midwest crop weather 2011-2012: What follows a strong La Nia?

Elwynn Taylor, professor and Extension climatologist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
The abnormal 2011 weather for much of the Earth turned out very much as it had been during the previous La Nia events of like strength (1952-5/1974). Temperatures in the Midwest tended to alternate from warmer than usual for a week or two to colder than usual for a week or two through the Winter and the Spring. The winter was wet in Montana and dry in Texas. Melting snow brought floods (mainly to the Missouri river basin). Heat exacerbated the Texas drought. Early spring tornadoes brought death and destruction on a scale not known since the previously strong La Nia events. Wet conditions at planting threatened crop establishment and hot/dry spells in the summer reduced yield potentials. Tropical storms had favorable conditions to make landfall on the continental US. All in all 2011 was a year with extreme weather just as expected from previous Strong La Nia Year experience. The previous strong events weakened in late spring then strengthened to persist into a 2nd year leaving forecasters scrambling to discern if 2012 will be a normal year or a re-run of the past winter and spring.
Subsoil moisture for Iowa in November 2011 was lower than during the past 3 years A strong La Nia was the likely cause The La Nia is expected to persist into March 2012 and perhaps longer Argentina drought risk is increased by La Nia La Nia Winters tend to be Wet in Montana, Dry in the Western Corn Belt, Wet in the East Winter may have extremely warm and extremely cold weeks as did the past winter. Summer drought risk is increased by low subsoil moisture in the Fall If La Nia continues into spring and summer drought risk is further increased.
References
Long-lead weather forecasts are found at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/ The La Nia / El Nio outlook is found at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ The temperature anomaly of the sea is found at: www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html The current SOI is found at: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/ The US Drought map is found at: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Crop and biofuel outlook for 2012

Crop agriculture has been on a roll. Corn and soybeans have provided positive returns three of the past four years. The 2011 crop year is shaping up to be the most profitable year on record. And futures prices for 2012 are offering sizable returns over projected production costs. So 2012 is shaping up to be an exciting market year for crop agriculture. The story over the past few years has been of large supplies, but even larger demands. While the 2011 crops are not as large as anticipated and the global economy continues to struggle, crop markets remain relatively strong. Biofuels have been the leading source of crop demand and new production platforms are being explored. Exports have been supportive, especially for soybeans, during the last three years. And livestock feed remains a critical part of the demand picture. The supply picture for 2011 has been weaker than hoped, but that weakness has supported prices. Corn area increased by 3.7 million acres in 2011. That should have boosted production, but pretty much every weather event that can lower corn yields has hit this corn crop in at least some part of the country. From floods and droughts to wind and hail to heat and frost, we have seen it all. Yields are off, even in comparison with last year. So 2011 corn production is roughly in line with 2010 production. Soybeans suffered through many of the same weather factors. That, combined with a drop in planted acreage, has put 2011 soybean production between 250 and 300 million bushels below last year. Despite the problems, both the corn and soybean crops in 2011 will be in the top 5 crops the U.S. has ever seen. The demand picture for 2011 has also been weaker than hoped. Global economic concerns press on the markets. The slide in crop prices throughout September was mainly driven by worries about the debt crisis in Europe and the effects a Greek default could have on other economies. These concerns not only hit the crop markets, but impacted stock, currency, and metal markets as well. The economic news through October has soothed the markets and crop prices have rebounded a little. For corn, the headline over the past year was the passing of the torch as ethanol passed domestic livestock feed as the #1 use of U.S. corn. Corn demand via ethanol topped the 5 billion mark for the 2010 crop. The outlook for the 2011 and 2012 corn crops suggests ethanol will continue to use roughly 5 billion bushels per year. While oil prices have had their ups and downs this year, overall the energy price pattern continues to support biofuel production. Based on ethanol production data, roughly 95 million bushels of corn are converted into ethanol each week. Figure 1 shows ethanol blending margins from January 2007 through October 2011 and margin projections based on futures prices out through mid-2014. The historical margins show that ethanol blending has been economically worthwhile for the vast majority of time over the past five years. And the projections indicate margins will remain positive even after the ethanol tax credit expires at the end of this year. For 2012, the keys for the ethanol industry will be the response of the industry to the loss of the tax credit and any movement on the introduction of E15 blends in the fuel sector. Corn feed and residual demand for the 2011 crop is projected at 4.7 billion bushels, as feed demand continues to shift lower. Returns to the livestock industry have been on the mend over the last couple of years. But the pattern has been a few months of profit followed by a few months of loss. Cattle production remains in decline, while hog and poultry production have returned to positive territory. A big issue for 2012 is price competition in feeds. Given corns relatively high price in comparison to other feeds, livestock feeders have moved to replace corn in part of the ration with lower cost feed. As Figure 2 shows, at the end of October wheat prices are actually below corn and remain close to corn over the next year. Normally, wheat futures run around $1.50 above corn futures. So wheat may be an attractive feed option for some U.S. livestock producers. We usually do not feed a lot of wheat, but other parts of the world do. So this same feed price competition is also affecting the corn export outlook.

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10
$ per gallon
0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04
1/3/2007
7/3/2007
1/3/2008
7/3/2008
1/3/2009
7/3/2009
1/3/2010
7/3/2010
1/3/2011
7/3/2011
1/3/2012
7/3/2012
1/3/2013
7/3/2013
1/3/2014
Figure 1. Ethanol blending margins Corn export demand is estimated at 1.6 billion bushels, down significantly from last year. Weakness in the dollar supports the export outlook. But the feed competition and increases in worldwide corn production offset that effect. Figure 3 displays export sales so far this marketing year. Current corn export sales pace is just ahead of last year, as importing countries have taken advantage of the September price dip. Exports remain the big story for soybeans, especially exports to China. With China shifting some purchases to South America, USDA lowered its export estimate to 1.375 billion bushels. This is well below the record from the last couple of years, but is still a strong export amount. The early sales data definitely shows the slowdown in exports. As Figure 3 shows, current soybean exports are significantly lower. As of mid-October, sales were down to all of the top 5 soybean importing countries. Domestic crush demand is projected at 1.635 billion bushels, down just over 100 million from last year. USDA projections have domestic use of soybean oil on the increase, while export demand is expected to fall. Biodiesel demand for soybean oil will be a key variable to watch in 2012. Biodiesel production has surged in 2011. In fact, the latest monthly figures (for July) from the U.S. Department of Energy show record production in the U.S. USDA expects another surge in biodiesel production in 2012 as the industry ramps up to meet the biodiesel portion of the Renewable Fuels Standard. From their early October outlook, USDA had projected ending stocks for corn at 866 million bushels, over 250 million bushels less than last year. Soybean ending stocks were estimated at 160 million bushels, down 55 million bushels from last year. So U.S. ending stocks remain tight. Currently, USDA projects 2011/12 season-average prices at $6.70 for corn and $13.15 for soybeans. The futures markets have backed off from those levels though. Current futures prices (as of Oct. 28, 2010) point to 2011/12 season-average prices around $6.40 per bushel for corn and $12 per bushel for soybeans.
7/3/2014
8.00 7.80 7.60 7.40
$ per bushel
7.20 7.00 6.80 6.60 6.40 6.20 6.00 5.80
Fe b12
Fe b13
12
3 r-1 Ap
-1 1
Au g12 O ct -1 2
r-1
Ju n-
-1 2
D ec
Corn
Figure 2. Corn vs. wheat futures. (Source: CME, Oct. 28, 2011)
1,200 1,000 Million bushels 800 600 400 200 0
Figure 3. Export Sales through Oct. 20. (Source: USDA-FAS)

19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11
Corn Soybeans
D ec
Wheat
Ju n-
Ap
13

With the sustained high prices for both crops, the acreage competition for 2012 should be interesting again. Corn looks to have the upper hand in the competition. Futures (as of Oct. 28) indicate 2012/13 season-average prices in the $6 range for corn and $12 range for soybeans. Crop input costs are headed up again, much like the scenario we saw in 2008 and 2009. With the prevented planting we saw last spring in the Dakotas and the eastern Corn Belt, we could see another sizable shift of land into corn production. Both corn and soybeans continue to offer significant positive returns. And corn is holding a roughly $150 per acre advantage on soybeans, about the same advantage as it had this time last year.
14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00
$ per bushel
8/1/2011
8/8/2011
8/15/2011
8/22/2011
8/29/2011
9/5/2011
9/12/2011
9/19/2011
9/26/2011
10/3/2011
10/10/2011
10/17/2011
Corn
Soybeans
Figure 4. Projections for 2012 season-average prices based on futures. As they stand right now, the 2011 and 2012 crop years look to be profitable ones for Iowa corn and soybeans. That would make it three profitable years in a row. As I wrote last year With cash prices above $5 per bushel for corn and $11 per bushel for soybeans, there are strong marketing opportunities currently. And futures are showing strong marketing opportunities for both crops in the future as well. That picture still holds. So as you prepare for 2012, analyze your production costs and take advantage of marketing opportunities that cover those costs and offer additional returns.
10/24/2011
Sustainable production and distribution of bioenergy for the Central U.S.

Global demand for energy continues to increase as the planets population grows past 7 billion and incomes rise, especially in developing countries. The increasing demand for energy has spurred many countries to explore alternative energy platforms. Over 50 countries throughout the world have active bioenergy programs. The U.S. has moved to the front of this activity as we have grown to become the largest producer of biofuels and as we alternate between the worlds largest importer and exporter of ethanol. In 2007, the federal government provided a blueprint for biofuel development over the next decade with the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Figure 1 shows the RFS and details targets for various types of renewable fuels. Looking forward over the next decade, the government is seeking significant expansion of cellulosic biofuels. The target for cellulosic biofuels expands from 250 million gallons in 2011 to 16 billion gallons in 2022.
40 35 30
Billion Gallons
25 20 15 10 5
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Conventional Biofuels Biodiesel

Figure 1. Renewable fuels standard.
Cellulosic Biofuels Additional Advanced Biofuels
As part of the governments efforts to meet the RFS targets, USDA recently called for proposals to investigate the development of sustainable bioenergy platforms. Iowa State University and collaborators from several other states have been awarded funds for a project that will: 1) explore the feasibility of producing advanced transportation fuels derived from perennial grasses grown on land that is unsuitable or marginal for row crop production and 2) improve the sustainability of existing corn/soybean systems by reducing agricultural runoff of nutrients and soil and increasing carbon sequestration.
2022

The project, known as CenUSA, is a multi-state and multi-disciplinary effort being led by Iowa State University Agronomy professor Ken Moore. Project activities will take place in Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois, Vermont and Idaho by researchers from Iowa State University, Purdue University, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin, University of Vermont, Idaho National Laboratory and from USDA Agricultural Research Service offices in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Iowa.
Figure 2. CenUSA team. CenUSA has 9 broad platforms within the project:
Feedstock Development Sustainable Production Systems Feedstock Logistics System Performance Feedstock Conversion Markets and Distribution Health and Safety Education Extension and Outreach
Each platform has specific goals. For feedstock development, the goal is to develop improved perennial grass cultivars and hybrids that can be used on marginal cropland in the Central U.S. for the production of biomass for bioenergy. Sustainable production systems are set to conduct comparative analyses of the productivity potential and the environmental impacts of promising bioenergy crops and management systems using a network of fields strategically located across the Central U.S. For feedstock logistics, the goal is to develop systems and strategies to enable sustainable and economic harvest, transportation, and storage of biomass feedstocks to meet the needs of the energy industry. The goal within system performance is to provide detailed analyses of feedstock production options to help policymakers, farmers, and the bioenergy industry make informed decisions about biomass production (amounts and locations); environmental impacts; and the interaction among biomass production, climate change, or other environmental shifts. In feedstock conversion, the goal is to perform a detailed economic analysis on the biorefinery performance using pyrolytic processing of biomass into liquid fuels and to provide biochar to researchers on the project. The markets and distributions platform will examine farm level adoption decisions, exploring the effectiveness of policy, market and contract mechanisms that facilitate broad scale voluntary adoption by farmers; and evaluate impacts of expanded advanced biofuel system on regional and global food, feed, energy and fiber markets. The health and safety platform will conduct a detailed analysis of all tasks associated with biomass production for hazard targets of personnel, equipment, environment, downtime, and product and will determine potentially
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 29 hazardous respiratory exposure limits associated with the production of biomass. The education platform will provide rich interdisciplinary training and engagement opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students in all areas of the bioenergy value chain to meet the workforce challenges of the bioeconomy. The extension and outreach platform will deliver science-based informational and educational programs for agricultural producers, general public, and youth audiences regarding perennial grass and biochar agriculture and biofuels production.
Figure 3. CenUSA grand vision.
Energy management for crop production

H. Mark Hanna, Extension ag engineer, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Dana Petersen, program coordinator, ISU Farm Energy, Iowa State University
Introduction and overview

Almost all direct energy used during field operations is consumed by an engine during operation of tractors or selfpropelled equipment such as combines, forage harvesters, or sprayers. Transmitting engine power as efficiently as possible for the task (pulling implements through soil, cutting plants, pumping, etc.) has significant effects on the amount of energy being used. Before investigating specific ways to increase efficiency during these tasks, a first question to ask is if the field operation is necessary. Increased fuel efficiency may gain five, ten, twenty percent or more whereas omitting the operation and leaving the tractor parked saves 100 percent of fuel. Some type of seeding, harvest, and weed or pest control operation is nearly always necessary. However, the type and frequency of tillage operations to prepare or weed a seedbed are often variable. Row crops such as corn or soybeans may be produced with one or no tillage passes prior to planting. Establishment of perennial alfalfa and small grains traditionally used primary and secondary tillage operations. New no-till seeders with better seed bed preparation and seed placement have resulted in yields equal to stand established using conventional tillage. Factors in choosing tillage operations include comfort with a specific management style along with local soil, crop, and weather conditions. Successful reduced and no-till operations are often found in the same neighborhood as fields with more aggressive tillage schemes suggesting that options to reduce tillage frequently exist. For example, although surface cornstalks from the previous year can appear daunting, no-till soybean yields are frequently equal to those of full-width tillage systems in yield trials. If tillage is required, consider using only a single-pass tillage system prior to planting. Strip-till systems till only a part of the field in the row zone for the subsequent crop to be planted. Ridge-till systems use row-crop cultivation for weed control to build ridges, then plant into the ridge the following year. Even when tilling the entire field area, consider why the tillage is being done and dont till any deeper than necessary. For example, chisel plow operation at a six or eight inch depth requires less drawbar pull and tractor energy than operation of a subsoiler or ripper at depths of a foot or more. Drawbar pull is directly related to tillage depth for many specific tillage implements. Aggressive primary tillage operations such as a moldboard plow or subsoiler often require around 1.5 gallon diesel fuel per acre or more, whereas chisel plowing may require about 1 gallon per acre depending on depth, soil conditions, and speed. Other cultural or production schemes that generally increase efficiency also potentially reduce energy use for the amount of crop harvested. Narrow corn rows can help stimulate vegetative growth and increase potential harvested yield, particularly in northern areas of the Corn Belt. A leguminous cover crop can supply nitrogen to a subsequent crop, reducing the need for fertilizer nitrogen as well as field trips for transport and application.
Tractor use
Because so many field operations are tractor-powered, special attention must be given to optimizing how tractor engine power is generated and transmitted for work. For higher horsepower tractors, many operations are drawbar work that involves pulling tillage and seeding implements through the soil. Efficient transfer of engine power through the tractors transmission, along with proper attention to ballasting and tire inflation, are important issues. Other tasks require transfer of engine power through the power-take-off (PTO) shaft (e.g. baling) or hydraulic or electrical systems (e.g., some spray pumps or planter seed metering drives). Taking time to assess how tractor engine power is being transferred and used for field operations allows focus on management strategies that can make a difference. Major areas affecting tractor fuel consumption include tractor selection, transmission, maintenance and ballasting/slip/tire inflation.
32 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Tractor selection
Although matching available tractor power to the task at hand is desirable, moving a smaller tractor several miles to perform a limited task usually does not save fuel. Diesel tractors are generally efficient in fuel use for partial loads of 75 percent or even 50 percent if the throttle is reduced and a higher gear selected. For example, tractor test data on the Case IH Magnum 275 show fuel use efficiency is not reduced (from 100 percent loading) at 75 percent drawbar load and reduced only 14 percent at 50 percent drawbar load. The fuel efficiency of a smaller tractor properly sized to handle the reduced load is often not great enough to justify moving unless the new application is only 10 30 percent of tractor power and involves significant hours of use. If a new or used tractor will be acquired, obtain and read Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tractor tests done at the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory for tractors being considered. Fuel use efficiency as measured in tests is listed as Hp-hr/gal under fuel consumption. Greater numbers indicate better fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency values are listed for several levels of PTO and drawbar loading. Because tractor use is often at a partial load, using fuel efficiency from a 50 percent pull and reduced engine speed may serve as a good overall estimate. When comparing tractor models, compare fuel efficiency values with similar loading conditions. As with EPA automotive fuel efficiency estimates, fuel use will vary and depend on actual operation, but test values give an indication of relative efficiency between tractors.
Transmission
If the tractor is using only part of its power when pulling a lighter drawbar load, significant fuel savings are possible by shifting the transmission up to a higher gear and pulling the throttle back (reducing engine RPM). Pulling a sprayer or a smaller field cultivator, disk, or planter that is not well matched to the total tractor power available are common examples. Unless the implement requires PTO operation at a specific engine speed, shifting up and throttling back to reduce engine speed saves fuel. Avoid lugging the engine by only reducing speed to a point somewhat above where the engine starts to lug. Some newer, higher-horsepower tractors manufactured in recent years offer infinitely or continuously variable transmissions using electronic control to automatically set the transmission at the most fuel efficient point for a given speed and drawbar load. Taking advantage of this new technology as a tractor is replaced saves fuel. An example of actual fuel savings can be found from an (OECD) tractor test done on a Case IH Magnum 275 rated at 227 hp. Fuel use at 75 percent of maximum drawbar power was reduced 8 percent when the transmission was shifted from 9th to 11th gear and engine speed was reduced from 2091 to 1589 rpm. In similar conditions, fuel use was reduced by 21 percent when only 50 percent of drawbar power was used. Average fuel savings as indicated by tractor tests from 1979 to 2002 indicate fuel savings of 13 percent at 75 percent load and 21 percent at 50 percent load are possible by reducing engine speed and operating in a higher gear (Grisso et al., 2004).
Maintenance
Following a prescribed schedule for tractor maintenance is often a source of pride for agricultural tractor owners. Earlier studies with owner operators indicate that on average many operators are timely with maintenance and filter replacement. Still one study indicates that following scrupulous maintenance results in measurable savings. In a University of Missouri study 99 tractors were brought in to be tested as is at six locations in the state. Tractor horsepower was measured on a PTO dynamometer. Primary and secondary air and fuel filters were then replaced on each tractor before re-testing tractor power. Average engine horsepower increased 3.5 percent after filter replacement. Factory tractor specialists indicated such increase was normal and expected. In a check of maintenance records on the tractors, most operators were current on filter replacement. Although some were near the end of the service interval, others were near the beginning. Such results suggest that an average increase of 3.5 percent power can be easily obtained by being scrupulously vigilant on air and fuel filter replacement or setting the throttle/fuel supply back 3.5 percent to obtain the same engine power with less fuel. Researchers at the time (1988-9) estimated fuel savings to be 105 gallons of diesel annually per tractor tested. Increases in average engine horsepower since then suggest that vigilant tractor maintenance may save more than this depending on annual hours of tractor use.
Ballasting/slip/tire inflation
Excessive wheel slippage during drawbar pull operations creates an obvious waste of labor, fuel, and tractor hours. Conversely, a tractor ballasted so heavily that there is little or no wheel slip sinks too far into the soil causing rolling resistance as the wheel tries to climb out of the track and extra energy use as tire sidewalls flex. Optimum wheel slip range for maximum tractive efficiency (equal to the ratio of drawbar power to power available at the drive axle) depends on surface conditions (Figure 1). Higher-horsepower tractors often have sensors allowing drive wheel slip to be monitored from the cab. Slip can be conveniently checked during fieldwork with significant drawbar loads. On tractors without slip measurement, slip can be approximated by measuring the distance a tractor covers during 10 wheel revolutions under drawbar load and comparing this with the distance traveled during 10 wheel revolutions without drawbar load. For example, if loaded wheel distance is 180 feet and unloaded wheel distance is 200 feet, the tractor under load is covering only 90 percent of the unloaded distance, or experiencing a 10 percent wheel slip. As a quick visual test, optimal wheel slip on soil usually occurs when wheel lug marks near the tire centerline are obliterated but lug marks at the outer edge are reasonably distinct.
100
Tractive efficiency, %
90 80 70 60 50 40 0 10 20 30 Wheel slip, % 40 Concrete Firm soil Tilled soil Soft/sandy
Figure 1. Tractive efficiency of transferring axle power to drawbar as affected by wheel slip for various surface conditions.
If wheel slip is outside the optimal range of about 915 percent (depending on soil conditions) or if there are questions regarding whether the tractor is ballasted properly to use power available from the engine, the tractor operation manual or various references can be checked for advice on ballasting (e.g.,Table 1). Specific amounts of total tractor weight per tractor horsepower are generally suggested depending on tractor style (two-wheel drive, front-wheel-assist, four-wheel drive) and operational speed. Tractors using faster field speeds (e.g. six to seven mi/h instead of four or five mi/h) have optimal fuel efficiency using slightly less weight as they dont need to pull quite as much load to accomplish an equivalent amount of fieldwork in a given time. Because power is efficiently transferred from engine to drawbar over a

range of slip, some variation in weight is allowed. Because most tractors spend a significant amount of time requiring only 70 90 percent of rated power available, weight values in Figure 1 are near the low side of the appropriate range. Carrying extra ballast for unused horsepower during operations with light drawbar loads (e.g., pull-behind sprayer, mower/conditioner, or baler) results in small amounts of slip. If the tractor is used for long periods of time for light drawbar loads but has been optimally ballasted for full drawbar horsepower, consider removing ballast to avoid burning fuel to carry dead weight. Table 1. Gross tractor weight, lb/Hp Tractor type 2WD & MFD (lb/Hp) 4WD (lb/Hp) <4.5 130 110 Speed, mi/hr 5 120 100 >5.5 110 90
Just as important as total tractor weight is splitting weight appropriately between front and rear axles. The correct percentage of total weight on each axle depends on tractor style (two-wheel drive, front-wheel-assist, four-wheel drive) and whether any rear implement weight is transferred to wheels on the rear axle (pull-type/mounted implement, significant tongue weight, etc., table 2). Table 2. Front-to-rear axle weight ratio as percentage of total weight. Towed/drawbar Tractor type 2WD MFD 4WD %Front/%Rear 25/75 35/65 55/45 Semi-mounted %Front/%Rear 30/70 35/65 55/45 Fully-mounted %Front/%Rear 35/65 40/60 60/40
Tires should be correctly inflated for the load they carry to maximize the ability for lugs to engage soil and develop pull. Contrary to ensuring automotive tires are well inflated to minimize fuel consumption, off-road tires operating on soft soil surfaces increase pull by exposing more of the lug surface at lower tire pressure. Over-inflated tires can create excessive slip as lug surfaces near the tire sidewall do not penetrate the soil surface. Knowing weight carried by the front and rear axles when making ballasting decisions allows the weight carried by each tire to be known. Correct pressure can be determined from tire load and inflation tables of the tire manufacturer or in the tractor operation manual. Maintaining correct rather than low pressure is important as under inflation causes premature tire failure.
Other issues
Adding new technology such as auto-steering or auto-swath control for seed, pesticide, and fertilizer inputs can help to avoid wasting time and materials in the field. Auto-steering allows global positioning system (GPS) information to steer the tractor and avoid excessive overlap of swaths that wastes field time and energy. Auto-swath control allows sections across the implement swath to be turned off when previously treated areas would be overlapped. These technologies can be added to existing tractors and equipment but may be more cost effective to purchase as options as equipment is upgraded and replaced. Manufacturers are starting to embed this type of technology into new equipment, further decreasing prices. Cost for auto-steering can range from $5,000 to $50,000 depending on the accuracy desired. A recent study at Auburn University indicated input savings from one percent to 12 percent for each pass across a field when using automatic section control. This study indicated that, on average, a 4.3 percent savings on seed cost could be observed for a farm while some operations could see as high as a 7 percent savings. Savings are dependent upon field shape and size with the highest benefits occurring in small, irregular shaped fields or fields containing conservation management structures such as grass waterways and terraces. Generally, automatic section control technology can pay for itself within two years.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 35 Modern diesel engines require less idling time to cool the engine. Recommendations for specific equipment can usually be found in the operation manual or through the dealer. Dont let newer engines idle for periods of many minutes and waste fuel. Check with state regulatory officials regarding proper fuel storage. Vacuum/pressure relief valves protect fuel from water condensation. Reflective white or aluminum paint on the fuel supply barrel and supplemental shading from trees or buildings reduce fuel losses occurring due to evaporation. If an engine block heater is used to assist starting during cold weather, use a timer to avoid heating for many hours before start-up. A typical engine block heater can warm the engine up in about two hours. A low cost timer used to control swimming pool pumps can be used for most 120 volt heaters and pay for itself in about two months or less depending on the heater size and the amount of time currently being used. Diesel fuel mixtures are different for summer and winter. Dont purchase fuel ahead in late summer if it cant be used up before cold weather sets in. Use a fuel conditioner or fuel-line antifreeze in equipment that isnt used much during the winter.
Other individual equipment operations

Because a tractor powers most tillage, seeding, and many application operations and also because total energy available from the engine rapidly dissipates if there are significant losses in transmission, drives, and at the tire/soil interface, primary attention for energy saving should be done with the tractor. Look for ways to combine field operations into a single pass such as tilling and applying fertilizer with a strip-till implement or using one-pass tillage. Many individual points regarding saving energy with tillage, seeding, application, and other types of field equipment involve good management and maintenance practices to ensure a good field job is accomplished and avoid the need for another field pass. If objectives of the desired amount of seed, fertilizer, or pesticide being applied or soil tilled to a certain condition are not met, fuel and perhaps additional crop inputs are needed for a second pass. On tillage equipment, worn bearings, scrapers, or cutting edges affect soil manipulation and potentially draft (drawbar pull). Good planter operation involves a pre-field check of seed and fertilizer metering components along with in-field checks of seed placement, proper operation of soil-engaging components, and periodic lubrication.
For further information and references Field operations - general

Svejkovsky, C. 2007. Conserving fuel on the farm. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service/National Center for Appropriate Technology. Available at: http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/consfuelfarm.pdf Hanna, M., J. Harmon, and J. Flammang. 2010. Limiting field operations. Iowa State University Extension publication PM 2089D. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM2089D.pdf
Tractor - general
Staton, M., T. Harrigan, and R. Turner. 2010. Improving tractor performance and fuel efficiency. Michigan State University Extension publication.
Tractor ballasting/slip/tire inflation

Hanna, M., J. Harmon, and D. Petersen. 2010. Ballasting tractors for fuel efficiency. Iowa State University Extension publication PM 2089G. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM2089G.pdf
Tractor transmission
Hanna, M., and D. Petersen. 2011. Tractor maintenance to conserve energy. Iowa State University Extension publication PM 2089L. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM2089L.pdf Sawyer, J. E., M. Hanna, and D. Petersen. 2011. Shift up and throttle back to save tractor fuel. Iowa State University Extension publication PM 2089M. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM2089M. pdf
36 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Tractor selection
Hanna, M., and D. Petersen. 2011. Fuel efficiency factors for tractor selection. Iowa State University Extension publication PM 2089O. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM2089O.pdf Download Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory reports at: http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/index.htm
Other tractor issues

Fulton, J., A Winstead and S Norwood. 2010. Automatic Section Control (ASC) Technology for Planters. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Available at: http://www.aces.edu/anr/precisionag/Section_Control.php
No-till seeding
Schneider, Nick. 2006. No-till Planting of Alfalfa with Italian Ryegrass, field research study report. University of Wisconsin. Available at http://winnebago.uwex.edu/ag/documents/ No-TillPlantingofAlfalfawithItalianRyegrass.pdf Duiker, S.W., J.C. Myers. 2006. Steps Towards a Successful Transition to No-Till. Pennsylvania State University Bulletin No. UC192.Available at: http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uc192.pdf Wolkowski, R.,T. Cox, J. Leverich. 2009. Strip-tillage: A conservation option for Wisconsin farmers. University of Wisconsin Extension Bulletin No. A3883. Available at: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/A3883.pdf
Herbicide resistance in waterhemp: Past, present, and future

Patrick J. Tranel, professor, Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Introduction
Over the last couple of decades, waterhemp has transitioned from being a relatively unknown weed species to one of the worst weeds in the Midwest (Steckel 2007). Its recent success as a weed can be attributed both to its biological characteristics and to changes in weed management practices (Costea et al. 2005). Notable biological characteristics of waterhemp include: rapid growth rate (in part due to its use of the C4 photosynthetic pathway), prolific seed production (up to or exceeding 500,000 seeds per plant), extended emergence period throughout much of the growing season, and dioecious reproductive habit. The latter which means that plants are either male or female ensures that plants outcross and, thus, increases genetic diversity of the species and effectively moves genes within and among populations. The adoption of no-tillage and reduced-tillage cropping systems has favored small-seeded weedy species, such as waterhemp; these small seeds germinate most effectively when they are at or near the soil surface. Further contributing to waterhemps success as a weed has been its ability to rapidly evolve resistance to various herbicides (Tranel et al. 2011). Its proclivity to evolve herbicide resistance can be attributed to its biological characteristics mentioned above. Of particular importance are high seed production and genetic diversity, which provide the raw materials on which selection can act. Couple the abundant waterhemp raw material (i.e., its high reproductive output and genetic diversity) with the intense selection pressure provided by herbicides, and the evolutionary outcome of herbicide-resistant waterhemp populations is not surprising. The problem of herbicide-resistant waterhemp is further exacerbated by waterhemps dioecious habit and the potential for long-distance dispersal of resistance via windborne pollen. Herbicide resistance easily moves between populations and can become stacked with other herbicide resistance traits, leading to populations with multiple herbicide resistance.
History of herbicide resistance in waterhemp

Waterhemp has thus far evolved resistance to herbicides from five different site-of-action groups (Figure 1). The initial reports of herbicide-resistant waterhemp populations were to the triazine herbicides (PSII inhibitors) and the ALS inhibitors during the early 1990s. Subsequently, waterhemp populations were identified with resistance to the PPO inhibitors (e.g., the diphenylethers) and then to glyphosate. Recently, waterhemp populations with resistance to the HPPD inhibitors were identified in both Illinois and Iowa (Hausman et al. 2011; McMullan and Green 2011).
Figure 1. Timeline of resistance and multiple resistance to herbicides/herbicide groups in waterhemp (adapted from Tranel et al. 2011). The mechanisms by which waterhemp is resistant to the five different site-of-action groups are numerous and diverse (Table 1). In some cases, waterhemp exhibits different resistance mechanisms even within a particular herbicide siteof-action group. For example, resistance to triazine herbicides may be conferred by either a resistant target site or by enhanced herbicide detoxification. Similarly, although all known cases of resistance to ALS inhibitors in waterhemp are due to an altered target site, the specific mutation present within the target site may differ among resistant biotypes. Table 1. Mechanisms of herbicide resistance in waterhemp. Herbicide or group Triazines ALS inhibitors PPO inhibitors Glyphosate HPPD inhibitors Resistance mechanism(s) Resistant target site Herbicide metabolism Resistant target site Resistant target site Target site amplification Unknown Mutation Ser264Gly in D1 protein Unknown Trp574Leu, Ser653Asn, or Ser653Thr in ALS Deletion of Gly210 in PPO2 Multiple genomic copies of EPSPS Unknown
Multiple herbicide resistance in waterhemp

Resistance in a weed species to a single herbicide (or to a group of herbicides with a common site of action) is cause for concern. However, this typically will not present an unmanageable problem in a major crop such as corn or soybean, because multiple herbicides are labeled for such crops and, thus, alternative chemical options are available. Unfortunately, for some of our most troublesome weeds, including waterhemp, we are increasingly encountering populations that possess multiple herbicide resistance. That is, these populations possess resistance to herbicides spanning multiple site-of-action groups. In fact, as can be seen in Figure 1, all new cases of herbicide resistance in waterhemp subsequent to resistance to triazines and the ALS inhibitors were cases of multiple herbicide resistance.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 39 For example, the first population of waterhemp identified with resistance to the PPO inhibitors also was resistant to ALS inhibitors. The first glyphosate-resistant waterhemp population also had resistance to ALS and PPO inhibitors, and both waterhemp populations reported resistant to HPPD inhibitors also contained resistance to triazines and ALS inhibitors. In the most extreme case of multiple resistant waterhemp reported to date, a single population is resistant to triazines, ALS and PPO inhibitors, and to glyphosate (Tranel et al. 2011). Coworkers and I recently have conducted surveys to determine the extent of multiple herbicide resistance in waterhemp. We have asked producers to send us tissue samples from waterhemp plants suspected of being resistant to glyphosate. We then perform molecular tests on DNA from the tissue samples to determine if the plants are resistant to glyphosate, PPO inhibitors, and/or ALS inhibitors. We have focused on these three herbicide/herbicide groups since they represent the options for POST control of waterhemp in glyphosate-resistant soybean (and from a technical standpoint, availability of molecular tests for these three resistances enables rapid screening). Using this approach in 2010, glyphosate-resistant waterhemp was confirmed in 20 of 24 fields sampled. As expected, ALS resistant waterhemp was widespread among the fields. Less expected, however, was that a third of the fields were found to contain waterhemp resistant to PPO inhibitors. Not only was multiple herbicide resistance found at the field level, but, as depicted in Figure 2, multiple resistance also was found at the individual plant level. For example, 36% of the plants were resistant to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors, 9% were resistant to glyphosate and PPO inhibitors, and 7% were resistant to all three herbicide/herbicide groups. These data indicate that resistances to all of the major soybean POST herbicides are being stacked into individual waterhemp plants, which poses a serious threat to our ability to effectively manage this weed.
Figure 2. Venn diagram depicting the occurrence of multiple herbicide resistance to ALS inhibitors, PPO inhibitors, and glyphosate in waterhemp. The numbers indicate the percentage of plants resistant to one (in the non-overlapping part of each circle), two of the three (where two circles overlap) or all three (where the three circles overlap) of the herbicide/herbicide groups. Plant tissue from individual plants (122 total) was collected during 2010 from 24 fields suspected of containing glyphosate-resistant waterhemp. Resistant profiles of each sampled plant were determined from molecular tests. Thirteen percent of the plants were found to be sensitive to all three herbicides.
Future implications
The consensus in the weed science industry is that herbicides with new sites of action are unlikely to be commercialized in the near future. Thus, we essentially will have to make do with our current arsenal of herbicides. Multiple-resistant waterhemp will continue to expand, both in frequency at which multiple-resistant populations occur, and in the number of herbicide/herbicide groups to which populations are resistant. For example, I fully expect that a waterhemp population with resistances to triazines, ALS, PPO, and HPPD inhibitors, and to glyphosate will be identified during the 2012 or 2013 growing season. It is also expected that waterhemp will evolve resistance to herbicides from additional site-of-action groups if such herbicides are relied upon extensively for waterhemp management. In fact, a very recent report suggests a waterhemp population in Nebraska has evolved resistance to 2,4-D (Bernards et al. 2011). If confirmed, this will represent the sixth site-of-action group to which waterhemp has evolved resistance.

Perhaps the most immediate impact of multiple-resistant waterhemp will be an end to the one-size-fits-most approach to weed management in the Midwest. The most effective and economical weed management strategies will vary from field to field, depending on the spectrum of resistant waterhemp biotypes present in a given field. In extreme cases, selective cultivation may have to augment chemical control. The occurrence of multiple-resistant waterhemp also will impact our ability to effectively implement resistance mitigation strategies for herbicides to which waterhemp has not already evolved resistance. For example, tank mixing herbicide A with herbicide B will not delay the evolution of resistance to herbicide B if the population is already resistant to herbicide A.
References
Bernarnds, M., Crespo, J., Kruger, G., Gaussoin, R. 2011. 2,4-D resistant waterhemp found in Nebraska. CropWatch http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/cropwatch/archive?articleID=4669108. Costea, M., Weaver, S. E., Tardif, F J. 2005. The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada. 3. Amaranthus . tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. rudis (Sauer) Costea & Tardif. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 85:507-522. Hausman, N. E., Singh, S., Tranel, P. J., Riechers, D. E., Kaundun, S. S., Polge, N. D., Thomas, D. A., Hager, A. G. 2011. Resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in a population of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) from Illinois, United States. Pest Management Science 67:258-261. McMullan, P. M., Green, J. M. 2011. Identification of a tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype resistant to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, atrazine, and thifensulfuron in Iowa. Weed Technology 25:514-518. Steckel, L. E. 2007. The dioecious Amaranthus spp.: here to stay. Weed Technology 21:567-570. Tranel, P. J., Riggins, C. W., Bell, M. S., Hager, A. G. 2011. Herbicide resistances in Amaranthus tuberculatus: a call for new options. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59:5808-5812.
Weed management for 2012

Introduction
While there have not been many new things in weed control/management for 2012, some that have occurred are not necessarily good. Herbicide resistance, particularly in common waterhemp has escalated significantly for populations with evolved resistance to glyphosate and resistance to HPPD herbicides has predictably has been identified in a number of locations across Iowa. Unfortunately, again as predicted, no new silver bullets have surfaced and in fact, it is unlikely that new herbicide mechanisms of action will be introduced in the foreseeable future. Thus it comes that much more important to recognize the tactics that are available and establish a diverse long-term approach to using the tools in a sustainable manner.
New products and changes

While there have not been any new products introduced for 2012 (at this time), there are several products pending registration, new generic herbicides and changes in herbicide labels. The following is a partial list of these changes; the inclusion of products should not be construed as an endorsement by Iowa State University or exclusion considered a lack of support.
Ignite (Bayer Crop Science)

The Ignite label now describes a single application dose of up to 36 fluid ounces per acre. This application can be followed by one additional application of a maximum 29 fluid ounces per acre for a seasonal maximum Ignite application of 65 fluid ounces per acre. The Ignite applications to corn have not changed; the maximum amount of Ignite in any single application is 22 fluid ounces per acre with a seasonal total of 44 fluid ounces per acre.
Vida (Gowan)
Vida (pyraflufen-ethyl) is an inhibitor of the PPO enzyme and a potent contact herbicide that can be applied to soybean and corn as a preplant burndown, at planting burndown and after planting burndown but prior to crop emergence for the control of many broadleaf weeds. Vida is now registered as a postemergence directed application in corn (conventional, glyphosate-tolerant, Liberty Link, popcorn, seed corn, corn silage, and corn stover). Sweet corn is not registered for a postemergence directed application. Refer to the label for specific restrictions and directions.
Flexstar GT 3.5 (Syngenta)

Flexstar GT 3.5 is a different premixture formulation of fomesafen and glyphosate. This premixture contains 5.88% fomesafen and 22.4% glyphosate for a total of 0.56 pounds of fomesafen and 2.26 pounds (acid equivalent) of glyphosate per gallon product. The use rate in Iowa (Region 4) is 2.8 pints per acre.
Medal herbicides (Syngenta)

Medal herbicides are a new S-metolachlor series of products with 7.62 pounds of active ingredient per acre (Medal and Medal EC), 7.64 pounds of active ingredient (Medal II and Medal II EC) and a premixture Medal II AT which is atrazine and S-metolachlor at 3.1 and 2.4 pounds active ingredient respectively.
Warrant (Monsanto)
Warrant is an encapsulated formulation of acetochlor that is now labeled for application to field corn as a postemergence application. Applications can be made until the corn is 30 inches in height either broadcast or as a directed treatment (e.g. drop nozzles) to minimize interference of the crop with spray coverage. Warrant should be applied prior to weed emergence and will provide residual control of annual grasses and some small-seeded annual broadleaf weeds.
Roundup Ready Plus weed management solutions (Monsanto)

Monsanto has partnered with a number of companies to improve weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn and soybean and has incentivized the addition of products other than their proprietary herbicides to provide stewardship

to glyphosate and the trait. Additions to the previously listed products are Cobra/Phoenix in soybean and Impact in corn.
Basis Blend (DuPont)

Basis Blend is a premixture of rimsulfuron (20%) and thifensulfuron (10%) which is suggested to be a better formulation that is easier to handle, mix and clean out of the sprayers than Basis 75% DF Basis Blend can be applied any time . after harvest but prior to ground freeze-up. It can be applied with other herbicides (e.g. 2,4-D) and is registered for application to fields that wil be planted to corn or soybean.
Valor (Valent)
Valor has a modification of the label that describes planting corn seven days after application in no tillage and minimum tillage production systems.
Pyroxasulfone (several)
Pyroxasulfone is a new product that has been included in the ISU herbicide research program for many years under the KIH-485 description. Considerable research was conducted on corn and soybean and a variety of application timings (e.g. early preplant) and rates were included in this extensive evaluation series (www.weeds.iastate.edu/ research/default.htm). Pyroxasulfone was first included in the ISU research program in 2003 as a 3.57 SC formulation and was a Kumiai experimental product. This herbicide is an inhibitor of very long chain fatty acids similar to the mechanism of action demonstrated by S-metolachlor and acetochlor (Group 15). Agreements have been made with BASF FMC and Valent to market pyroxasulfone in different proprietary products, either alone or in combination with , other herbicides. These registrations are pending.
New genetically engineered traits (several)

The development of new genetically engineered (GE) crop traits continues with regard to dicamba-tolerant soybean (Monsanto) and the DHT soybean and corn (Dow AgroSciences). According to these companies, these new crop traits are on track for commercialization mid-decade. There has been considerable discussion about the utility of these traits and labeled herbicides as tools to better manage weeds, particularly those weeds (e.g. common waterhemp) that have evolved resistance to glyphosate. Currently, there are concerns about the movement of the herbicides used in these GE crops to sensitive crops (e.g. grapes) and also whether or not the use of the systems will result in new resistant weed biotypes. The companies are expending considerable time and money developing robust stewardship programs and use guidelines in an attempt to proactively mitigate these concerns. However, it is critically important for growers and applicators to recognize that the adoption of crop systems based on these technologies have concomitant risks and limitations; they do not represent the new silver bullet as some uninformed people have been suggesting. The development of Optimum GAT crops has been delayed indefinitely according to DuPont.
New herbicide resistant weed concerns

New herbicide resistant weed biotypes have been identified in Iowa and the Midwest and weed biotypes with multiple resistances are increasing. HPPD-resistant waterhemp was identified in 2010 in Southeast Iowa in a seed corn production field. Since then, numerous seed corn production fields with putative HPPD resistant common waterhemp have come to the attention of ISU. Extensive infield research was established in 2011 and research efforts are escalating for 2012. The evolution of HPPD resistance in seed corn production fields can be attributable to the intensity of HPPD use in these fields and the identified problems ascribed to the level of observation and management in the seed production fields. Importantly, given the strategies used in seed corn production, multiple resistances to glyphosate have also been identified in the weed populations under investigation. It is assumed that the extent of HPPD resistance in Iowa, given the likely movement of the resistance trait via pollen, is greater than in just seed corn production fields but masked in commercial production fields. The occurrence of HPPD resistance in seed corn fields is not unlike the canaries in the mines which were used to detect problems for the miners. ISU will continue to monitor HPPD resistance in Iowa common waterhemp populations is conduct research to describe solutions to the problem. Glyphosate resistance in Iowa common waterhemp, as predicted, has increased dramatically in 2011 and is widely distributed across the state. Through collaboration and support from the Iowa Soybean Association, an extensive
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 43 collection of field weed populations has been cataloged and these populations will be evaluated for evolved resistance to glyphosate and the other herbicide mechanisms of action commonly used in Iowa. A previous collection of approximately 200 common waterhemp populations selected arbitrarily three years ago was evaluated in the greenhouse for response to glyphosate; approximately 1/3 of those populations were not effectively controlled by glyphosate. It is anticipated that the percentage of Iowa common waterhemp populations with evolved resistance to glyphosate has increased considerably. Furthermore, populations with resistance to PPO inhibitors are also becoming more common. Note that Nebraska recently announced the identification of a population of common waterhemp with resistance to 2,4-D. While common waterhemp is the weed about which most Iowa growers and applicators are concerned, issues with herbicide resistant giant ragweed and horseweed/marestail are also escalating. It is clear that the systems currently used for the production of corn and soybean in Iowa, specifically for weeds, is problematic and inevitably will fail unless changes (other than different herbicides) are included soon.
Weed management tactics: Knowledge and diversity

The need for better information is paramount for effective weed management; simplicity and convenience as experienced during the last 16 years of glyphosate-resistant crop systems has run the course and integrated weed management is necessary for the protection of crop yields, the mitigation of existing herbicide resistant weed issues and the proactive tactics needed to keep additional herbicide resistant weed populations from evolving. Unfortunately, while many (and possibly a majority) growers understand that herbicide resistant weeds are an increasing problem, they seem to still be in denial; they fail to recognize that the problem likely exists close to home and that action to manage the problem is needed immediately. Recall that typically a weed population must have about 30% of the individuals with evolved resistance to a herbicide before a grower recognizes that the issue exists. The information that must be acquired includes a cursory understanding about weed biology and ecology, the herbicide resistance(s) that are likely to evolve or have evolved, and what tactics are effective to manage these weeds. Part of the problem is the marketing of herbicides; many companies are now describing premixtures of products that include more than one herbicide mechanism of action. The concept of multiple mechanisms of herbicide action effectively helping control herbicide resistant weeds and delay the evolution of future herbicide resistances has gained some traction with growers. However, without better knowledge of the mechanisms of action that are in the premixtures, the marketing of these products is misleading at best. Consider that most of the premixtures available for soybeans includes a PPO herbicide and the other product is an ALS inhibitor herbicide; given that common waterhemp in Iowa already evolved ALS resistance, these products have only one effective mechanism of action and thus do not represent an effective resistance management program. While redundancy of tactics (multiple herbicide mechanisms of action in each application) is an important strategy, the herbicides included must have activity on the target weeds. Another strategy that has gained acceptance for herbicide resistant weed management is the rotation of herbicide mechanism of action. Indeed, this can be the start of a herbicide resistant weed management program, but if that is the only tactic used, herbicide resistance will be delayed one year for every year of herbicide mechanism of action rotation but resistance will inevitably evolve. Another common strategy that is marketed is the need for multiple herbicide mechanisms of action in a weed management program. This typically is established by using different herbicides for sequential applications. Unfortunately, the use of this strategy is diminished as it is the last herbicide applied that imparts the selection for resistance. Again, the most effective way to resolve this problem is to use multiple mechanisms for every herbicide application timing. The most important consideration for weed management in crop production, whether herbicide resistant weed populations exist or not, is the need for diversity in weed management strategies. If diverse strategies beyond simply adding different herbicides are not included, the crop system may not be sustainable. History has proven time and again that herbicide-based weed management will inevitably fail. Mechanical and cultural strategies need to be included in a crop production system. The greater the diversity, the more ecologically sound and economically profitable the crop production system will be. Herbicides will continue to be a key feature of Iowa corn and soybean production, but without other integrated weed management (IWM) strategies, weed management will soon become increasing difficult and crop yields will dramatically decline.
44 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Conclusions

The future of weed management in the relatively near future is better utilization of existing technologies and the inclusion of older herbicide chemistries (when and where appropriate) and mechanical and cultural tactics. The key to profitable and sustainable weed management is diversity. If a diverse suite of weed management tactics is not used, economic losses attributable to weeds will escalate and herbicide resistant weed populations will become more widely distributed. No new herbicide mechanisms of action have been identified for the short and longer term future. While new herbicide-resistant crop traits may possibly become available in the three to five year future, these traits are not the answers to existing weed management concerns; they are good tools for weed control but must be used in an appropriate fashion to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks.
Herbicide-resistant weeds: An evolving problem of importance in Iowa crop production

Micheal D. K. Owen, professor and extension weed specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Introduction
The changes in Iowa agriculture over the last three decades have been monumental and the implications of these changes often overlooked during the course of developing the plans for next year. Consider that in the 1970s, aggressive tillage predominated the production systems in Iowa, conservation tillage was an interesting but not generally practiced idea and herbicides had to be mechanically incorporated into the soil. In the 1980s, the acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibiting herbicide families were introduced. The imidazolinone and sulfonyl urea herbicide families were applied to an estimated 90% of the soybean acres and more than 65% of the corn acres. In many instances, these herbicides were applied repeatedly on fields during the year and certainly recurrently from year to year. Despite warnings that this production practice would result in significant problems (e.g. evolved ALS-resistant weed biotypes), commercial agriculture continued with the unsustainable practice of using one type of herbicide exclusively and the inevitable resistant weed problem evolved as predicted. By the time glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops were introduced, ALS resistance was widespread and much of the utility of these important products had been lost. However, the GR crop technologies and concomitant use of glyphosate became available and adoption in global agriculture was unprecedented. Importantly, the trends toward conservation tillage practices were strongly supported by the new system. Usage of glyphosate rose to the point that there were no other herbicides used on more than 10% of the soybean acres and only atrazine continued to demonstrate a strong presence in corn (Young, 2006). Once again, naysayers suggested that because the GR-based crop production systems were essentially devoid of diversity for weed management, glyphosate-resistant weeds would evolve (Owen, 1997). These warnings were again unheeded and the inevitable resistant weeds did indeed evolve to the extent that the GR technologies are threatened. Unfortunately, this time, given the unprecedented adoption of GR-based crop systems and glyphosate utilization, the industry had essentially withdrawn from herbicide discovery and development such that no new answers would come forward. Given the dire straits that currently exist in weed management, now is the time to objectively review the sustainability of the system and determine if perhaps it is time to change perspectives on a more diverse management plan for weeds.
What are the options?

In Iowa corn and soybean production, there are a number of effective, but sparingly utilized, tools and tactics available to manage the ever increasing herbicide resistant weed problem. This is unlike the situation in the Mississippi Delta and Southeastern states where cotton production is threatened (Culpepper and York, 2007). The rhetorical question as to why the plethora of tools and tactics available to Iowa agriculture have not been used, even when it was correctly suggested that the evolution of GR weeds was inevitable, is a function of demographic changes in agriculture (i.e. size of farms and time availability) as well as a desire for the convenience and simplicity that the GR crop-based systems provided (Owen et al., 2009; Owen et al., 2010). Growers continued to maintain a position of denial that these ever increasing problems would ever impact their farms; it should now be clear that the problems are here and changes must occur now or potentially Iowa agriculture will experience the same severe consequences that growers in Georgia are now facing.
Herbicide options
There are numerous alternate herbicides that can help resolve the glyphosate resistance in weeds. Alternate is another way of saying old and these established herbicides are indeed useful if properly included in a longer-term weed management plan. The list of herbicides currently registered for corn and soybean is long and represented by a number of herbicide families and mechanisms of action (MOA). Generally, the more herbicide diversity that is included in a long term weed management plan, the better. However, many of these herbicides have already been improperly used and thus have selected for resistant weed biotypes. Thus, the simple inclusion of other herbicides

will not necessarily resolve weed management problems. A partial list of available alternate herbicides is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Corn Atrazine Prowl (and others) Balance Flexx Callisto (and others) Sharpen Basis Dual (and others) Banvel, Clarity 2,4-D Ignite Soybean Sencor Prowl (and others) Authority (and others) Pursuit Valor (and others) Cobra (and others) Warrant (and others) Basagran Select (and others) Ignite
The point is not to list all the available alternate herbicides but rather to provide an indication of the number and diversity of products available for weed control in corn and soybean. There are also a number of premixtures available and often these products are advertised as effective strategies to manage herbicide resistant weeds. Be advised however, that many of these products contain herbicides for which weeds have already evolved resistance (i.e. ALS herbicides and common waterhemp). Thus it is critically important to identify the preexisting weed resistances in the field and also to know the specific MOA of the herbicides under consideration.
Herbicide use concepts

The concept of herbicide rotation of MOA has gained considerable traction in Iowa agriculture. While rotation of herbicide MOA is a tactic that can help mitigate the evolution of herbicide resistance, it has, over time, limited utility. Consider the recent identification of HPPD-resistant common waterhemp in a seed corn production field; the company rotated herbicide MOA but still selected for resistance (McMullan and Green, 2011). Again, the more diversity in herbicide use, the better the weed management in the longer-term. Another option is to incorporate other available crop technologies with the herbicide options. The inclusion of the glufosinate-resistant crops and glufosinate as a topically applied herbicide is an excellent option to manage many herbicide-resistant weed biotypes that are present in Iowa crop systems. Proper use of glufosinate is important; recognize that the application requirements are different than those for glyphosate and thus it is important to closely follow the requirements to optimize the weed control provided by the trait/herbicide combination in a diverse weed management system. However, the inclusion of the trait/herbicide combination will inevitably result in the same fate as glyphosate if it is the only adjustment towards a more diverse system made by growers. Consider that resistance to glufosinate has been identified (Heap, 2011). An important herbicide use tactic that has benefits is the inclusion of different herbicide MOA each year. The doctrine of start clean reflects the importance of using a soil-applied herbicide that provides residual weed control. This application strategy is typically supplemented by another herbicide with a different MOA applied topically to the crop and weed. However, the relative importance of the soil-applied herbicide for the mitigation of herbicide resistance in weeds is overshadowed by the importance to deter the early season interference of weeds on the crop thus protecting potential yield. No herbicide, despite the advertising rhetoric, will provide season-long weed control. Thus, when another herbicide MOA is applied to another cohort of recently-emerged weeds in the crop, it is that herbicide MOA that selects for resistance and the soil-applied herbicide MOA has limited resistance management value in this scenario. The best strategy for using multiple herbicide MOA is to make each application of herbicides redundant. Redundancy in this context suggests that more than one herbicide MOA should be included each time an herbicide application is made. Again, simplicity is not a consideration when choosing the candidate herbicides; an understanding of existing
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 47 resistances in the field, the specific MOA of the herbicides and the need to have diversity in MOA for the overall system must be a core principle of the choices. Furthermore, only considering year to year herbicide diversity is shortsighted. A longer-term herbicide use plan, focusing on a diversity of herbicide MOA and application tactics, must be developed. However, if a change in herbicides use is the only strategy that is included in an attempt to diversify crop production systems and weed management, weed management and thus the crop production system will inevitably fail (Owen, 2011).
Diverse strategies
An objective assessment of weed management should make it very clear that herbicide-based systems are destined to ultimately fail. Simple and convenient is a mantra that must be forgotten and while time use considerations are a major factor that has guided agriculture to that which is simple and convenient, more diverse weed management must be included. As suggested, while the need of new widgets is important for the short-term, greater diversity in the Iowa crop production system must be established for the long term sustainability of weed management. The primary objection to increasing diversity in weed management appears to be the inability of growers to fully appreciate the consequences of not diversifying the production system. This objection is closely followed by concerns for the time the diverse tactics require. Finally, according to the author, another important objection is the fact that the institutional knowledge on how to manage weeds without focusing solely on glyphosate is lacking. Diversity includes, but is not limited to crop rotation, tillage, cover crops, other cultural strategies and mechanical control. A more complete list of tactics and a discussion on the need for diversity is available (Green, 2011; Green and Owen, 2011). The key to a diverse weed management program is a basic understanding of the biology of the system, the interactions of weeds and crops, and a truly objective assessment of the production system (Knezevic et al., 2002; Swanton and Weise, 1991). Integrated weed management (IWM) is crucial to the sustainability of agriculture and diversity of tactics is the basis of IWM. A reasonable objection to the adoption of IWM is time availability. For example the inability to cultivate several thousand acres of row crops because of the time requirement is a real and rational objection. However, consider that growers do not typically use the same corn hybrid on all the acres under their management. Similarly, it is not a common practice to use the same fertility program on every field. The reasons for these examples of production diversity are intuitively obvious; the diversity exhibited by these production decisions minimize risks and maximize economic benefits. The same strategies of managing fields in the smallest unit should be included for IWM; cultivate only the fields that require this tactic and use a diversity of herbicides and crop technologies on individual fields. The greater the diversity in an IWM program, the greater the environmental, economic and ecological benefits.
Conclusions
It should be clear to anyone who reviews the historic perspectives of weed control objectively that the system is not working. Weeds have evolved resistance to all of the available herbicide MOA. Many weeds have evolved multiple resistances; consider that common waterhemp populations have evolved resistance to glyphosate, ALS herbicides, triazine herbicides, PPO herbicides, HPPD herbicides and most recently, 2,4-D. Specific populations of common waterhemp in Illinois have multiple resistances to five herbicide MOA and in Iowa, all common waterhemp should be considered resistant to all ALS herbicides. While herbicides will continue to be the primary tactic to selectively control weeds in row crops, if only herbicides are used, weeds will inevitably adapt to the tactic and weed control will fail. There is a need to change the crop production systems and more specifically, how weeds are managed. Diversity is the key to economic, environmental and ecological sustainability in weed management and thus crop production, regardless of the lack of simplicity and convenience.
References
Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth impacts Southeast agriculture. Pages 61-63 in Proceedings of the Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Green, J. M. 2011. Outlook on weed management in herbicide-resistant crops: need for diversification. Outlooks on Pest Management 22: 100-104.

Green, J. M., and Owen, M. D. K. 2011. Herbicide-resistant crops: Utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59: 5819-5829. Heap, I. 2011. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Available at www.weedscience.com. Accessed 21 October 2011. Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Science 50: 773-786. McMullan, P. M., and Green, J. M. 2011. Indentification of a tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype resistant to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, atrazine and thifensulfuron in Iowa. Weed Technology 25: 514518. Owen, M., Boerboom, C., and Sprague, C. Convenience and Simplicity? An illusion and a detriment to integrated weed management. Pages 127 in Proceedings of the 6th International IPM Symposium. Portland, Oregon. Owen, M., Dixon, P., Shaw, D., Weller, S., Young, B., Wilson, R., and Jordan, D. 2010. Sustainability of glyphosatebased weed management: The Benchmark Study. Pages 1-4 Information Systems for Biotechnology. Blacksburg, VA 24061: Virgina Tech. Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Risks and benefits of weed management technologies. Pages 291-297 in R. De Prado, J. Jorrin, and L. Garcia-Torres, ed. Weed and crop resistance to herbicides. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Owen, M. D. K. 2011. Weed resistance development and management in herbicide-tolerant crops: experiences from the USA. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 6: 85-89. Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F 1991. Integrated weed managment: the rationale and approach. Weed Technology 5: . 648-656. Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technology 20: 301-307.
A reintroduction to soil applied herbicides

Bob Hartzler, professor and Extension weed specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Although the growth regulator herbicides (2,4-D; dicamba, etc.) were responsible for ushering in the chemical era of weed control in the late 1940s, it was the introduction of the triazine, dinitroaniline and amide herbicides that transformed weed control in corn and soybean. These products were the backbone of weed control systems until the mid-80s when the introduction of ALS inhibitors and other postemergence products provided more consistent postemergence weed control. The introduction of glyphosate resistant crops in the late 1990s completed the transition from soil-applied to postemergence programs for the majority of Cornbelt farmers. The heavy reliance on glyphosate for over a decade has created a situation where soil-applied products will once again be an essential component of weed management systems due to herbicide resistance. This paper will discuss factors that influence the performance of soil-applied products for those who have little experience with these products, or simply need a refresher. Preemergence herbicides are most effective when they are absorbed by weed seeds initiating the germination process; however, only a small portion of the applied herbicide actually is taken up by the intended target. The majority of herbicide degrades within the field, but a portion of the herbicide may be lost from the field due to leaching, runoff, or volatilization. The ultimate fate of an herbicide is largely dictated by adsorption of the herbicide molecules to soil colloids.
Herbicide adsorption to soil colloids

There are two pools of herbicides present in the soil: the larger pool is the herbicide bound to soil colloids, the smaller pool is the herbicide that is dissolved in the soil water. An equilibrium (the percentage of herbicide present in each pool) is maintained between these two pools, thus herbicide molecules are able to move back and forth (sorption:desorption) between the two pools as herbicide is lost from one of the pools. The equilibrium is determined primarily by the adsorptive capacity of the soil and the chemical characteristics of the herbicide. Since only the herbicide in the soil solution is available to plants, a basic knowledge of herbicide adsorption is essential to understand the behavior and performance of preemergence herbicides. Although adsorption places the majority of herbicide into a bank where it cannot be immediately absorbed by weeds, it is critical since it maintains the majority of herbicide near the soil surface where weed seeds germinate, and adsorption protects groundwater from herbicide leaching through the profile.
Soil factors influencing adsorption

The adsorptive capacity of a soil is determined by its clay and organic matter content. For most Iowa soils, organic matter is responsible for the majority of herbicide binding. It is important to distinguish between the different types of soil organic matter found in soil. Herbicides bind to the highly degraded, stable forms of organic matter referred to as humic matter or humic acids. The humic acid content of a soil is usually closely related to the organic matter content. Crop residue present on the soil surface in conservation tillage systems or mixed within the soil profile by tillage is not involved in the binding of soil-applied herbicides. Herbicide rates found on the product label take into account herbicide adsorption and are designed to insure that sufficient herbicide is present in the soil solution to control susceptible weeds. Rates of soil applied herbicides generally increase as clay and organic matter increase. For example, the recommended rate for Dual II Magnum increases approximately 10% for each 1% increase in soil organic matter. Many herbicide labels prohibit use on high organic matter soils, such as peats, due to inactivation of herbicide by excessive binding of the herbicide to the soil. Herbicides with a low margin of crop safety often prohibit use on soils with low adsorptive capacity due to the potential for crop injury due to high availability of the herbicide within the soil. Soil pH influences binding of herbicides that are classified as basic chemical compounds (versus acidic or non-ionic compounds). These molecules have a neutral or positive charge depending on the soil pH. In neutral or basic soils (pH 7) a basic herbicide will have a neutral charge, whereas under acidic soil conditions (pH < 7) the herbicide takes on a positive charge. Due to the positive charge on the molecule in acid soils, basic herbicides are more tightly bound to soil colloids in soils with a low pH. The triazine herbicides are the primary examples of herbicides with a basic nature. The metribuzin label warns that use of the product on soils with pH of 7.5 or higher may result in crop injury. The

increased risk of injury in alkaline soils is due to the greater amount of herbicide in soil solution.
Herbicide factors influencing adsorption

The degree of soil adsorption of a herbicide is determined by its chemical characteristics. The sorption coefficient (K) is a measure of the tendency for an herbicide to be adsorbed by the soil. It is usually expressed either as Kd or Koc. The K value for an herbicide will vary among soils due to the different binding capacity of soils. The Koc is adjusted for the organic matter content of a soil, whereas the Kd takes into account binding to clay and organic matter. The K values determined on different soils or under different laboratory conditions will vary somewhat, but they are still very useful in predicting herbicide behavior. A simple description of the K value is that it is a ratio of the herbicide bound to soil colloids to the herbicide present in the soil solution. K= Herbicide (soil) Herbicide (water)
Thus an herbicide that has a high K value will have a high percentage of the herbicide bound to soil colloids, and thus less is dissolved in the soil solution where it would be available for absorption by plants. Herbicides with low K values have more of the herbicide in the soil solution, thus have greater availability to plants and are more mobile in the soil profile. A second parameter that can influence herbicide behavior is an herbicides water solubility; however, water solubility usually is relatively insignificant compared to the sorption coefficient. Initially this may not seem logical since the fraction of herbicide dissolved in soil water is responsible for herbicide activity. Consider that most herbicides are applied at a pound or less per acre and that an acre inch of water weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. For most herbicides, water solubility is not a limiting factor due to the large volume of water present in the soil compared to the low rate that herbicides are applied. The sorption coefficient helps explain the performance of herbicides applied to the soil (Table 2). Both glyphosate and paraquat have very high K values compared to other herbicides. Neither product has significant soil activity since they are bound so tightly to soil colloids that they are unavailable to plants. The labels of both products state that the use of water containing soil sediments as a carrier will reduce performance due to inactivation of the herbicide by binding to the colloids. Pendimethalin has a high Koc compared to other preemergence herbicides, which explains why it requires more rainfall to provide consistent control than herbicides with lower sorption coefficients. Dicamba has one of the lowest sorption coefficients of commonly used herbicides. Although dicamba is registered for preemergence use in corn, applications made prior to germination of the corn seed have a relatively high risk of crop injury due to dicambas mobility in the soil. Applications made before or shortly after corn planting may allow dicamba to reach the depth of the corn seed and be absorbed as the seed imbibes water and result in damage to the seedling. Table 2. Chemical properties of several herbicides. Common name acetochlor atrazine dicamba glyphosate mesotrione metolachlor paraquat pendimethalin Tradename Harness Aatrex Banvel/Clarity Roundup Callisto Dual Gramoxone Prowl Koc 156 100 2 24,000 122 200 1,000,000 17581 H2O Solubility (ppm) 282 35 250,000 10,500 160 530 620,000 0.33
Source: WSSA Herbicide Handbook; IUPAC Pesticide Properties Database
Environmental factors influencing adsorption Since adsorption is a physical process, temperatures within the range experienced in the field have little impact on binding of herbicides to soil colloids. Rainfall impacts herbicide
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 51 performance by facilitating movement in the soil profile (leaching) and by influencing soil moisture content. As soil moisture decreases the film of water surrounding soil particles becomes thinner, resulting in less volume to dissolve herbicide molecules and greater adsorption to soil colloids. Preemergence herbicides are less active during periods when soil moisture is limiting.
Absorption by plants
To be effective, preemergence herbicides must be present in the soil solution surrounding weed seeds as the seed initiates germination. Thus, an herbicide must be positioned within the soil profile at the depth of weed establishment. Since most weeds have small seeds, the majority of seeds germinate in the upper inch of the soil profile. The term activation is commonly used to describe movement of a soil-applied herbicide from the soil surface into the soil profile. For most situations, a half inch rain is sufficient to move the chemical to the soil depth required for effective weed control. However, the rainfall required for activation will increase slightly with increasing adsorptive capacity of the soil and sorption coefficient of the herbicide. In addition, more rainfall will be needed in situations where an herbicide is applied to a very dry soil. With the exception of the dinitroaniline herbicides (pendimethalin, trifluralin), differences in the sorption coefficient (K) of commonly used preemergence herbicides are not sufficient to result in significant differences in the amount of rain required for activation. Herbicide absorption from the soil is a passive process. The initial step in seed germination is imbibition of water from the soil. Herbicide molecules present in the soil solution are carried into the seed with the water. Since weeds are most vulnerable to preemergence herbicides just as they initiate germination, having the herbicide present in the germination zone at this time is critical. Herbicide applications made at planting generally are dependent upon rainfall within three to five days to ensure effective control of weeds that germinate shortly after planting and herbicide application. A few preemergence herbicides can be absorbed by roots of emerged seedlings and provide control of established plants. This phenomenon typically occurs when weeds are able to establish due to dry conditions that minimize herbicide availability. Rain shortly after the weeds emerge releases herbicide bound to soil colloids into the soil solution, allowing absorption of the herbicide by the established weeds. It takes higher concentrations of herbicides to kill established weeds than a germinating seed, thus chemicals with low K values and the ability to translocate within the plant are more likely to kill established seedlings than herbicides without these characteristics. The bleaching herbicides (HPPD inhibitors) are promoted for their ability to control established plants through recharge, whereas amide type and dinitroaniline herbicides have little effect on emerged weeds. While the ability to control emerged weeds can on occasion improve weed control, this type of activity is much less consistent than an herbicide acting on a germinating seeds. Thus fields with escaped weeds should be monitored closely to determine the need for remedial control measures. Herbicide degradation The persistence of an herbicide is typically described in terms of half-life (t), the time required for 50% of the herbicide present in the soil to break down. Herbicides begin to degrade as soon as they are introduced in the environment, but the rate of breakdown varies widely among chemicals and environmental conditions (Figure 1). In this example, the half-life for the chemicalwas 5 weeks under favorable conditions, but increased to 9 weeks under unfavorable conditions. The primary factors that influence degradation rate are soil characteristics, temperature and rainfall. Herbicides may be broken down by chemical or biological mechanisms, or both. Biological degradation is more responsive to environmental factors than chemical processes. The range of soil temperatures encountered during the growing season typically do not have a major influence on degradation rates, but extended dry periods can result in prolonged persistence of a herbicide. Ideally a preemergence chemical could be applied in early spring and would control weeds until the crop canopy closes. After that it would dissipate quickly so that it would not interfere with future cropping plans or move into water resources or other areas where it is not wanted. Unfortunately, the dynamics of herbicide degradation and environmental variability prevent such a simple solution to weed management. The initial rate of degradation in spring is relatively rapid compared to degradation rates later in the season. This is due to a combination of greater initial herbicide availability and more favorable conditions for biological degradation in the spring (temperature, moisture) than occurs later in the season. Since herbicide degradation rates slow as the season progresses, a product that persists long enough to provide full-season weed control may pose a threat to susceptible rotational crops the following growing season.
Figure 1.
Soil pH influences degradation rates of several herbicides that are used in Iowa corn and soybean production. The persistance of atrazine and chlorimuron increases with soil pH, and this limits their use in areas of the state with alkaline soils due to carryover risks to rotational crops. Atrazine degrades more rapidly when bound to soil colloids, thus the greater availability of atrazine in high pH soils increases the half-life of the chemical. Chlorimuron and other sulfonylurea herbicides are degraded by both chemical and biological processes in acidic or neutral soils, with chemical hydrolysis being the most important mechanism. In alkaline soils, only biological degradation is involved and the persistence is greatly increased. Like atrazine, mesotrione binds to soil colloids less under alkaline conditions; however, mesotrione breaks down more rapidly when in solution than when bound to colloids. Thus, mesotrione is more persistent under alkaline conditions. The imidazolinone herbicides (Pursuit, Scepter) also have increased persistence in acid soils.
Application timing impacts on herbicide performance

Preemergence herbicides can be applied over an extended period of time, from fall applications made more than six months prior to crop planting, until after the crop has emerged. The primary influence of application timing is in determining the time period when the herbicide will be present at effective concentrations in the soil. Application timing also influences the probability of the herbicide being activated by rainfall before weeds become established. Several preemergence herbicides are registered for fall applications. Fall applications are most appropriate for controlling winter annual weeds such as marestail/horseweed, field pennycress and henbit in no-till fields. Fall applications can also control early-emerging summer annuals; however, degradation of the product between application and establishment of the crop significantly reduces the length of in-season weed control. The only advantage of fall applications for inseason weed control is eliminating a field operation in the spring, thus the benefit of this strategy should be carefully evaluated. The potential success of this approach increases as one moves north in the state due to the longer winter which reduces the time the herbicide is vulnerable to degradation. Early preplant applications (EPP) are made several weeks ahead of planting. This strategy increases the probability that the herbicide will be moved into the soil profile by rainfall before annual weeds begin to germinate compared to at planting applications. EPP generally require higher use rates than applications made at planting to provide equivalent periods of weed control. The difference in length of control between EPP and at planting applications is magnified when planting is delayed due to wet springs. A factor to consider with EPP treatments is the impact of final seedbed preparation and planting operations on the distribution of the herbicide within the soil profile. In systems where tillage is used to prepare the seedbed after the EPP has been made, improper tillage can either leave a streaky pattern of herbicide across the field or place the herbicide too deep within the profile, effectively diluting the chemical to
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 53 non-effective concentrations. Planters that move significant amounts of soil from the row can displace the herbicide, leaving an unprotected strip within the row for weeds to establish. Preemergence applications made within a few days of planting provide the greatest likelihood of full-season weed control since the herbicide is placed in the field when it is needed. It is important to provide the crop with an even start with weeds, so any emerged weeds present at planting should be killed as close to planting as possible. The primary disadvantage of at planting applications is the need for timely rainfall to activate the herbicide. Assuming soils have reached temperatures favorable for germination at planting, failure to receive activating rainfall within three to five days of application may allow early germinating weeds to escape control. In no-till where burndown herbicides are used to kill established weeds rather than tillage, the window for rainfall is narrower due to the lack of soil disturbance to kill weeds that have initiated germination but have yet to emerge. Fields should be monitored closely when limited rainfall following application increases the likelihood of escapes. Rotary hoeing can be effective at reducing control failures due to lack of timely rain, but this tillage operation needs to be completed before weeds have emerged to be most effective. Many preemergence herbicides allow application after the crop has emerged, but some products prohibit this use due to foliar activity that can result in crop injury. Preemergence herbicides applied after planting extend the period of weed control later into the growing season than applications made earlier in the season. This extended control can be valuable for weeds with prolonged emergence periods such as waterhemp. Since these applications are often made during peak weed emergence periods, lack of activating rain soon after application can result in inconsistent performance.
Crop injury
In the era of Roundup Ready crops, farmers have become accustomed to herbicides that have a large margin of crop safety. Although most preemergence herbicides used today have less risk of significant injury than some that were used in the past, there is the potential for adverse crop response with many products. The factors that influence this risk are: 1) crop tolerance to the herbicide, 2) soil characteristics, and 3) environmental conditions. Each herbicide has a specific margin of safety on an individual crop, and ratings of crop tolerance to herbicides are provided by most land grant universities. Certain herbicide formulations include a safener that enhances tolerance. Safened products include Dual II Magnum, Harness, Balance Flexx, etc. There can be varietal differences within a crop, but these differences are usually relatively small compared to the other factors that determine crop response. The adsorptive capacity of a soil often influences crop response due to increased availability of the herbicide in soils with a low affinity for herbicides. Some products recommend not using the product on soils with low adsorptive capacity due to injury risk. The rate structure specified on herbicide labels is designed to avoid overwhelming the crops tolerance mechanisms, but variability of soil types within a field often makes it difficult to adjust rates accurately according to soil type. Environmental conditions influence both the availability of the herbicide and a crops tolerance mechanisms. Excess soil moisture increases the availability of the herbicide by increasing the amount of herbicide in soil solution. Herbicide selectivity normally is achieved by differential metabolism: the crop is able to metabolize the herbicide more rapidly than weeds, thus the weed dies due to toxic concentrations accumulating within the plant, whereas the crop detoxifies the herbicide before it is harmed by the herbicide. When a crop is under stress due to weather, disease, exposure to other chemicals, or other factors its ability to metabolize the herbicide may be compromised. A reduced rate of metabolism can allow the herbicide to reach toxic concentrations within the plant. Determining the impact of injury on yield potential is difficult. Since preemergence herbicides cause injury early in the season, plants often have time to recover from the setback and yields will not be reduced unless significant stand loss occurs.
Summary
Preemergence herbicides will play an increasingly important role in weed management due to the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds, either to reduce the risk of these weeds invading fields or to manage resistant populations. The keys to successful preemergence weed control are: 1) select a product that is effective against the weeds present in the field, 2) select a rate that is appropriate for the target weeds and soil properties of the field, and 3) apply the

herbicide uniformly across the field and at an appropriate time. The availability of the herbicide within the soil profile determines the effectiveness of weed control and the risk of crop injury. Thus, knowing the soil characteristics of the field and the adsorptive characteristics of the herbicide is critical in diagnosing problems with performance of soilapplied herbicides.
Diversified weed management tactics in diversified cropping systems: Foundations for durable crop production and protection
Matt Liebman, professor and H.A. Wallace Chair for Sustainable Agriculture, Agronomy, Iowa State University
One of the key questions facing Iowas agricultural community is how to produce sufficient amounts of food and farm income while improving and protecting environmental quality. Because synthetic fertilizers and pesticides constitute important expenses in Iowa farming systems (Duffy 2011; National Agricultural Statistics Service 2011) and because their use can be linked to environmental damage (U.S. Geological Survey 1999; Dinnes et al. 2002; Gilliom et al. 2006), learning how to reduce reliance on these materials without compromising farm productivity and profitability is a key priority for Iowa and other parts of the U.S. Corn Belt. Fossil energy costs associated with farming have increased over the last decade and reducing reliance on non-renewable energy sources is also an important priority for improving profitability (Economic Research Service 2008). With regard to biological challenges to productivity and profitability, weed resistance to commonly used herbicides, including glyphosate, is a growing problem in Iowa and other Corn Belt states (Heap 2011; Tranel et al. 2011). Addressing weed resistance effectively will require approaches that integrate multiple control tactics (Beckie 2006). To address these issues and other related challenges, a 22-acre field experiment was initiated in 2001 at the Iowa State University Marsden Farm in Boone Co., IA. The experiment is designed to test the hypothesis that diversifying a corn-soybean rotation with small grain and forage crops can maintain or improve yields, weed suppression, and profitability, while allowing large reductions in chemical inputs. In addition to a conventionally managed 2-year cornsoybean rotation, the experiment includes a 3-year corn-soybean-small grain + red clover rotation, and a 4-year cornsoybean-small grain + alfalfa-alfalfa rotation. After uniformly cropping the site with oat in 2001 and tuning the three rotation systems in 2002, intensive data collection began in 2003. Spring triticale was used as the small grain in 2003-2005, whereas oat was used in 20062010. During 2003-2010, manure was applied before corn production in the 3-year and 4-year rotations at a mean dry matter rate of 4 tons acre-1, providing a mean of 106 lb N acre-1 once every three years in the 3-year rotation system, and once every four years in the 4-year rotation. Corn in the 2-year rotation received 100 lb N acre-1 as urea at planting, whereas corn in the 3-year and 4-year rotations did not. The late spring nitrate test (Blackmer et al. 1997) was used to determine rates for post-emergence side-dress N applications (as urea ammonium nitrate) for corn in all rotation systems. Weed management in the 2-year rotation was based largely on herbicides applied at conventional rates. In the 3-year and 4-year systems, herbicides were applied in 15-inch-wide bands over corn and soybean rows rather than broadcast, greater reliance was placed on cultivation, and no herbicides were applied in small grain and forage legume crops. Choices of herbicides used in each system were based on the identities, densities, and sizes of weed species observed in the plots. Sampling procedures and other details of farming practices used in the different cropping systems during 2003-2010 are described in Liebman et al. (2008), Cruse et al. (2010), and Gmez et al. (in review). Over the years 2003-2010, synthetic N fertilizer use was 76% and 84% lower in the 3-year and 4-year rotation systems, respectively, than in the 2-year rotation; similarly herbicide use was reduced 85% and 89% in the 3-year and 4-year rotation systems, respectively, relative to the 2-year rotation (Table 1). Over the period 2007-2010, reductions in N fertilizer and herbicide use were greater: compared with the 2-year rotation system, fertilizer N use was 89% and 93% lower in the 3-year and 4-year systems, respectively, and herbicides inputs were 96% and 97% lower in the 3-year and 4-year systems. The conventional 2-year system used the largest amount of fossil fuel energy, the 4-year system used the least, and the 3-year system was intermediate (Table 1). Gas for drying corn grain, fertilizer, and fuel for farm machinery were responsible for the majority of fossil energy consumption (Cruse et al. 2010).

Table 1. Inputs, crop yields, weed dry mater production, net returns, and selected soil characteristics for the three cropping systems in the Marsden Farm rotation experiment, Boone Co., IA. Within rows, means followed by different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05); means not followed by letters are statistically equivalent. Data are from Liebman et al. (2008), Cruse et al. (2010), Gmez et al. (in review), and Wander and Lazicki (unpublished).
Cropping system 2-year rotation: Corn-soybean 3-year rotation: Corn-soybeansmall grain/ red clover 4-year rotation: Corn-soybeansmall grain/ alfalfa-alfalfa
Whole rotation Fertilizer N inputs, lb N acre-1 year-1 (2003-2010) Herbicide inputs, lb a.i. acre-1 year-1 (2003-2010) Fossil energy inputs, barrels of oil equivalent acre-1 year-1 (2003-2008) Labor requirements, hr acre-1 year-1 (2003-2010) Net returns to land and management, $ acre-1 year-1 (2003-2010) Crop yields Corn, bu acre-1 (2003-2010) Soybean, bu acre-1 (2003-2010) Small grain, tons acre-1 (2003-2010) Alfalfa, tons acre-1 (2003-2010) Weed dry matter production In corn, lb acre-1 (2003-2010) In soybean, lb acre-1 (2003-2010) Soil characteristics Particulate organic matter-C, mg C cm-3 soil, 0-20 cm depth (2009) Potentially mineralizable N, mg N cm-3 soil, 0-20 cm depth (2009) 2.0 b 33.9 b 2.3 a 39.4 a 2.2 a 39.3 a 1.8 1.3 4.1 3.4 3.3 3.2 194 b 51 b 200 a 55 a 1.7 203 a 57 a 1.7 4.0 68 a 1.71 a 1.06 a 0.73 c 279 16 b 0.25 b 0.63 b 1.13 b 286 11 c 0.19 c 0.47 c 1.42 a 284
Triticale was grown as the small grain crop in 2003-2005; oat was used in 2006-2010. Crop subsidy payments were not included as sources of revenue. Despite large reductions in N fertilizer, herbicide, and fossil fuel inputs, corn and soybean yields were higher in the more diverse systems than in the conventional corn-soybean system (Table 1). Weed dry matter production in corn and soybean was low (< 5 lb acre-1) in all systems (Table 1). Weed seed densities in the soil declined in all of the rotation systems during 2003-2010, indicating that reductions in herbicide inputs were not contributing to a buildCopyright 2011. All rights reserved. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. This document is available at www.aep.iastate.edu.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 57 up of long-term weed problems. In 2010, when soybean sudden death syndrome was prevalent in central Iowa, the incidence and severity of the disease were lower in the 3-year and 4-year rotations than in the 2-year rotation. Soil particulate organic matter carbon concentrations were significantly greater in the 3-year and 4-year rotation systems than in the conventional 2-year system (Table 1), suggesting that soil organic carbon is increasing in the more diverse rotation systems. Soil potentially mineralizable nitrogen levels were also higher in the 3-year and 4-year rotations than in the 2-year rotation (Table 1), indicating that the more diverse rotation systems had greater capacity to supply crops with N. Net returns to land and management for 2003-2010 were essentially equivalent for the three rotation systems, with the diversified 3-year and 4-year systems providing a few dollars more than the conventional 2-year system (Table 1). Labor requirements increased with increases in rotation length, but labor costs were only a small fraction of total production costs. Energy gain in crop products per unit of fossil fuel energy invested and net economic returns per unit of fossil energy input were greatest in the 4-year system, least in the 2-year system, and intermediate in the 3-year system. Taken together, results of this study indicate that diversified crop rotation systems can produce high yields of corn and soybean, suppress weeds effectively, and improve soil quality, while substantially reducing requirements for synthetic N fertilizer, herbicides, and fossil energy. The mixture of chemical, mechanical, and cultural weed control tactics used in the 3-year and 4-year rotation systems is likely to retard the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds and provide more options for effective control over the long term.
References
Beckie, H.J. 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technology 20: 793-814. Blackmer, A.M., R.D. Voss, and A.P. Mallorino. 1997. Nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for corn in Iowa. Publication PM-1714. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA. On-line at: http://www.extension.iastate. edu/Publications/PM1714.pdf. Dinnes, D.L., D.L. Karlen, D.B. Jaynes, T.C. Kaspar, J.L. Hatfield, T.S. Colvin, and C.A. Cambardella. Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained Midwestern soils. Agronomy Journal 94:153-171. Duffy, M. 2011. Estimated crop production costs in Iowa2011. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA. Online at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/publications/fm1712.pdf. Cruse, M.J., M. Liebman, D.R. Raman, and M. Wiedenhoeft. 2010. Fossil energy use in conventional and lowexternal-input cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 102: 934-941. Economic Research Service. 2008. Agricultural projections to 2017. USDA-Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. On-line at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE081. Gilliom, R.J., J.E. Barbash, C.G. Crawford, P.A. Hamilton, J.D. Martin, N. Nakagaki, L.H. Nowell, J.C. Scott, P.E. Stackelberg, G.P. Thelin, and D.M. Wolock. 2006. The quality of our nations waters: pesticides in the nations streams and ground water, 1992-2001. Circular 1291. U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. On-line at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/. Gmez, R., M. Liebman, D.N. Sundberg, and C.A. Chase. In review. Comparison of crop management strategies involving crop genotype and weed management practices in conventional and low-external-input cropping systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. Heap, I. 2011. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. On-line at: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Liebman, M., L.R. Gibson, D.N. Sundberg, A.H. Heggenstaller, P.R. Westerman, C.A. Chase, R.G. Hartzler, F .D. Menalled, A.S. Davis, and P.M. Dixon. 2008. Agronomic and economic performance characteristics of conventional and low-external-input cropping systems in the central Corn Belt. Agronomy Journal 100: 600-610. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2011. 2010 State Agriculture Overview - Iowa. NASS-U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. On-line at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/ AgOverview_IA.pdf.

Tranel, P.J., C.W. Riggins, M.S. Bell, and A.G. Hager. 2011. Herbicide resistance in Amaranthus tuberculatus: a call for new options. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry DOI: 10.1021/jf103797n. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. The quality of our nations waters: nutrients and pesticides. Circular 1225. U.S. Dept. of Interior and USGS, Washington, DC. On-line at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/.
Update on the soybean aphid efficacy program

Erin W. Hodgson, assistant professor and Extension entomologist, Entomology, Iowa State University; Greg VanNostrand, research associate, Entomology, Iowa State University
The confirmation of soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), in 2000 has drastically changed soybean pest management in the United States. Outbreak populations (i.e., 1,000s per plant) can significantly reduce yield by 40 percent, and reduce seed size, seed coat quality, pod number and plant height (Ragsdale et al. 2007). As a result of the yield loss potential, soybean aphid quickly became the primary soybean pest in Iowa and the north central region. A soybean efficacy evaluation was started at ISU in 2005 and continues to grow with the availability of new products and management tools. Insecticides have been the primary control strategy for soybean aphid during the first decade. Two major classes of insecticides, organophosphates and pyrethroids, are the most common types of foliar insecticides for soybean aphid, but foliar neonicotinoids have also been recently released. Although most labeled products are effective now, we have concerns with managing a persistent pest like soybean aphid solely with insecticides. Aphids can develop genetic resistance to major classes but growers can help delay these events in soybean by minimizing exposure to aphid populations and only treating when populations exceed the economic threshold. Also, rotating modes of action (e.g., pyrethroids, organophosphates, neonicotinoids) will prolong the effectiveness of available products. Host plant resistance is the newest soybean aphid management tool, and is complementary to existing chemical control. Aphid-resistant varieties have the potential to simultaneously reduce insecticide usage and associated production costs, and preserve natural enemies in soybean (Tilmon et al. 2011). To date, host plant resistant genes for soybean aphid are prefixed with Rag, which is an abbreviation for Resistant Aphis glycines. The Rag1 gene expresses antibiosis and has been commercially available since 2010. Antibiosis is type of resistance where exposed insects do not live as long or produce as many offspring as they could on susceptible plants. The objective of the efficacy program is to evaluate labeled and proprietary foliar insecticides alone and in combination with seed treatments and host plant resistance. We assessed knockdown and residual of foliar insecticides and monitored for potential genetic resistance to insecticidal chemistries.
Comparison of soybean aphid treatments

In 2011, soybean aphid efficacy evaluations were established at three ISU Research Farms (Northwest, Northeast, and Johnson). Each location had plots (15 x 45-50 feet) in a randomized complete block design with four replications per treatment. The number of treatments varied between locations, but included at least the same seven controls: untreated, Rag1, seed treatment (ST), ST + Rag1, ST + Rag1 + threshold spray, aphid-free spray, and threshold spray. Two types of seed were used (Rag1 and susceptible). See the 2011 Yellow Book for a complete list of treatments and application rates; this summary only includes data from the Northwest Farm (Table 1). Soybean aphids were counted in plots weekly from June to early September. To estimate the total exposure of soybean plants to soybean aphid, we calculated cumulative aphid days (CAD) based on the number of aphids per plant counted on each sampling date. Yield was determined by weighing grain with a grain hopper and corrected to 13% moisture. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine treatment effects within each experiment. Means separation for all studies was achieved using a general linear mixed model and a least significant difference (LSD) test ( < 0.10) using SAS software (2011).

Table 1. List of treatments, rates, and application timings for the Northwest Farm in 2011 Treatment Untreated Control Rag1 CruiserMaxx Beans CruiserMaxx Beans + Rag1 CruiserMaxx Beans + Rag1 + Warrior II Warrior II Warrior II + Lorsban Advanced Cobalt Advanced Endigo ZC Active Ingredient --------thiamethoxam + mefenoxam + fludioxonil thiamethoxam + mefenoxam + fludioxonil ----thiamethoxam + mefenoxam + fludioxonil ----lambda-cyhalothrin lambda-cyhalothrin lambda-cyhalothrin + chlorpyrifos lambda-cyhalothrin + chlorpyrifos thiamethoxam + lambda-cyhalothrin Rate --------56g/100 kg seed 56g/100 kg seed + ----56g/100 kg seed + ----- + 1.6 fl oz 1.6 fl oz 1.6 fl oz + 16.0 fl oz 13 fl oz 4.5 fl oz Timing --------ST ST ----ST ----10 Aug 10 Aug 29 Jul + 10 Aug 10 Aug 10 Aug
Results
Aphid colonization at all three locations was low in June, but gradually increased in July and August. Overall seasonal aphid pressure varied between locations, but the Northwest Farm had the highest abundance. We would expect to see economic loss when the CAD value exceeds 5,000-6,000 (Ragsdale et al. 2007). There were significant differences in CAD between foliar treatments (F=32.335; df=3,8; P<0.0001) (Fig. 1a). CAD were significantly higher in the untreated control (18,896 4,420 SEM) and seed treatment (19,739 3,786 SEM) plots. The Rag1 treatment had significantly fewer CAD than Endigo or Cobalt. There were also significant differences between treatments and yield (LSD=2.63; F=9.10; df=3,8; P<0.0001) (Fig. 1b). Yield was highest in the Warrior II treatment (65.3 1.4 SEM) and Rag1 (65.0 2.8 SEM) plots. The insecticidal seed treatment did not reduce CAD or prevent yield loss compared to the untreated control, but did complement Rag1 and foliar insecticide treatments.
Figure 1. Soybean aphid efficacy evaluation at the Northwest Farm for 2011 showing a) comparison of cumulative aphid days and soybean aphid density, and b) comparison of treatments and soybean yield. Different letters represent a significant difference between treatments.
Management Summary The severity and abundance of soybean aphid in Iowa has fluctuated over the last decade. Scout fields even if using
host plant resistance or a seed treatment.
Bloom (R1-R2) and pod development (R3-R4) are the most critical growth stages to protect for obtaining optimal
yields.
Use the full rate of an insecticide instead of tank-mixing several products with reduced rates. Reduced rates of
insecticides do not always provide adequate soybean aphid control, and can lead to increased risk of insecticide resistance.
Consider alternating modes of action if more than one application, including seed treatments, is made during a
single growing season.
To optimize foliar coverage, increase pressure (40 psi), increase carrier (20 gpa of water) and use small droplet-size
nozzles. Complete coverage is important for optimum aphid control (Hodgson and ONeal 2011).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Iowa Soybean Association and the soybean checkoff for financial assistance of this ongoing project, and the following industry support: BASF Bayer CropScience, Cheminova, Dow AgriSciences, , Dupont, FMC Corporation, Gowan Company, Nichino America, and Syngenta.
References
Hodgson, E. W., and M. E. ONeal. 2011. Soybean aphid field guide, 2nd ed. Iowa State University Extension, Publication CSI-0011. Ragsdale, D. W., B. P. McCornack, R. C. Venette, E. W. Hodgson, B. D. Potter, I. V. MacRae, M. E. ONeal, K. D. Johnson, R. J. ONeil, C. D. DiFonzo, T. E. Hunt, P. Glogoza, and E. M. Cullen. 2007. Economic threshold for soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Economic Entomology 100: 1258-1267. Ragsdale, D. W., D. A. Landis, J. Brodeur, G. E. Heimpel, and N. Desneux. 2011. Ecology and management of the soybean aphid in North America. Annual Review of Entomology 56: 375-399. Tilmon, K. J., E. W. Hodgson, M. E. ONeal, and D. W. Ragsdale. 2011. Biology of the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. doi:10.1603/ IPM10016.
Japanese beetle biology and management in corn and soybean

Erin W. Hodgson, assistant professor and Extension entomologist, Entomology, Iowa State University; Cody Kuntz, graduate student, Entomology, Iowa State University; Matt ONeal, associate professor, Entomology, Iowa State University; and Greg VanNostrand, research associate, Entomology, Iowa State University
The Japanese beetle (JB), Popillia japonica (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), is an introduced pest originating from Japan. It was first identified in New Jersey in 1916, and despite attempts at eradication and efforts to limit its spread, JB has quickly expanded across the continent. In the United States, JB populations have successfully established in all states east of the Mississippi River with the exception of Florida. This invasive species has also spread into Minnesota, Iowa (Fig. 1), and Nebraska, and north into Ontario and Quebec (Potter and Held 2002). According to a survey by Purdue University, the most recent distribution of JB in the United States now also shows detections in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Montana (NAPIS 2011).
Figure 1. The first detection of JB in Iowa was in 1994. As of October 2011, 56 out of the 99 Iowa counties have confirmed JB.
Life cycle and biology

JB has one generation per year in the United States, with the exception of the northernmost regions of the country, where the cold temperature may extend development to two years (Potter and Held 2002). Variations in the first appearance of adults, timing of reproduction, and rate of larval development are mostly attributable to latitude and local climatic fluctuations between years (Potter and Held 2002).

Male JB adults emerge a few days before females in late May or early June (Cook and Gray 2004). Adults are most abundant from mid-July through August (Fleming 1972). Females go through several mating and egg-laying cycles. In 4-6 weeks, a female can enter the soil more than a dozen times and deposit 40-60 solitary eggs (Potter and Held 2002). To be a suitable egg-laying site, an area must have moderate to high soil moisture, moderate soil texture, sunlight, and short grass cover (Potter and Held 2002). Females prefer to lay eggs in grasses, however, they may also lay eggs within field crops with sufficient soil moisture. Cultivation may also be an important factor in determining a sites suitability for JB females. Higher adult JB densities are found in no-till or reduced-till soybean and JB larvae have been found to be 10-fold more abundant in weedy nursery fields compared with cultivated fields (Szendrei and Isaacs 2006). Eggs hatch in about 10-14 days, and larvae will feed for several weeks. Larvae move downward in the soil as temperatures cool and overwinter as third instars. As the weather warms in spring, the larvae move upward in the soil and continue feeding for several more weeks until pupating in early spring. Mature adults emerge from the soil a few weeks later.
Host range and feeding behavior

The host range of JB is quite broad. Larvae are able to feed on the roots of a wide variety of grasses, weeds, garden or nursery crops, and ornamental plants. As adults, they are able to eat leaves and consume the fruits and flowers of more than 300 plant species in at least 79 families (Potter and Held 2002). Although the focus here will be on JB in corn and soybean, some other economically important hosts of adults include grapes, and fruit trees such as apples, cherries, peaches, and plums. JB larvae are not mobile and are generally restricted in movement (other than their accidental relocation through movement of soil). Adults can fly several miles to colonize new areas; however, they typically make short flights to feed or lay eggs (Potter et al. 2010). Adult JB tend to aggregate on host plants, with the males attracted to sex hormones released by females (Ladd 1970). Both sexes are attracted to volatile compounds released by the plants when fed upon by JB (Potter and Held 2002). Adult aggregations produce the greatest damage to plants, skeletonizing the leaf tissue between the veins and leaving a lacy appearance (Fleming 1972). They also may be able to consume entire flower petals or leaves of species with delicate veins (Potter et al. 2010). On corn, in addition to consuming leaf tissue, adult JB feed on the silks and can interfere with pollination. Significant silk clipping can lead to incomplete ear fill and yield loss (Cook and Gray 2004).
Scouting and management

JB larvae can be somewhat difficult to identify, as they resemble several other white grubs, but they are C-shaped with a white body and a brown head, and about one inch in length when fully developed. They can be distinguished from other white grubs by the V-shaped pattern of hairs on the tip of the abdomen (Cook and Gray 2004). Identification of adult JB, on the other hand, is relatively easy. They are generally about half an inch long and somewhat oval in shape (Cook and Gray 2004). Adults have a metallic green head and bronze forewings. They also have five white tufts of hair projecting from under the wings on both sides of the abdomen and two more tufts on the end of the abdomen. Because adults tend to aggregate and are highly mobile, economic thresholds are not typically based on beetle abundance (e.g. through sweep netting or density of beetles per plant). It is therefore necessary to scout a representative area of the entire field in order to determine the extent of JB defoliation. For soybean, foliar insecticides are recommended if scouting shows that defoliation has reached or exceeded 30% before bloom or 20% between bloom and pod fill (Cook and Gray 2004). In corn, foliar insecticides are recommended when silks are present and an average of three or more JB adults per ear are present (Cook and Gray 2004). Other insects also feed on silks and insecticides are recommended if silks have been clipped to less than half an inch in length and pollination is less than 50 percent complete (Cook and Gray 2004). There are many currently available insecticides that are labeled for use against JB in both corn and soybean. These products encompass several modes of action and pre-harvest intervals.
An efficacy evaluation for Japanese beetle

In 2011, we established plots at the Iowa State University Johnson Research Farm in Story County, Iowa. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Soybean was planted in 30inch rows using no-till production practices and each plot was six rows wide and 30 feet long. We evaluated five foliar insecticide treatments and an untreated control (Table 1). Treatments included three modes of action (e.g., pyrethroid, organophosphate, neonicotinoid) alone or in combination. Foliar treatments were applied using a backpack sprayer and TeeJet (Springfield, IL) twinjet nozzles (TJ 11002) with 20 gallons of water per acre at 40 pounds of pressure per square inch. Table 1. JB foliar insecticide treatments and rates in 2011 Treatment Warrior II Lorsban Advanced Centric 40WG Warrior II + Lorsban Advanced Endigo ZC Untreated Control Active Ingredient lambda-cyhalothrin chlorpyrifos thiamethoxam lambda-cyhalothrin + chlorpyrifos thiamethoxam + lambda-cyhalothrin ----Rate (oz/ac) 1.6 16.0 2.5 1.6 + 16.0 4.0 -----
Yields were determined by weighing grain with a grain hopper and adjusting the moisture to 13%. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine treatment effects within each experiment. Means separation for all studies was achieved using a general linear mixed model and a least significant difference (LSD) test ( < 0.10) using SAS software (2011).
Evaluation results
Weekly sampling started on 27 July and continued until 26 August (Figure 2a). On the first sample, percent defoliation ranged from 5-15%, and beetle abundance ranged from 12-27 beetles per sweep. Although the treatment threshold of 20% after bloom was not reached, foliar insecticides were applied on 2 August. Foliar insecticides reduced JB densities to less than ten per sweep while the untreated control was over 18 per sweep. However, wihtin seven days, there were no differences between any foliar treatment and the untreated control. Beetles continued to feed past pod fill, but percent defoliation never exceeded 20%. Yield comparisons indicated a significant difference between treatments (F=1.74; df=3,8; P<0.0001) (Figure 2b). But the foliar insecticides did not significantly differ from the untreated control. These data support the currently established economic threshold for JB, and that applying a foliar insecticide was not cost-effective decision. In this evaluation, JB was easily detected and plots had non-uniform defoliation. Some of the plants had extensive defoliation, but overall estimates were below 20%. The plots near the field edge had more obvious damage compared to interior plots. Therefore, we highly recommend scouting entire commercial fields to assess overall defoliation, as field edges will result in an over-estimate of damage. If only the field edges exceed treatment thresholds, consider making border application, if practical, to reduce application costs.
Figure 2. JB efficacy evaluation summary for 2011 showing a) comparison of treatments and JB density; arrow indicates timing of foliar applications, and b) comparison of treatments and soybean yield. Different letters represent a significant difference between treatments.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Iowa Soybean Association and soybean checkoff for their financial assistance of this project.
References
Cook, K. A. and M. E. Gray. 2004. Japanese beetle Popillia japonica Newman. http://ipm.illinois.edu/fieldcrops/ insects/japanese_beetles/. Fleming, W. E. 1972. Biology of the Japanese beetle. USDA Technical Bulletin 1449. Ladd, T. L. 1970. Sex attraction in the Japanese beetle. Journal of Economic Entomology 63: 905-908. NAPIS [National Agricultural Pest Information System]. 2011. Survey status of Japanese beetle - Popillia japonica (All years). Purdue University, 18 October 2011. http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/map.php?code=INBPAZA&year=alltime. Potter, D. A., and D. W. Held. 2002. Biology and management of the Japanese beetle. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 175-205. Potter, M. F D. A. Potter, and L. H. Townsend. 2010. Japanese beetles in the urban landscape. ., www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef451.asp. SAS Institute. 2011. SAS/STAT users guide, version 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Szendrei, Z., and R. Isaacs. 2006. Ground covers influence the abundance and behavior of Japanese beetles. Environmental Entomology 35: 789-796.
Assessing the benefits of pyramids and seed treatments for soybean aphid host plant resistance
Michael McCarville, graduate student, Entomology, Iowa State University; Matthew E. ONeal, associate professor, Entomology, Iowa State University; Walter R. Fehr, distinguished professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Introduction
Soybean aphid resistant varieties were first released commercially in 2010. Currently all commercially available resistant varieties incorporate the Rag1 (Resistance to Aphis glycines) gene. Research from the past three years have shown: Across multiple states and years, Rag1 containing-soybeans have fewer aphids than aphid-susceptible soybeans. When aphids are present in a field, Rag1 containing-soybeans are never aphid free (Mardorf et al. 2010). Rag1 does not limit yield (Kim and Diers 2009, Mardorf et al. 2010). Combining Rag1 and Rag2 in a soybean line provides more resistance than Rag1 or Rag2 alone (Wiarda et al. 2011).
Three other resistance genes have been discovered, Rag2, Rag3, and rag4 (Tilmon et al. 2011). Our knowledge of how pyramided resistance (a variety containing two resistance genes) will perform in the field is limited. How these varieties will interact with (1) natural enemies of the soybean aphid, (2) genetically diverse populations of soybean aphids, and (3) current management strategies, specifically insecticidal seed treatments are all questions that need to be addressed before appropriate management recommendations can be made. Our objective was to answer these three questions using a micro-plot cage experiment and a small plot field experiment.
Evaluating the interaction of predators and pyramided resistance in cages

Soybean lines containing the Rag1 gene alone, the Rag2 gene alone, the Rag1 and Rag2 genes together, and a susceptible near-isoline were grown in caged micro-plots with six replications. Each micro-plot consisted of 10 plants grown in a single 40-inch long row. Each line was exposed to two treatments, (1) Predator Free, and (2) Bio-control. Ten aphids per plant were used to infest plants in the vegetative stage (V3 stage) for the Predator Free treatment. Plants were enclosed inside a mesh cage to exclude aphid predators to measure the ability of aphids to reproduce on each line. Ten aphids per plant also were added to the Bio-control treatment; however, plots were left open to predators. This allowed for a measurement of the interaction of biological control and host plant resistance. Aphid populations were monitored each week using three whole plant counts per plot until populations declined in all treatments. Aphid performance was measured by calculating cumulative aphid days (Cumulative Aphid Days = CAD) for each soybean line.
Evaluating pyramided resistance and seed treatments in the field

The Rag1 alone, Rag2 alone, Rag1 and Rag2 combined, and susceptible soybean lines were grown in 18- row plots 50 ft. long at the Curtiss Research Farm in Ames, IA, and the Northeast Research Farm in Nashua, IA. The experimental design consisted of randomized complete block design with four replications. Each 18- row plot was sub-divided into three split-plot treatments, (1) Aphid Free, (2) Untreated, and (3) Seed Treated. The Aphid Free treatment was kept below 50 aphids per plant using foliar applications of -cyhalothrin (Warrior II with Zeon Technology, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC). In the Untreated treatment, plots were kept free of any insecticide. In the Seed Treated treatment, seed was treated with thiamethoxam (Cruiser, Syngenta Crop Protection) prior to planting. We counted the aphids on 10 plants per plot until populations reached 50 aphids per plant on the susceptible line, at which time five plants were counted. Plots were counted from the V3 stage to senescence. The effectiveness of each treatment to reduce aphid populations was calculated using CAD.
68 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Results and discussion Evaluating the interaction of predators and pyramided resistance in cages
The exclusion of predators in the Predator Free treatment resulted in high aphid populations for the four lines. Aphid populations peaked at around 6,000 aphids per plant for the susceptible line (Figure 1). The two single gene lines reached peak populations around 3,000 aphids per line that exceeded the economic injury level (EIL). The pyramided resistance line exceeded the economic threshold, but failed to reach the EIL. Predators, specifically ladybeetles, minute pirate bugs, and lacewing and hover fly larvae were frequently observed feeding on aphids in the Bio-control treatment. Therefore, we assume the difference in aphid populations between the Bio-control and Predator Free treatments is due in large part to predation. This reduction was more than 10-fold compared to the Predator Free treatment. In the Bio-control treatment only the susceptible line exceeded the EIL (Figure 1). Aphid populations failed to reach even 50 aphids per plant on the pyramided resistance line.
Figure 1. Performance of soybean aphid on the four lines in the Predator Free and Bio-control treatments. Note the difference in scales between the two graphs. Predators greatly reduced aphid populations on all lines in the Biocontrol treatment.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 69 These results demonstrate the benefit of biological control for soybean aphid resistant varieties. When predators were excluded, single gene lines were incapable of preventing aphids from reaching economically damaging levels. When predators were allowed access to aphid populations, Rag1 alone cultivars were capable of providing equivalent aphid protection to the pyramided resistance line.
Evaluating pyramided resistance and seed treatments in the field

Soybean aphid populations on the susceptible line peaked in the Untreated treatment at 450 and 600 aphids per plant in Ames and Nashua, respectively. Despite differences in overall densities of aphids at each location, aphid population trends were similar at both locations, so data was pooled for aphid performance analyses (Figure 2). At both locations, the three resistant lines significantly reduced aphid populations compared to the susceptible line. The seasonal exposure of plants to aphids (i.e. CAD) were similar for both Rag1 alone and Rag2 alone. Plant exposure was reduced by 71% for Rag1 and 86% for Rag2. The pyramided resistance line had significantly lower aphid populations, reducing CAD by 97% compared to the susceptible line. Aphid populations on the pyramid peaked at 8 and 15 aphids per plant in Ames and Nashua, respectively.
Figure 2. The abundance of naturally occurring aphid populations in the Untreated treatment at Ames and Nashua, IA.
Figure 3. Performance of soybean lines lines, with and without a thiomethoxam seed treatment. Data represent an average from both the Nashua and Ames locations. Data was log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA. Letters represent significant differences among lines at P < 0.05. Probabilities for the significance of the effects soybean line, seed treatment, and the interaction between soybean line and seed treatment are provided. Insecticide seed treatments significantly reduced CAD on the four lines by an equal percent across both locations. The seed treatments reduced CAD by 39%, 56%, 39%, and 42% on the susceptible, Rag1, Rag2, and Rag1/Rag2 lines respectively. Overall the addition of a seed treatment reduced CAD by an average of 44% (Figure3). Results from the field study demonstrate the ability of soybean aphid resistant varieties in general reduce aphid pressure. Results from the field study mirror the results we obtained from our micro-plot studies. Specifically single gene lines (i.e. Rag1 alone and Rag2 alone) significantly reduce aphid populations compared to the susceptible line, and the pyramid reduces aphid populations even further. The field study also shows that insecticide seed treatments can provide similar protection to resistant lines as has been shown for susceptible lines (i.e. reducing CAD by 39-56% compared to seed without an insecticide treatment) (Johnson et al. 2009). Going into the future, the release of single gene aphid resistant soybean varieties appears to provide effective control of the soybean aphid, reducing the need for foliar applications of insecticide. This control, however, could be further improved through the release of pyramided resistance lines, which have the potential to eliminate the threat of yield loss from soybean aphid damage.
Acknowledgements
We thank our multi-state collaborators Brian McCornack, Kelley Tilmon, Bruce Potter, Eileen Cullen, and John Tooker. We thank Ken Pecinovsky, Stith Wiggs and Jeff Butler for assistance with planting and harvesting and Greg VanNostrand for preparing insecticide applications. We also thank Syngenta for applications of thiamethoxam seed treatments. This research was funded by the Iowa Soybean Association and Soybean checkoff.
References
Johnson, K. D., M. E. ONeal, D. W. Ragsdale, B. E. Potter, C. D. DiFonzo, S. M. Swinton, and E. W. Hodgson. 2009. Probability of cost-effective management of soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in North America. Journal of Economic Entomology. 102: 2101-2108. Kim, K. S., and B. W. Diers. 2009. The associated effects of the soybean aphid resistance locus Rag1 on soybean yield and other agronomic traits. Crop Science. 49: 1726-1732. Mardorf, J. L., W. R. Fehr, and M. E. ONeal. 2010. Agronomic and seed traits of soybean lines with the Rag1 gene for aphid resistance. Crop Science. 50: 1891-1895.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 71 Tilmon, K. J., E. W. Hodgson, M. E. ONeal, and D. W. Ragsdale. 2011. Biology of the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 2: 2011; DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1603/IPM10016. Wiarda, S. L., W. R. Fehr, and M. E. ONeal. 2011. Soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) development on soybean aphid lines with Rag1 alone, Rag2 alone and both genes combined. Journal of Economic Entomology. In press.
Gosss wilt: Get the facts

Alison Robertson, associate professor and Extension plant pathologist, Plant Pathology, Iowa State University; Charlie Hurburgh, professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Lisa Shepherd, assistant scientist, Seed Science Center, Iowa State University; Charlie Block, assistant professor, Plant Pathology; Roger Elmore, professor and Extension corn agronomist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Gosss wilt and leaf blight is caused by the bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskense (Cmn). Historically, this disease has been a concern only to growers in western Nebraska and eastern Colorado on irrigated fields. In 2008, Gosss wilt was reported in eight counties in Iowa and its prevalence has increased each year. In 2011, the disease was widespread throughout the central and northern two thirds of Iowa. It was also reported in a few counties in the southern third tier of counties. Why the sudden increase in the prevalence of this disease? Has the pathogen changed? Are various production practices to blame? Is seed contaminated with the bacterium? There are many questions concerning this disease.
Disease cycle
The primary source of inoculum for Gosss wilt is Cmn-infested corn residue. The bacterium can survive at least 10 months in surface residue. Dissemination of the bacterium from the residue to corn has not been studied but it is hypothesized the bacterium is splashed dispersed onto the leaves of young corn seedlings. Smidt and Vidaver (1986) isolated Cmn from the surfaces of apparently healthy corn plants in early June, and populations of the bacterium on the leaves increased throughout the growing season. Physical damage to the plant by hail, wind or sand is necessary for infection by the bacterium, and all plant parts can be infected. Unlike Stewarts wilt, insects are not known to be involved with spread of the disease or infection and disease development. The optimum temperature for disease development is approximately 80F . Another source of inoculum may be seed, since the bacterium is seedborne and can be seed transmitted at very low rates (0.1-0.4% in inoculated seed).
Symptoms
Gosss wilt symptoms may be easily mistaken for other diseases including northern leaf blight, Stewarts wilt and drought or heat stress. In Iowa, Gosss wilt usually appears soon after silking as leaf blight symptoms in the top canopy of the plant. Lesions are large, grey to reddish and start at the tips of the leaves and extend downwards, often along the edge of the leaf. Cigar-shaped lesions may also occur away from the edge of the leaf. Rather than a distinct delimitation between diseased and healthy tissue (like with northern leaf blight), the border of Gosss wilt lesions is usually indistinct and may be grey-green. Within this border, the characteristic freckles associated with Gosss wilt are seen. The freckles are one of the characteristic symptoms that MUST be used to correctly diagnose this disease. The bacterium often oozes out of lesions and dries on the surface of the leaf as shiny exudates. This exudate is often more visible on the underside of the leaf. When the pathogen infects the vascular system of the plant, wilting can occur. This symptom is less common. Discoloration of a few bundles in the vascular system may occur together with a wet, slimy stalk rot.
Gosss wilt test kits

Agdia (www.agdia.com) sells dipstick tests for C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, a tomato pathogen, that cross react with Cmn. These test kits can be a useful tool for making a preliminary diagnosis of Gosss wilt. However, false positives can and do occur. The tests are very sensitive and it is possible to cross contaminate samples (Tamra Jackson, UNL, Personal communication). The tests can also cross react with saprophytic organisms, for example, those associated with purple sheath blight.
74 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Races of Cmn
A race is defined as a subgroup or biotype within a species that can be distinguished from other races by virulence, symptom expression, or host range, but not by morphology (DArcy et al., 2001). Usually, a set of differentials (range of plant cultivars) are used to define races of plant pathogens based on known susceptible and resistant reactions. There is no such set of differentials for Cmn. Recently, Agarkova et al (2011) evaluated the genetic diversity of 131 strains of Cmn collected from 1969 through 2009 with two molecular methods. The population separated into two groups, A and B. Interestingly, Group B (13 strains) contained only strains collected from after 1999. This study indicates that there may be some genetic changes occurring in this pathogen; however the changes could not be related to pathogenicity or the recent disease spread. A second study is currently away at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to further evaluate these findings.
Hosts of Cmn
A small number of plant species are susceptible to Cmn. Shuster (1975) isolated Cmn from green foxtail and shattercane in corn fields in Nebraska. He also artificially inoculated a number of diverse species with Cmn. Only shattercane, grain sorghum, sudangrass and sugarcane were susceptible to infection.
Foliar applied products for Gosss management

Procidic, a broad spectrum fungicide and bactericide, is the only product currently labeled to control Gosss wilt for use in Iowa. The active ingredient in Procidic is citric acid. There is no published data available on the efficacy of this product. In other bacterial pathosystems, copper-based products are often used, such as Kocide. Since this product is currently not labeled for use on corn to manage Gosss, it should not be used. Korus et al. (2010) evaluated Kocide 3000 and Headline for Gosss wilt control on two hybrids (one susceptible and one resistant) in Nebraska in 2009. The trial was inoculated with the Gosss wilt bacterium at growth stage V6/V7. Treatments were applied six days before inoculation, four hours after inoculation or 24 hours after inoculation. Gosss wilt disease was slightly reduced on a susceptible hybrid with an application of Kocide 24 hours after inoculation, but no differences in yield were detected between this treatment and the untreated, inoculated control. On the resistant hybrid, no treatment differences were detected. Greenhouse trials are currently underway to assess the effect of some products and results may be shared at the ICM Conference.
Gosss wilt and grain quality

During the 2011 growing season, eight fields in central Iowa and one field in southwest Iowa with Gosss wilt were identified for a preliminary study to assess the impact of the disease on grain quality. In each field, during late August/early September, 20 plants (two rows of 10 consecutive plants) with no Gosss wilt symptoms were tagged. At a nearby location in the field, where Gosss leaf blight symptoms were evident, another 20 plants were tagged and disease severity estimated. Just prior to harvest, ears were hand harvested from the tagged plants. Stalk rot severity was assessed using the University of Illinois scale on six of the 20 tagged plants. Row number and kernel length were assessed for each ear. Ear samples from each location sent to the ISU Grain Quality Laboratory to be shelled and grain quality characteristics (test weight, moisture, seed size, protein, starch, etc.) were assessed. Dry grain samples were sent to the ISU Seed Science Center for assessment of seed borne incidence of Cmn, and seed transmission studies. Results of this study will be shared at the ICM conference.
References
Agarkova, I.V., Lambrecht, P.A. and Vidaver, A.K. 2011. Genetic diversity and population structure of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis. Can. J. Microbiol. 57:366-374 DArcy, C. J. , D. M. Eastburn, and G. L. Schumann. 2001. Illustrated Glossary of Plant Pathology. The Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2001-0219-01
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 75 Korus, K.A., Jackson, T.A., Behn, J.L. and Schleicher, C. 2010. Evaluation of foliar treatments and application timings for management of Gosss bacterial wilt and blight of field corn in Nebraska, 2009. Plant Disease Management Reports 4:FC083 Schuster, L. 1975. Leaf freckles and wilt of corn incited by Corynebacterium nebraskense Schuster, Hoff, Mandel, Lazar 1972. Neb. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 40pp. Smidt, M. and Vidaver, A. 1986. Population dynamics of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskense in field grown dent and popcorn. Plant Disease 70:1031-1036
Fertilizer situation and outlook

David Asbridge, president, NPK Fertilizer Advisory Service
Latest NOAA 30 and 90 Day Forecasts

Temperature
Precipitation
Temperature Outlook 30 Day
Precipitation Outlook
90 Day
16
Corn and soybean response to soil pH level and liming

Antonio P Mallarino, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Agustin Pagani, graduate . research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; John E. Sawyer, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Soil pH and crop yield

Limestone application to raise soil pH is needed when the pH is too acidic to allow for optimum crop growth and yield. Some Iowa soils are naturally acidic, and others become acidic over time mainly due to sustained N application for corn with urea or ammonium-based products that acidify soils during the microbial transformation of ammonium to nitrate (nitrification). Soil pH decreases as the acidity increases because the pH measurement expresses acidity as the negative logarithm of H+ ion concentration. Alfalfa is the most sensitive crop to low pH grown in Iowa, while forage grasses are the least sensitive and corn and soybean are intermediate. Soil acidity can affect plant growth directly or indirectly by affecting the plant-availability of several nutrients, increasing levels of some elements to phytotoxic concentrations, and influencing microbial activity or other soil properties. Soil particles have the capacity to hold exchangeable H+ ions (often referred to as reserve acidity) in much higher concentrations that the concentrations of H+ in the soil solution. The amount of reserve acidity depends largely on the soil pH and clay and organic matter concentrations. Soil pH is and should be used to determine whether a soil is too acidic and requires liming, but pH by itself does not indicate the quantity of active or reserve acid that needs to be neutralized and the amount of lime to apply. In Iowa and most states, the amount of lime needed to increase soil pH to a desirable level is estimated by mixing a strong buffer solution of known pH with soil and measuring the resulting pH change. Low buffer pH values indicate high reserve acidity and higher lime requirement, and research with different soils and pH values are used to determine the lime requirement to raise pH to a certain value. A few states use some indicators such as pH, texture, and/or organic matter instead of buffer pH, while a few others use buffer pH together with some of these soil properties.
Current pH and lime management guidelines for corn and soybean

The current Iowa State University (ISU) soil pH and lime application guidelines (extension publication PM 1688) have not changed in the past 30 years (Sawyer et al., 2002). For most Iowa soils, the guidelines suggest lime application for grass hay or pastures, corn or soybean, and alfalfa when soil pH is < 6.0, < 6.5, and < 6.9, respectively. A pH of 6.0 is considered sufficient for corn and soybean in regions with high-pH (calcareous) subsoil, however, although when the soil is to be limed the suggestion is to apply the amount of lime needed to raise pH to pH 6.5. These regions include the soil association areas Clarion-Nicollet-Webster in north-central Iowa (the Des Moines Lobe) and Galva-PrimgharSac, Moody, Ida-Monona, Marshall, and Luton-Onawa-Salix in western Iowa. These guidelines were based on research conducted during the 1960s through the late 1970s using many lime application rates, mainly by ISU researchers Drs. John Hanway, John Webb, and Dr. John Pesek. The information used to develop the guidelines is largely unpublished or was summarized in partial annual progress reports of ISU research farms or other brief reports. A summary for long-term experiments with corn and soybean on acid soils at the Moody and northeast research farms and two other short-term experiments in Crawford and Plymouth counties (Voss, 1991) showed clear responses at the extreme northwest (Moody) and northeast Iowa sites, but small and erratic responses at the western Iowa sites. Early progress reports for a long-term experiment with continuous corn established by Drs. Webb and Pesek in the early 1960s in a Webster soil having slightly acid surface soil (pH of 6.1) and calcareous subsoil at the Northern research farm showed very small or no yield response to annual small rates of lime (225 to 900 lb CCE/acre). A summary of an experiment Dr. Webb conducted with corn-soybean rotations in acid soils northwest research farm (Mallarino, 1991, unpublished) indicated moderate yield responses to lime, and a slightly higher relative response from soybean than from corn. More recent research has shown variable corn and soybean responses to lime across Iowa soils having average pH as low as 5.3 to 5.8; which has generated questions about optimum pH values for these crops and how appropriate are the current lime application guidelines. An on-farm study conducted from 1998 to 2000 evaluated uniform and variable-rate lime application for corn and soybean in two central Iowa fields having soils with high-pH subsoil

(Bianchini and Mallarino, 2002). They found a small yield increase only for corn in one year at one field. Dr. Stanley Henning conducted long-term experiments with corn and soybean from the late 1980s to the middle 2000s at three ISU research farms. He found no yield responses at the Armstrong (southwest) research farm where soils have highpH subsoil (Henning, 2007), small or no responses at the southeast research farm in a soil without high-pH subsoil (Henning, 2004), and large responses at the northeast research farm in a soil with no high-pH subsoil (Henning, 2001, 2004, 2008). Summaries of the most recent years of the long-term study with continuous corn and annual lime rates at the northern research farm showed small and statistically not significant yield corn response to lime (Mallarino and Rueber, 2003). A long-term experiment conducted from the middle 1990s to the middle 2000s at the northwest research farm (Kassel, 2004) evaluated different rates of lime for corn-soybean rotations managed with different tillage systems. This is a region classified as having high-pH subsoil, and they reported small to moderate yield responses from soybean but no response from corn. Results of two recent studies that compared aglime and eggshells in the northern and northwest research farms (both areas being classified as having high-pH subsoil) showed small soybean yield increases at the northwest farm but no corn yield increases at any location (Holmes et al., 2011). In recent years, questions also have been raised by laboratories about buffer pH methods to determine lime requirement that do not include chemicals classified as hazardous by EPA. The method that has been used in Iowa and most Corn Belt states for decades (Shoemaker-McLean-Pratt, or SMP buffer) includes such chemicals, and makes the test for lime requirement more expensive due to EPA disposal regulations. Therefore, there is interest in comparing new buffer pH methods in Iowa soils, such as the Mehlich and Sikora buffer methods because they do not include hazardous chemicals, but no research has been conducted in Iowa to evaluate these methods. The Mehlich buffer pH method should not be confused with the Mehlich-3 extractant used for phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and other nutrients.
Objectives of new research

An on-farm research project was initiated in 2007 with corn and soybean to address several of the questions indicated above. The objectives were to (1) study within-field soil pH and buffer pH variability, (2) compare the new buffer pH methods Mehlich, Sikora, and the the currently used SMP method for estimating lime requirement, and (3) study the variation of crop response to lime within fields and re-evaluate soil pH values currently considered optimum for corn and soybean in some important Iowa soils.
Summary of procedures for on-farm strip trials

Fourteen strip trials were established staggered over three years to avoid applying lime the same year in all trials. The first crop year was 2007 with five trials, 2008 with five other trials, and 2009 with four trials. All trials will be evaluated across four years. Therefore, the trials currently have been evaluated four, three, and two years for the trials established in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. Results for yield and soil pH for the 2011 crop year were not available when this article went to print, and results for the last year of four trials will not be available until late fall 2012. Two aglime treatments were no aglime and 3 ton of Effective Calcium Carbonate Equivalent (ECCE)/acre applied only once before the first corn or soybean crop. Most fields were managed with corn-soybean rotations, but some farmers planted two years of corn in a few fields. The treatments were replicated 4 to 5 times with the only exception of one narrow and long field where only two replications fit when borders were excluded. The trials were in Boone, Cedar, Crawford, Greene, Jasper, OBrien, Pottawattamie, Ringgold, Story, and Union counties. Management practices other than lime application were those used by each farmer. Nine fields were managed with chisel-plow/disk tillage, four with no-till, and one with strip-till. The trials were conducted using precision agriculture technologies such as yield monitors, GPS, and GIS. Soil samples were collected from a 0- to 6-inch depth in tilled fields and from depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches in the notill fields using a dense grid-sampling approach. Composite samples (12 cores) were collected before applying lime from cells 0.3 to 0.5 acres in size (19 to 48 initial samples per field). Soil samples also were collected after crop harvest of each year from the limed and non-limed portions of each initial grid cell. All initial soil samples were analyzed for pH and by the SMP, Mehlich, and Sikora buffer pH methods. All post-harvest soil samples were analyzed for pH to measure soil pH change due to the lime application and differences between limed and non-limed treatments over time. The yield monitors were calibrated by weighing grain harvested along combine passes outside the experimental areas,
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 95 and the monitors recorded yield and grain moisture values at one-second intervals. The yield monitor spatial accuracy was checked in several field locations with a hand-held GPS receiver with differential signal correction. In two years of one trial, grain was harvested by hand from sections delimited by each grid soil sampling cell along each strip because the farmer did not have a yield monitor. The grain yield and moisture records were imported into ArcGIS software for processing. Data were unaffected by borders because at least 60 feet at each strip end were harvested but not used and at least two crop rows on each side of a strip border were not used. Any data affected by common yield monitor problems (such as unexpected combine stops or waterways) were deleted. ArcGIS software was used to calculate averages for areas defined by each treatment strip, and also for field areas defined by each strip intersecting soil series polygons of digitized soils survey maps, grid soil sampling cells, and field areas with initial soil pH testing within several defined pH ranges.
Within-field initial soil pH and buffer pH variation

Data in Table 1 show that there was substantial initial soil pH variation and only slightly lower SMP buffer pH variability within each trial. The pH variability was especially high at Fields 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, where differences between the pH range was as high as 1.4 to 3.0 pH units. Variability of buffer pH was relatively lower than for pH, and was higher at Fields 1, 4, and 10. Other descriptive statistics for each soil series at each field (not shown) also showed substantial pH and buffer pH variation. These results confirm the value of dense soil sampling, GIS, and GPS for field-scale on-farm research and also for soil sampling and testing for production agriculture as shown in previous sampling or on-farm lime studies (Bianchini and Mallarino, 2002; Mallarino and Wittry, 2000, 2001, 2004; Mallarino and Wittry, 2004). Use of average values even for the smallest experimental areas at each field (6 to 16 acres) would result in misleading conclusions concerning pH levels and lime requirements. For example, the within-field variation in pH and buffer pH values for Fields 4 and 6 would result in limestone applications (to raise pH to 6.5 according to current ISU guidelines) ranging from zero to about 4 tons ECCE/acre. Use of the average pH and buffer pH values for the experimental areas, however, no lime would be recommended for Field 4 (because the average pH was 6.5) and about 1.5 tons ECCE/acre for Field 6.
Comparison of buffer pH methods to estimate lime requirements

The buffer pH values for the Sikora and Mehlich methods were linearly related with the currently used SMP method across all fields (Fig. 1). The correlation was good for all methods, but was lowest between SMP and Mehlich and highest between Sikora and Mehlich. This was an interesting result since we expected that the highest correlation would be between the SMP and Sikora methods because the Sikora method was originally developed to mimic the SMP method. The intercept and slope of the regression line between Sikora and SMP buffer pH values were not statistically different from 0 and 1, respectively, which indicates that both methods gave statistically similar results. However, the Mehlich buffer pH methods resulted in significantly lower values than the SMP and Sikora methods (intercept and slope were lower than 0 and 1, respectively). The average differences between SMP and Sikora for each field were small (-0.07 to 0.17 pH units, on average 0.07 unit) but differences between SMP and Mehlich were much larger (0.53 to 0.84 pH units, on average 0.67 pH unit). Results of correlations between each buffer method and the soil pH change one year after lime application showed no clear differences between the three methods (not shown). The results indicate that the current equations for lime requirement for the SMP method can be used for Sikora, but the differences for Mehlich indicate it could be a good method but needs further research concerning its calibration to estimate lime requirement.
Lime application effect on soil pH

Figure 2 shows the average effect of applying 3 ton of ECCE/acre on soil pH change for each field over time. Because the start of the trials was staggered across three years, at this time we do not have soil pH data for the same number of years for all trials. The lime effect at increasing soil pH varied greatly across fields, but was greater for the first year after liming. The pH increases for samples taken after the first crop after liming ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 units across fields, and the additional increase after the second crop ranged from 0 to 0.5 pH units. After that, soil pH remained about the same or there were small increases or decreases. More years of information for the newer trials are needed to better analyze soil pH changes over time.

In the four trials managed with no-till, one year after lime application there was a significant increase of soil pH in the top 3-inch depth and also in the second 3-inch soil depth (Fig. 3). The first-year increase for a depth of 0-3 inches ranged from 0.97 to 1.94 pH units across the fields, whereas the increase for a depth of 3-6 inches ranged from 0.22 to 1.42. These results suggest significantly more movement of lime through the shallow topsoil layers than usually assumed in Iowa. Two years after lime application the pH increase remained significant for the top 0-3 inch soil layer, but at the 3-6 inch layer the increase remained only for the Union County field. The greater decrease for the second depth might be explained by small limestone movement and more acidity in that soil layer from nitrification of ammonium from anhydrous ammonia applied to corn (in all fields corn was the second crop anhydrous ammonia was injected).
Crop response to lime according to soil pH

The average crop yield response across the entire length of the strips does not represent well the responses for withinfield areas with significantly different soils and soil pH values. Therefore, data for each field are not shown in this summary article, and we emphasize presentation and discussion of yield responses in relation to initial soil pH for all data combined from the first year to the most recent available results (for the 2010 crop year). Also, analyses by field or soil series within each field (not shown) indicated no consistent or statistically significant differences between the relative magnitude of corn and soybean yield responses to lime application. Therefore, Fig. 4 summarizes results of GIS analyses by showing the relative response to lime across the two crops, fields, and years after liming (43 site-years) for different initial soil pH ranges. It must be remembered that at this time we have data for four, three, and two years for sets of trials established in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. The responses are expressed as relative values to be able to put together data for corn and soybean and also to combine data from fields or field areas having different yield levels. There was a large corn and soybean yield response for pH ranges up to pH 5.9, a smaller and barely significant response for the pH ranges from 6.0 to 6.9, and a small yield decrease for higher pH values. Results for each field indicated inconsistent change in the magnitude of yield responses to lime over time. This inconsistency also is shown in Fig. 5, which summarizes relative responses for each year after lime application across fields and for different soil pH ranges. The relative magnitude of yield responses decreased after the 2nd year for the most acid pH range for reasons not understood at this time (yield increases were large and the pH of non-limed soil remained very acid over time), but remained about the same and increased or decreased slightly for the other pH ranges. Figure 6 shows the relative grain yield response for each pH range separately by the major Iowa soil association areas classified as having low or high subsoil pH. Results for fields with high-pH subsoil showed a very large yield increase with liming in soils with very acid surface soil (pH < 5.0), smaller but still significant increases up to pH 5.9, no significant or consistent increases from pH 6.0 to 6.9, and yield decreases for higher pH values. On the other hand, yield increases due to lime application across fields in areas with low subsoil pH were large up to pH 5.9, smaller but still significant up to pH 6.4, and there was no significant increases for higher pH values. These preliminary results (we still have to study of trials being harvested at this time and those planned for next year) strongly confirm the importance of considering subsoil information for lime recommendations in Iowa. No economic analysis of yield responses to lime application was conducted because not all four years were evaluated for each trial, and a reliable analysis cannot be conducted because only one lime application rate was used. However, the relative responses (percentages of yield) and standard errors indicated in Figs. 3, 4, and 5 allow readers to approximately estimate the importance of responses for different pH ranges and adapt the percentage increases to their usual yield levels, always changing crop prices, and limestone prices that vary about three fold across different Iowa regions.
Summary and preliminary conclusions

Conclusions about lime application effects on soil pH over time and yield should be considered preliminary because we still have to study results for this crop year and next year. However, the results of available data from many fields and years showed the following important results that are unlikely to change. The SMP and Sikora buffer pH values were essentially the same, so current calibrations to estimate lime requirement in Iowa based on the SMP method also can be used for Sikora. An advantage of the Sikora method is that it does not
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 97 include hazardous chemicals. The Mehlich buffer method could perform as well as the other methods, but requires field calibrations and new equations before it can be used to calculate amounts of lime to be applied. These calibrations could not be developed with the methods used in this study. Based on these results and ISU suggestions, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) Soil-Test Certification program has authorized laboratories operating in Iowa to use the Sikora method as an alternative to the currently used SMP method. Large within-field soil pH and buffer pH variability in most fields confirms previous on-farm research with soil sampling methods or lime application results that site-specific lime management is necessary for most Iowa soils. Dense grid soil sampling or soil sampling zones delineated by using several sources of information obtainable with precision agriculture tools should be used to improve the assessment of soil pH and lime requirement and to optimize use of variable-rate application technology. The yield responses in relation to different pH ranges suggest that pH 6.5 is sufficient for corn and soybean in areas without high-pH (calcareous) subsoil but pH 6.0 is sufficient in areas with high-pH subsoil. These preliminary results support the current guidelines in ISU Extension publication PM 1688 concerning pH values considered sufficient for these crops. However, the preliminary results do not fully support the current suggestion to apply lime to all acidic soils to raise pH to pH 6.5, even those without high-pH subsoil. Results from this year and next year will allow for confirmation or adjustment of these preliminary conclusions and future updates of ISU soil pH and lime management guidelines.
Acknowledgements
The research summarized in this article was made possible by funding from the check-off program of the Iowa Soybean Association.
References
Bianchini, A.A., and A.P. Mallarino. 2002. Soil sampling alternatives and variable-rate liming for a soybean-corn rotation. Agron. J. 94:1355-1366. Henning, S. 2004.Limestone sources and crop and soil responses. In Southeast Research and Demonstration Farm Annual Reports. ISRF04-34. Iowa State Univ. Ames, IA. Available online at http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/ progress_report.php. Henning, S. 2007. Corn, soybean, and soil test response to lime and hoop building manure. In Armstrong and Neely-Kinyon Research Farm Demonstration Farm Annual Reports. ISRF07-12. Iowa State Univ. Ames, IA. Available online at http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/progress_report.php. Henning, S. 2001, 2004, 2008. Crop and soil responses to rates of lime. In Northeast Research and Demonstration Farm Annual Reports. ISRF01, ISRF04, ISRF08-13. Iowa State Univ. Ames, IA. Available on line at http:// www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/progress_report.php. Holmes, J.D., J.E. Sawyer, P. Kassel, and D. Ruiz Diaz. 2011. Using ground eggshells as a liming material in corn and soybean production. Crop Management (online). Kassel, P. 2004. Lime and tillage research project. In Northwest Research Farm and Allee Demonstration Farm Annual Reports. ISRF04-29, 31. Iowa State Univ. Ames, IA. Available online at http://www.ag.iastate.edu/ farms/progress_report.php. Mallarino, A.P., and D. Rueber. 2003. Long-term evaluation of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and lime requirements of continuous corn. p. 7-8. In Annual progress reports-2002. Northern Research and Demonstration Farm. ISRF02-22. Iowa State Univ. Ames, IA. Available at http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/ progress_report.php. Mallarino, A.P., and D.J. Wittry. 2000. Identifying cost-effective soil sampling schemes for variable-rate fertilization and liming. In P.C. Robert et al. (ed.). Fifth Intl. Conf. on Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. Proceedings. CD-ROM. July16-19. Bloomington, MN. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. Available online at http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/nutrienttopics/samplingtesting.html.

Mallarino, A.P., and D. Wittry. 2001. Management zones soil sampling: A better alternative to grid and soil type sampling? p. 159-164. In The Integrated Crop Management Conf. Proceedings. Dec. 5-6, 2001, Des Moines, IA. Iowa State Univ. Extension. Available at http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/ nutrienttopics/samplingtesting.html. Mallarino, A.P., and D.J. Wittry. 2004. Efficacy of grid and zone soil sampling approaches for site-specific assessment of phosphorus, potassium, pH, and organic matter. Precision Agric. 5:131-144. Sawyer, J.E., A.P. Mallarino, R. Killorn, and S.K. Barnhart. 2002. General guide for crop nutrient recommendations in Iowa. Publ. Pm-1688 (Reprinted 2011). Iowa State. Univ. Extension. Voss, R. 1991. Aglime for corn and soybean. In North-Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility Conference. Nov. 1314, 1991. Bridgeton, MO.
Tables and figures

Table 1. Field locations, characteristics, and lime application dates for 14 on-farm replicated strip trials. Field Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 County Jasper Story Boone Greene Boone Cedar OBrien OBrien OBrien Union Ringgold Till ST CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD NT NT Dominant Soils Clarion Webster, Nicolet, Clarion Canisteo, Nicollet, Clarion Canisteo, Okoboji Talcot, Dickman, Clarion Dinsdale Muscatine Primghar, Galva Galva Marcus, Prighmar, Galva Sharpsburg, Clarinda Nira Marshall Marshall Marshall, Judson N 32 40 36 32 40 40 36 36 36 19 36 36 36 48 Soil pH 6.0 (5.6-7.3) 6.0 (5.7-7.2) 5.2 (4.8-6.0) 6.5 (5.1-8.1) 5.0 (4.6-5.8) 5.5 (5.2-6.7) 5.5 (5.2-6.0) 5.9 (5.2-6.7) 5.7 (5.5-6.1) 5.6 (4.8-6.2) 5.7 (5.3-6.2) 5.2 (5.1-5.6) 5.4 (5.2-5.6) 5.3 (5.1-5.8) SMP Buffer pH 6.7 (6.4-7.2) 6.5 (6.3-7.1) 6.4 (6.1-6.8) 6.8 (6.1-7.4 6.4 (6.1-6.9) 6.5 (6.3-7.0) 6.2 (6.0-6.5) 6.6 (6.3-6.9) 6.3 (6.1-6.6) 6.4 (5.9-6.8) 6.5 (6.3-6.9) 6.2 (5.9-6.5) 6.2 (6.1-6.8) 6.4 (6.2-6.8) Organic Matter (%) 3.3 (2.2-4.4) 4.4 (2.7-7.2) 3.8 (2.6-5.2) 5.2 (3.6-7.8) 3.3 (1.2-4.7) 3.4 (2.3-3.8 5.2 (4.5-5.7) 4.9 (4.5-6.0) 6.9 (5.3-9.2) 4.0 (3.4-4.7) 4.5 (2.9-5.7) 3.8 (3.4-4.5) 4.1 (3.7-4.5) 4.0 (3.2-5.0) Liming Date 5/18/07 5/25/07 11/14/06 10/28/06 1/27/07 5/12/08 11/9/07 11/9/07 4/15/08 4/28/08 12/12/08 1/9/09 1/9/09 2/23/09
Pottawattamie NT Pottawattamie CD Crawford NT
Tillage: ST, strip tillage; CD, chisel/disk; NT, no-till. N, number of initial soil samples. Average and range of values.

7.2 7.0 6.8 Y = -0.02 + 0.99 X r = 0.85
Sikora Buffer pH
6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8

1:1 line
5.6 5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
SMP Buffer pH
6.4 6.2 Y = -0.54 + 0.81 X r = 0.72
Mehlich Buffer pH
6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
SMP Buffer pH
6.4 6.2 Y = -0.48 + 0.83 X r = 0.87
Mehlich Buffer pH
6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
Sikora Buffer pH
Figure 1. Relationship between buffer pH measured with the SMP, Sikora, and Mehlich methods for all soil samples collected from 14 field trials before lime application.

7.5
Initial 1st year 2nd year
3rd year
7.0 6.5
Soil pH
4th year
6.0 5.5
5.0 4.5
8 Field
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 2. Initial pH values and pH over time after a single application of 3 ton ECCE/acre for 14 strip trials (vertical lines on top of bars represent standard errors).
7.0 6.5
0-3 inches
Union Co.
3-6 inches
7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0
0-3 inches
Ringgold Co.
Soil pH
6.0 5.5 5.0

Initial Year 1 Year 2 Initial Year 1 Year 2
3-6 inches
Initial Year 1 Year 2
7.0 6.5
Pottawattamie Co.
0-3 inches
7.0 6.5 6.0
Crawford Co.
0-3 inches
Soil pH
6.0 5.5 5.0

Initial Year 1 Year 2 Initial Year 1 Year 2
3-6 inches
5.5 5.0
3-6 inches
Sampling Date
Sampling Date
Figure 3. Effect of lime application (3 ton ECCE/acre) on soil pH for two different depths for four no-till trials one and two years after liming.

12
Relative Yield Response (%)
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 <5.0 5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 6.0-6.4 6.5-6.9 7.0-7.4 >=7.5
pH range
Figure 4. Relative grain yield response (combined corn and soybean) to 3 ton ECCE/acre summarized by soil pH across all strip trials and years (43 site-years). Lines represent standard errors.
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 <5 5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 6.0-6.4 6.5-6.9 7.0-7.4
Relative Yield Response (%)
1st year 2nd year 3d year 4th year
>=7.5
pH Range
Figure 5. Relative grain yield response (combined corn and soybean) to 3 ton ECCE/acre summarized by soil pH across all strip trials for each sampling year after liming (43 site-years). Lines represent standard errors.

14 12 14
High Subsoil pH Associations
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4
Low Subsoil pH Associations
Relative response (%)
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
<5 5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 6.0-6.4 6.5-6.9 7.0-7.4 >=7.5
-6
<5
5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 6.0-6.4 6.5-6.9 7.0-7.4 >=7.5
pH Range
pH Range
Figure 6. Relative yield response (combined for corn and soybean) to 3 ton ECCE/acre according to pH for soil associations areas with or without high-pH subsoil (lines represent standard errors).
Nutrient uptake by corn and soybean, removal, and recycling with crop residue
Antonio P Mallarino, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Ryan R. Oltmans, . graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Jacob R. Prater, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Carlos X. Villavicencio, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Louis B. Thompson, ag specialist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Background for issues that will be addressed Phosphorus and potassium removal effects on soil-test values
The prevailing phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) management system in Iowa and the Midwest is based on soil testing, response-based fertilizer application for low-testing soils, and removal-based fertilizer application to maintain desirable soil-test P (STP) and soil-test K (STK) values. Several issues are important for an effective implementation of this management concept. These include use of appropriate soil-test methods and field calibrations to determine optimum soil-test levels and fertilization rates, knowledge of fertilization and cropping impacts on soil-test values over time, and reliable estimates of P and K removal with harvest. In Iowa, continued research during the last two decades has provided calibrations for various soil-test methods for P and K, which have been used for existing soil-test interpretations in Iowa State University (ISU) Extension publication PM 1688. This publication also suggests to use estimates of P and K removal to maintain optimum STP and STK values, assuming there is a good relationship between P and K removal and STP or STK trends over time. Research during the last two decades has shown large temporal variability of yield and both STK and STP but very large for STK. Therefore, better study of the relationship between P or K removal and STP or STK in the short term and long term should be useful to improve the effectiveness of P and K management for crop production and to maintain acceptable water quality in Iowa.
Grain yield levels, nutrient concentrations and nutrient removal

Extension publication PM 1688 also includes estimates of P and K concentrations in harvested grain and biomass for several crops, which together with yield levels should be used to decide the fertilizer rates to maintain optimum soiltest values. These estimates are based on data from the 1980s and early 1990s, and may need to be updated because yield levels, corn hybrids, and soybean varieties have changed significantly during the last decade. In fact, farmers and crop consultants have been asking questions about these changes influence the nutrient concentration in harvested grain and, consequently, removal with harvest. Research results shared in the 2009 ICM Conference by ISU researchers Drs. Antonio Mallarino and Matt Clover indicated that new corn hybrids with rootworm resistance trait have similar grain P and K concentrations than comparable hybrids without this trait, but yield more and remove more P and K from fields. Therefore, the higher yield of new hybrids should be the most important consideration when estimating P and K removal and deciding fertilizer rates to maintain optimal soil-test levels. This research was specific to corn and rootworm resistance, however, did not include soybean and did not consider a wide range of fields, management practices, and years. Also, farmers and crop consultants have been asking questions about the concentration of micronutrients in corn and soybean grain, and how these concentrations and yield levels affect the removal of micronutrients from fields. The removal of micronutrients with harvest and its consideration to increase or maintain micronutrients levels is not a criterion used in Iowa or any other state for micronutrients fertilization for various reasons, but mainly due to lack of knowledge of how removal affects micronutrient levels in soils and needed fertilization when there is a deficiency. Therefore, knowledge about micronutrients concentrations in grain and how they relate to yield level should be part of research needed to better understand micronutrient issues and improve its management.
Phosphorus and potassium recycling with crop residues

Several reasons related to nutrient removal and recycling with crop residue may partly explain observed very large temporal variability in STK but significantly less for STP. Potassium does not form part of plant or organic compounds and is in the soluble ion form in plant tissue and crop residue. Potassium is located mainly in the cytoplasm and cell vacuoles where it activates enzymes, regulates stomata functions, and assists in transfer of compounds across

membranes. In contrast, most P is incorporated into the plant organic matter and there is a small amount in solution or as soluble forms. Plant phosphorus is contained in cell membranes, nucleic acids, and is a major component of the energy compounds that drive photosynthesis and plant metabolism in general. Moreover, much more K then P is absorbed by plants, and a larger proportion of the P is found in the grain than for K. Therefore, the relative amounts of K removal and both amounts and patterns of its recycling to the soils with residue may have a larger effect on STK and its temporal variability than on STP levels and variability. No research has been conducted in Iowa, and very little has been conducted in other states, to describe K or P loss from standing plants and crop residue after grain harvest. The different functions of P and K within the plant and their different distribution among plant tissues affects accumulation in different plant parts, and may also influence losses from plant tissue and from residue to soil before and after grain harvest.
Results of recent and ongoing research Relationship between phosphorus and potassium removal and soil-test values
Data from ongoing long-term P and K trials established in 1994 at various Iowa locations were used to study the short-term and long-term relationship between nutrient removal by corn and soybean and soil-test values. The trials were in the Northeast (NERF), North-Central (NIRF), Northwest (NWRF), Southeast (SERF), and Southwest (SWRF) ISU research farms. Treatments included tillage (chisel/disk and no-till), three P and K placement methods (broadcast, planter-band, and deep band), and several P and K rates. Yield results concerning tillage, placement, and P or K rates treatments from these trials have been summarized before in previous conferences and several publications. Some articles have been posted in the ISU Soil Fertility web page (http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility). Results about STP and STK stratification with no-till also were summarized before, because soil was always sampled to depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches every year from selected treatments. Figure 1 shows the annual average P removal with grain harvest of corn and soybean and STP decrease from 1994 until 2005 for the non-fertilized plots across the five locations. There was a good general relationship between P removal and STP decreasing trends. On average removal of 37 lb P2O5/acre/year resulted in an average STP decrease of 0.78 ppm/year. These results imply an average removal of 47 lb P lb P2O5/acre/year to decrease 1 ppm STP/year. However, the relationship between P removal and STP was poor for each year. The long-term trends for the annual average K removal with grain harvest of corn and soybean and STK decrease is shown in Fig. 2 for the non-fertilized plots across five locations. In this case, the data encompasses the years 1994 until 2009. There was a good general relationship between P removal and STK decreasing trends. The relationship between K removal and STK was very poor for each year, much poorer than for P. We believe that issues related to environmental impacts on short-term nutrient recycling with crop residue and reactions between different nutrient pools have a much higher impact on STK levels than STP levels. In the long-term, removal of 42 lb K2O/acre/year resulted in an average STK decrease of 3.0 ppm/year. These results imply an average removal of 14 lb P lb K2O/acre/ year to decrease 1 ppm STK/year.
Relationships between grain yield, P and K concentrations, and P and K removal

Corn and soybean yield levels were measured in hundreds of long-term or short-term field trials conducted during the last decade to study yield responses to P and K management practices and soil-test methods calibration. In many trials we measured the concentrations of P and K in the harvested grain, and in a few dozen trials we also measured the concentrations of several micronutrients. Therefore, these data were used to study the relationship between the yield level and the grain nutrient concentration and removal with harvest. The trials were conducted in several counties, were managed with no-till or chisel-plow/disk tillage, and included several P or K fertilizer treatments. Figure 3 shows relationships between corn and soybean grain yield and P or K concentrations in grain across all fields, years, and treatments. The graphs show that for both crops the grain P or K concentration was not related to the grain yield level. This result across fields and years is useful because the the grain P and K concentrations are used together with the yield level to decide fertilization rates needed to maintain optimum soil-test values. The results also are important because many producers and crop consultants believe that higher crop yield implies higher grain P and K concentrations. Study of relationships separately for early years and the most recent years with higher yield levels and also newer hybrids and varieties (not shown) did not change or improve the relationships, and had little or no effect on the average P or K concentrations.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 105 The observed average soybean grain P concentration is approximately similar to the value currently suggested in the ISU Extension PM 1688 when there is no grain analysis available. However, the average grain K concentration for soybean and the concentrations of P and K for corn are lower than the values currently suggested. The values suggested in PM 1688 are 0.375 and 0.8 lb P2O5/bu of corn and soybean, respectively, and 0.30 and 1.5 lb K2O/bu of corn and soybean; and are already lower than values suggested in several other states. However, the suggested average concentration values are within the upper range of observed values. Figure 4 shows a strong linear relationship between the corn and soybean grain yield level and P or K removal with grain harvest, which is in sharp contrast to results for concentrations. Some degree of relationship should be expected between yield and nutrient removal because yield is used to calculate removal together with the grain nutrient concentration. The strength of the relationship shows, however, that in spite of apparently large variation in grain P and K concentrations across sites, years, and treatments the P or K removal with harvest tend to follow the level yield. The relationships described lead to the conclusion that good estimates of grain yield are much more important for determining grain P and K removal than the grain nutrient concentrations, and that average concentration values can be applied to yield estimates to calculate P or K removal. Observation of variation of yield and grain P or K concentrations within a field trial or producer fields almost always show that the yield variation is much larger than the variation in grain P or K concentration at determining removal. The large variation across fields and years in the P or K concentration shown in Fig. 3 still suggest, however, a need for better understandings of factors that affect grain nutrient concentrations in order to improve removal estimates.
Micronutrients concentrations in grain and removal with harvest

The plant uptake of micronutrients is very small, usually under one percent of the P or K uptake. Therefore the concentration of micronutrients in corn or soybean grain and the removal from fields is very small. We measured several micronutrients in several fields and years, but share results for boron (B), manganese (Mn), and Zinc (Zn) because these are most often talked about in Iowa and the general results apply to the others. Figure 5 shows relationships between corn grain yield and the concentration or removal of boron, manganese, and zinc. It is important to note that the units used are parts per million (ppm) because the concentration of all the micronutrients is very small. There was no relationship between the yield level and the concentration of any micronutrient. An interesting result for boron, which was not observed for other nutrients, was a very wide spread between low and high values at high yield levels. Although the amount of micronutrients removed tended to increase as the corn yield level increased, the trends were different than for P and K. For the micronutrients there was a slight exponential increasing trend, which is in contrast with the linear increase observed for P and K. An exponential trend indicates that the increase rate is steeper as the yield level increases. The departure from linearity was very small for manganese and zinc, however, and for boron there was very large variation at high yield levels. The figure for boron shows that that the removal at the highest yield levels ranged from a value near zero to about 0.08 lb/acre, which was the entire range of removal values observed. This result is in agreement with the spread in concentrations observed at high yield levels. Figure 6 shows relationships between the soybean grain yield and the concentration or removal of the micronutrients. The micronutrient concentrations in soybean grain, although still very small compared with P and K, were several times higher than for corn. However, there was no relationship between the grain yield level and any micronutrient concentration. The amount of boron and manganese removed by soybean were only slightly higher than for corn, but the amount of zinc removed was two-fold higher. The micronutrients removal relationships with soybean yield do not show the exponential trend observed for corn, and relationships were linear. The variability was very large, however, much larger than for the linear relationships observed for P and K or the slightly exponential relationships observed for the micronutrients removal by corn. The concentration and removal micronutrients data for soybean suggest that management and environmental factors introduce more variation than for corn. The amounts of micronutrients removed are insignificant compared with P and K removal and there was more variability. Also, the amount of micronutrients removed is a very small proportion of the much larger amounts in the soil that are found in many forms of different crop availability. Therefore, although a need for micronutrients may increase with higher yield levels, this does not necessarily indicate that removal should be a criterion for applying micronutrients as is done for P and K. Research is needed to learn the impact of removal on micronutrients levels in soil and plant tissue and the relationship with application rates.
106 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Phosphorus and potassium uptake and loss from residue in corn and soybean
Field trials were established in 11 Iowa fields located at ISU Research Farms during 2009 and 2010. The trials locations were in the central, northeast, north, southeast, south, and southwest regions of the state. The trials included several replicated fertilization treatments, but for this plant tissue and residue sampling study we sampled treatments with non-limiting P and K fertilization rates. Aboveground plant samples were collected at physiological maturity (black layer for corn and about R 7.5 for soybean). The corn vegetative plant parts, cobs, and grain samples were collected from six plants per plot, and each plant part was analyzed separately. The soybean vegetative plant parts (including pod shells) and grain were collected from a 15-ft2 area of each plot, and each plant part was analyzed separately. The samples were dried, weighed, and analyzed for total P and K concentrations. At grain harvest, five residue samples were collected from each plot. The corn samples included residue of ten plants and the soybean samples included residue collected from a 50-ft2 area. The samples were placed in mesh plastic bags on top of non-tilled ground, and were removed at about 45 day intervals from harvest until spring. The plant tissue and residue samples were dried, weighed, ground, and analyzed for total P and K concentrations. In corn, K concentrations at physiological maturity were much higher than for P except for grain (Table 1). The total accumulation within aboveground plant parts at this growth stage was nearly double for K than for P (170 lb K2O/ acre and 83.1 lb P2O5/acre, respectively). The difference would be much greater if the amounts were expressed in an elemental basis. With regards to relative accumulation between vegetative and cob tissue compared with grain, 76% of total P was accumulated in the grain, with only 29% of total K accounted for in grain. At grain harvest, the amount of P accumulated in grain was 56% greater than for K. In soybean, the higher K concentration and accumulation in vegetative plant tissue and grain at physiological maturity than for P was much more different than for corn (Table 2). Total K accumulation at this stage was more than triple that of P (182 lb K2O/acre and 47.2 lb P2O5/acre, respectively). With regards to the relative accumulation between vegetative tissue and grain, 65% of the total P was in the grain compared with only 32% of the total K. At the PM stage, roughly 66% of total nutrient accumulation had occurred in grain, with the remaining amount translocated between physiological maturity and grain harvest. This difference between PM and grain harvest times was not observed for corn. Perhaps the timing of our sampling time at some sites was too early, because we wanted to avoid loss of too many senescing soybean leaves. Figure 7 shows the concentrations and amounts of K in soybean and corn tissues (except grain) from the physiological maturity growth stage until the following spring. The tissue K concentration differed between corn and soybean, but the trends over time were very similar. The amount of K in the tissues at physiological maturity was approximately similar for both crops, but both the K loss trends over time differed significantly. By the late fall, the K concentration in corn residue decreased by 31% of the concentration at physiological maturity whereas the K concentration in soybean residue decreased by 65%. Total corn K loss from physiological maturity until harvest was 41% but for soybean was significantly greater at 62%. The K loss from residue during winter was small (when soil was frozen or covered by snow), and there was increased loss in early spring. By April, 13% of the plant K at physiological maturity remained in the soybean residue and 38% in the corn residue. Figure 8 shows the P concentrations and amounts of P in soybean and corn tissues (except grain) from physiological maturity until the following spring. Phosphorus concentration was greater in soybean than for corn, although there was a greater amount of total P in the corn plant tissues. By the late fall, P concentration in corn decreased by 27% of the concentration at physiological maturity, whereas the P concentration in soybean decreased by 65% of the concentration at physiological maturity. Total P loss by soybean harvest was 67% of that for physiological maturity, whereas for corn total P loss by harvest was only 31%. The additional P loss from residue during winter and spring was small. By April, 25% of the plant P at physiological maturity remained in the soybean residue and 53% in the corn residue. For both corn and soybean, a greater percentage of P remained in the residue by late fall and spring. The remaining nutrient content was significantly different for P and K, however (53 and 38% for corn and 25 and 13% for soybean). This difference could be due to a larger proportion of organic P than K within the plant. The amount and distribution of rainfall, mainly from physiological maturity until late fall affected the amounts and distribution of tissue P and K loss over time. However, study of these relationships has not been completed at this time. Also, at this time we are working on nine additional trials. The results showed that although K showed greater accumulation in plant tissue than P, the proportion of removed
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 107 with grain was greater for P than for K. The P and K lost from physiological maturity to grain harvest was large and of similar relative magnitude for both nutrients, but was greater for soybean than for corn. Nutrient loss from crop residue from harvest to late fall also were significant for K but were very small for P. Additional nutrient losses from residue during winter and spring were much smaller, but were greater for K than for P. The loss trends for both nutrients were more pronounced for soybean than for corn. The results observed for K and both crops, but especially for soybean, should be considered when interpreting large temporal soil-test K variability and making decisions concerning soil sampling date.
Acknowledgements
One or more of the studies summarized in this article have been supported in part by the International Plant Nutrition Institute, the Iowa Soybean Association, and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
Tables and figures

Table 1. Phosphorus and K concentration, uptake, and removal across 11 corn site-years. Phosphorus Plant Tissue Concentration Veg. Tissue Concentration Cob Concentration Grain Veg. Parts Accumulation Cob Accumulation Grain Accumulation Total Accumulation Concentration Harvest Grain Harvest Grain Yield Removal with Grain % P or K bu/acre lb/ac K2O or P2O5 lb/acre K2O or P2O5 % P or K Units 0.12 0.04 0.30 19.0 1.2 62.9 83.1 Grain Harvest 0.29 170 63.3 0.36 170 40.7 Potassium 1.23 0.73 0.35 109.2 12.2 49.0 170.0 Physiological Maturity
Table 2. Phosphorus and K concentration, uptake, and removal across 11 soybean site-years. Phosphorus Plant Tissue Concentration Veg. Tissue Concentration Grain Veg. Parts Accumulation Grain Accumulation Total Accumulation Concentration Harvest Grain Harvest Grain Yield Removal with Grain % P or K bu/acre lb/ac K2O or P2O5 lb/acre K2O or P2O5 Units % P or K 0.13 0.57 16.7 30.5 47.2 Grain Harvest 0.58 57.1 45.0 1.97 57.1 81.3 Potassium 1.80 1.84 124 57.7 182 Physiological Maturity
Cumulative P Removal
Y = 30 - 37.1X, r2 = 0.99 0
Cumulative P Removal (lb P2O5/acre)
-2 -200 -4 -300 -6 -400
Y = -0.05 - 0.78X, r2 = 0.83 -500
Soil-Test P
-8
Figure 1. Phosphorus removal with grain harvest and soil-test P trends over time for corn-soybean rotations across
Years of Cropping without P Application
five sites for soils that were not fertilized with P.
10
11
12
-100
Cumulative K Removal
Y = -3 - 42X, r2 = 0.99 -5
Cumulative K Removal (lb K2O/acre)
-300 -400 -500
-15
-25
-35 -600 -700 -800
Soil-Test K
Y = -1 - 3.0X, r2 = 0.61 -45
-55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Years of Cropping without K Application
Figure 2. Potassium removal with grain harvest and soil-test K trends over time for corn-soybean rotations across five sites for soils that were not fertilized with K.
Soil-Test K Decrease (ppm)
-200
Soil-Test P Decrease (ppm)
-100

0.50 0.35
Grain P Concentration (lb P2O5/bu)
Grain K Concentration (lb K2O/bu)
Phosphorus 0.40
Potassium 0.30
Yield vs P2O5 Rem Plot 3 Regr
0.25
Average
0.30
Average
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.10 50 1.20 100
0.10
Corn Yield (bu/acre)
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
Grain P Concentration (lb P2O5/bu)
1.00
Grain K Concentration (lb K2O/bu)
Phosphorus
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 20
Potassium
0.80
Average
Average
0.60
0.40 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
treatments (averages of 3 to 4 replications by site).
Figure 3. Relationships between corn and soybean grain yield and P or K concentrations across sites, years, and
Soybean Yield (bu/acre)
30
40
50
60
70
80

60
Grain P Removal (lb P2O5/acre)
Grain K Removal (lb K2O/acre)
80
Phosphorus 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 120
Potassium
60
40
20
Y = -0.2 + 0.27X r = 0.64
Y = 3.9 + 0.17X r = 0.67
50
100
150
200
250
70

Phosphorus

Potassium
Grain P Removal (lb P2O5/acre)
Grain K Removal (lb K2O/acre)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20
100 80 60 40 20 0 20
Y = -9 + 1.35X r = 0.81
Y = -5 + 0.78X r = 0.75
and treatments (averages of 3 to 4 replications by site).
Figure 4. Relationships between corn and soybean grain yield and P or K removal with harvest across sites, years,
Soybean Yield (bu/acre) Soybean Yield (bu/acre)
30
40
50
60
70
80
30
40
50
60
70
80

10 0.10
Boron
Boron
Grain B Concentration (ppm)
Grain B Removal (lb/acre)
0.08
Y = 0.004 (e0.010X) r = 0.45
0.06
4
Average
0.04
0.02
0 7 50 100 150 200 250
0.00 0.07 50 100 150 200 250
Manganese
Manganese
Y = 0.009 (e0.007X) r = 0.71
Grain Mn Concentration (ppm)
5 4 3 2 1 0 50 30 100 150 200 250

Average
Grain Mn Removal (lb/acre)
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
Y = 0.044 (e0.007X) r = 0.82
50
100
150
200
250
Zinc
Zinc
Grain Zn Concentration (ppm)
25
20
Average
15
sites, years, and treatments (averages of 3 to 4 replications by site).
Figure 5. Relationships between corn grain yield and the concentration and removal of three micronutrients across
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
10
Grain Zn Removal (lb/acre)

55 Boron 0.20 Boron
Grain B Concentration (ppm)
50
Grain B Removal (lb/acre)
45 40 35 30 25 20 45 30 40 50 60 70 80 Manganese
Average
0.15
0.10
0.05
Y = 0.016 + 0.0016X r = 0.43
0.00 0.20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Manganese
Grain Mn Concentration (ppm)
Grain Mn Removal (lb/acre)
40 35 30 25 20 15 160 30 Zinc 40 50 60 70 80
Average
0.15
0.10
0.05
Y = 0.02 + 0.0012X r = 0.48
0.00 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Y = -0.07 + 0.006X r = 0.54
30 Zinc
40
50
60
70
80
Grain Zn Concentration (ppm)
120 100 80 60 40 20
Average
across sites, years, and treatments (averages of 3 to 4 replications by site).
Figure 6. Relationships between soybean grain yield and the concentration and removal of three micronutrients
30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80
Grain Zn Removal (lb/acre)
140

150
2.0
Tissue K Content (lb K2O/acre)
Tissue K Concentration (%)
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Sep 2.0
Vegetative tissue at physiological maturity Vegetative tissue at grain harvest time
K Soybean
125 100 75 50 25 0 Sep 150
Vegetative tissue at physiological maturity
K Soybean
Crop residues
Vegetative tissue at grain harvest time Crop residues
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Tissue K Content (lb K2O/acre)
Tissue K Concentration (%)
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

K Corn
125 100 75 50 25
K Corn
Crop residues
Crop residues
Vertical lines indicate standard errors of the means.
Figure 7. Potassium concentration and amounts in corn and soybean plant tissue or residue as a function of time.
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.18
Vegetative tissue at physiological maturity Vegetative tissue at grain harvest time Crop residues
Tissue P Concentration (%)
0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 Sep 0.18
Tissue P Content (lb P2O5/acre)
P Soybean
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sep 30
Vegetative tissue at grain harvest time Vegetative tissue at physiological maturity
P Soybean
Crop residues
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Tissue P Concentration (%)
0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06
Tissue P Content (lb P2O5/acre)
Vegetative tissue at physiological maturity
P Corn
P Corn
Crop residues
25 20 15 10 5
Vegetative tissue at grain harvest time
Crop residues
Vertical lines indicate standard errors of the means.
Figure 8. Phosphorus concentration and amounts in corn and soybean plant tissue or residue as a function of time.
0.04 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Effect of a rye cover crop and crop residue removal on corn nitrogen fertilization
John E. Sawyer, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Jose L. Pantoja, graduate research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Daniel W. Barker, assistant scientist, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Introduction
Nitrogen (N) fertilizer applications are necessary for high yield corn production. However, water quality impairment related to N loss from corn and soybean fields continues to be a concern in Iowa, including meeting the USEPA nitrate (NO3-N) drinking water standard, meeting proposed surface water quality nutrient criteria, and reducing N export to the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, in-field production practices are needed to aid in reduction of NO3- leaching and movement to water systems. One practice that has been promoted is cover crops. Due to cost, timely planting, success in establishment, and winter hardiness, winter rye (Secale cereal L.) has been a common cover crop choice. However, the impacts of winter rye on row crop productivity differ among geographic areas and ecosystem conditions, including the influence on N recycling, corn N fertilization requirement, and crop yield. With N returned to the soil as cover crop biomass degrades, is it immobilized by microbial processing of the cover crop biomass due to high carbon content, or does it add to plant-available N during annual crop N uptake? These cover crop issues are not as important with cereal cover crops preceding soybean, but are for corn. Research is not clear on these questions, including the long-term impact for N fertilization and nutrient cycling. Producers have several choices of diverse tillage practices for their cropping systems. However, no-tillage has become an important soil management practice to help reduce water and wind erosion, as well as nutrient runoff, while conserving soil moisture for crop use. No-tillage also benefits farmers by reducing labor and time requirements, as well as equipment and fuel costs. In some situations, no-tillage may result in lower corn yield compared to tillage, but not necessarily change fertilizer N response. Also, no-tillage corn systems have shown a greater profitability in moderately to well-drained soils, compared to soils with poor internal drainage and high clay content. The increased use of corn biomass for livestock feed, bedding, or as a bioenergy resource is an ongoing issue in Iowa. The removal of corn residue from fields reduces the amount of plant material remaining for soil surface protection, reduces carbon return to soil and potential soil organic matter, and alters the cycling of plant nutrients. This could potentially affect nutrient availability for crop use. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the short and long-term impacts of corn residue harvest on soil properties and nutrient supply to crops, including optimum corn N fertilization requirement. The determination of optimal N fertilization rates is difficult due to the complexity of N cycling, which can be altered with different soil tillage and cropping practices, such as cover crops or combination crop grain and biomass harvest. This report presents the results of two studies focused on evaluating corn N fertilization and crop productivity: 1) no-tillage corn-soybean production in a winter rye cover cropping system, and 2) continuous corn with contrasting tillage and rates of corn residue harvest.
Rye cover cropping system

Study sites were initiated at four Iowa State University Research and Demonstration Farms in the fall of 2008. The sites represent major crop production regions, soils, and climatic conditions in Iowa: Agricultural Engineering and Agronomy Research Farms, Ames (Clarion loam); Armstrong Research Farm, Lewis (Marshall silty clay loam); Southeast Research Farm, Crawfordsville (Mahaska silty clay loam); and the Northeast Research Farm, Nashua (Floyd loam). All sites are in a no-tillage corn-soybean rotation. Treatments are arranged in a split-plot design with four replications. The main plot is winter rye and no rye cover crop and the split plot N rate applied to corn (0 to 200 lb N/ acre in 40 lb increments) as side-dress coulter-injected urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) fertilizer shortly after planting. The winter rye variety is Wheeler, drilled after corn and soybean harvest at 1.0 bu/acre. In 2008, post-harvest profile soil samples (0-3 ft depth in 1-ft increments) were collected to determine initial soil NO3-N. Each year soil was sampled to determine profile NO3-N in the early spring prior to planting and late spring

in early June (0-1 and 1-2 ft) in corn plots that received no N fertilizer, and in the fall (0-3 ft depth in 1-ft increments) in the 0, 120, and 200 lb N/acre rates following crop harvest and before planting/growth of the rye cover crop. The aboveground rye biomass was sampled in the spring before control with herbicide at five to ten random 1-ft2 areas (number depending on rye growth), with calculated dry matter (DM) adjusted for rye row spacing. Soybean and corn were planted in 30-inch rows, with the planters equipped with residue cleaner attachments. The intended planting of soybean was any time after rye control, and the corn planting waiting at least 7 days after rye control in an attempt to reduce allelopathic or other effects of the cereal rye on corn establishment and growth. The intent was to not overly delay corn and soybean planting. If soil conditions allowed, the attempt was to kill the rye with glyphosate application in mid- to late April, but sometimes that was delayed due to wet soils. A Crop Circle ACS-210 active canopy sensor (Holland Scientific, Lincoln, NE) was used to estimate corn canopy biomass (response to N rate and rye cover crop) at the mid-vegetative (V10) growth stage. The sensor was mounted on a mast, positioned mid-row, and carried by hand through the middle of each plot. The reflectance measurements were captured on-the-go with a handheld computer and averaged across each plot. Reflected light values were used to calculate the normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI). Corn and soybean grain yields were determined by harvest with a plot combine and reported at 15.5% moisture for corn and 13% for soybean. Corn economic optimum N rate (EONR) and yield at EONR (YEONR) were determined from regression models fit to the N rate response and using a 0.10 $/lb N:$/bu price ratio.
Rye cover crop production

Each year the rye was successfully established, but fall growth was low and variable due to fall climatic differences among regions and years. Most of the rye growth occurred in the springtime and varied among sites and years depending on spring temperatures, soil moisture and timing of rye control. With the intent to not overly delay corn and soybean planting, the rye growth was often limited due to spring temperatures and timeliness for control. Cold spring temperatures limited rye biomass dry matter (DM) in 2009 at all sites (< 400 lb DM/acre), except prior to soybean planting at Crawfordsville (1,110 lb DM/acre) as a result of a longer period for growth due to wet soil conditions during the intended rye control and soybean planting time that delayed field activities (Table 1). As expected, since the aboveground rye DM was low, the total N present in that biomass was also low (< 11 lb N/acre) for most sites (data not shown). This confirms that late fall rye planting combined with slow growth in the spring due to cold temperatures and early spring control resulted in low residual N uptake. The wet conditions in the years of study also resulted in low residual soil nitrate (discussed later), which resulted in rye that was N-supply limited. In 2010, warmer early spring conditions resulted in greater aboveground rye DM production (> 500 lb DM/acre) at all sites compared to 2009. Since the aboveground rye DM production in 2010 was greater than in 2009, the total N present in that biomass was also greater (10 to 40 lb N/acre) but still relatively low at all sites (data not shown). With the increase in rye residue, and in combination with extended cold and wet conditions after planting (early May), corn establishment, development, and early growth was significantly impacted at Ames and Crawfordsville (discussed later). In 2011, aboveground rye DM production was greater than in 2009 but lower than in 2010. The study intended to allow time for rye growth in the spring, but control the rye and plant corn and soybean crops in a timely manner. This resulted in a shortened period for spring rye growth and biomass production. When soils were wet and limited planned field activities, this resulted in a longer period for rye growth and increased biomass and N uptake (ex. at Crawfordsville). However, that also delayed corn and soybean planting.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 117 Table 1. Aboveground winter rye dry biomass (DM) before controlling growth with herbicide. Year 2009 2010 2011 Crop Before corn Before soybean Before corn Before soybean Before corn Before soybean Ames 150 290 1,460 765 550 640 Crawfordsville 85 1,110 1,000 2,345 1,200 1,510 Lewis 310 195 1,245 590 380 555 Nashua 35 190 1,020 665 245 320 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lb DM/acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soil nitrate
Initial fall 2008 soil profile NO3-N concentrations were low ( 3.0 ppm) at all sites (data not shown) indicating little residual soil NO3-N at any depth and no clear trend by depth. The samples were collected before any N rate treatments were applied; therefore, reflect background concentrations for the crop rotations at each site. In general, profile soil NO3-N concentrations were low (< 5.0 ppm) each year at all sites and sampling times (data not shown), with rye showing the potential to reduce soil NO3-N only in early spring (2.0 ppm with rye and 3.6 ppm without rye). Soil NO3-N concentrations were the same with and without rye cover crop in early June. No difference in NO3-N concentrations due to the rye was observed in the fall after crop harvest; however, increasing N rate resulted in more residual soil profile NO3-N, but concentrations were low. Mean across sites, years, and soil depth were 2.0, 2.5 and 3.1 ppm for the 0, 120 and 200 lb N/acre, respectively.
Soybean yield
Except for the Ames site in 2009, where the soybean yield with rye was greater than without rye, having winter rye in the system had no effect on soybean yield (Table 2). The greatest potential for a soybean yield response to rye was at the Crawfordsville site since the rye at that farm had a long spring period for growth and largest biomass production; however, no statistical difference was observed in any year. During the three years of study, no growth issues were observed at any site that might affect soybean production. Table 2. Soybean grain yield with and without rye cover crop. Year 2009 Cover Crop Rye No rye 2010 2011 Rye No rye Rye No rye Ames 58.4a 54.2b 53.6a 53.1a 56.5a 55.7a Crawfordsville 69.0a 69.8a 63.1a 61.7a 49.4a 53.8a Lewis 65.2a 66.0a 61.0a 62.9a 66.9a 66.0a Nashua 56.5a 57.8a 64.9a 65.9a 61.5a 62.0a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yields with the same letter within a site and year are not significantly different, p 0.05.
Corn response
Corn had large growth response to applied N each year (Figure 1). The canopy NDVI values increased as N rate increased from zero N to maximum response (approximately 80 lb N/acre rate at the V10 growth stage). This indicates deficit N at low rates and no further increase in canopy response at rates greater than plant need. The winter rye cover crop did not influence corn canopy NDVI values in 2009; however, NDVI values were lower with rye in 2010 and

2011, especially in 2010. Greater rye DM production, combined with negative growth influences from cold and wet spring conditions, resulted in a greater negative rye cover crop effect on early season corn growth and development that year. Also, planter row residue removal was not adequate in 2010 at the Ames site, which also increased the negative influence of the rye on corn plant establishment and early growth. In addition, there was armyworm infestation that resulted in some plant damage and required an insecticide control at the Ames and Lewis sites in 2010. This also impacted early corn plant growth and corn canopy biomass.
Figure 1. Corn plant canopy NDVI response to N rate across sites with and without winter rye.
Corn grain yield increased with N application at all sites each year (Figure 2). In 2009, and due to low rye DM production, the corn yield N response was the same with or without the rye cover crop, although the yield at the EONR was 6 bu/acre lower. In 2010, corn yields with the rye cover crop were much less across N rates than without the rye. At the EONR, corn yield with rye was considerably lower (26 bu/acre). In 2011, corn yields were reduced with the rye at lower N rates, but only 6 bu/acre less at the EONR. These yield responses would be a reflection of the rye effect on corn establishment and early growth. Despite the effect on corn yield, the EONR was the same with and without rye in 2009 and 2010 (Figure 2), and slightly higher (26 lb N/acre) in 2011 due to differences at two sites that year (Crawfordsville and Lewis, individual data not shown). Each year the EONR was high for a soybean-corn rotation, a reflection of the wet conditions each year. Having rye preceding corn resulted in reduced corn grain yield, with an across sites and years mean of 13 bu/acre or 7% lower yield. The EONR across sites and years was similar with or without rye, only 5 lb N/acre higher for corn in the rye system. Overall, having corn planted after rye resulted in decreased yield, but limited effect on corn N fertilization rate requirement. This does indicate potential for lower corn N use efficiency with the rye cover crop system. Other plant measurements in this study may provide more information about that.
Summary
Including a rye cover crop in the corn-soybean no-tillage cropping system resulted in reduced soil NO3-N early in the spring although all soil NO3-N concentrations were low, had no effect on soybean grain yield, resulted in reduced corn grain yield, and no average effect on corn EONR. The three years of study had wet growing season conditions, which resulted in higher than normal response to applied N and EONR. Data from a long-term period will help confirm the crop responses in the rye cover cropping system and potential need for adjusting the N fertilization requirement in corn.
Cover crop Rye No rye
Yield at the EONR (bu/acre) 2009 197 203 2010 167 190 2011 183 189
Figure 2. Corn grain yield response to N rate across sites with and without winter rye.
Corn residue harvesting

Field sites were established in the fall of 2008 at two Iowa State University research farms representing contrasting soils and climatic conditions in Iowa; Agricultural Engineering and Agronomy Research Farms, Ames (Canisteo silty clay loam) and Armstrong Research Farm, Lewis (Marshall silty clay loam). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. The main plot was tillage system (no-tillage and fall chisel plow with spring field cultivation), split plot corn residue removal rates (0, 50, and 100%), and split-split plot N fertilization rates (0 to 250 lb N/acre in 50 lb increments) as coulter-injected urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) solution shortly after planting. Corn residue was removed in the fall by raking and bailing before tillage (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Pictures of the soil surface after tillage and residue removal (RR).
In the fall of 2008, post-harvest profile soil samples (0-3 ft depth in 1-ft increments) were collected to determine initial soil NO3-N. After establishment of the study sites, soil was sampled early in the spring prior to planting and early June (0-1 and 0-2 ft) in corn plots not receiving N fertilizer, and post-harvest in the 0, 150, and 250 lb N/acre

rates (0-1, 1-2, and 2-3 ft) to determine soil profile NO3-N. A Crop Circle ACS-210 active canopy sensor was used to estimate NDVI at the mid-vegetative (V10) corn growth stage. Corn grain yields were determined by harvest with a plot combine and reported at 15.5% moisture. Corn EONR and YEONR were determined from regression models fit to the N rate response using a 0.10 $/lb N:$/bu price ratio.
Soil nitrate
Initial soil profile NO3-N concentrations across sites and depths were low (< 5 ppm) (no soil NO3-N data shown). This indicates little residual NO3-N and low background levels from the previous corn production. Across sites and years, tillage and residue removal did not affect soil profile NO3-N in the spring (plots with no N applied). A NO3-N concentration difference was measured between spring preplant and early June, however, the difference was small and could be an indication of low net mineralization or corn N uptake. All spring NO3-N concentrations were quite low ( 3 ppm). Post-harvest soil samples did not show an effect of tillage system or residue removal rate on soil profile NO3-N concentrations. Soil NO3-N concentrations were low across sites and years, and only increased when 250 lb N/acre were applied in 2009 (3.0 ppm) compared to the 0 and 150 lb N/acre (2.0 ppm). These low profile NO3-N concentrations would be the result of the wet conditions each year, and the continuous corn yield response to high N rates.
Corn response to nitrogen application

Canopy NDVI values indicated N stress with no applied N and low N rates, and also indicated the plant biomass increase and reduction in N stress with increasing N rate (Figure 4). Across years, corn had higher NDVI values at the V10 growth stage when the soil was tilled. This indicates increased corn plant biomass when using chisel plow as a soil management practice compared to no-tillage. Corn also had higher NDVI values when residue was removed, including when no N was applied. This indicates greater soil N supply to corn with crop residue removal. The N rate where the NDVI values plateaued was lower with residue removal (data not presented, but shown in Figure 4). These results indicate increased corn plant biomass and lower N rate stress with tillage and full or partial residue removal, and is likely a reflection of changes in soil conditions with tillage and residue removal that influence early season crop growth; such as differences in N availability, soil temperature, and soil N mineralization/immobilization associated with degradation of high C:N ratio corn stover.
Figure 4. Corn canopy NDVI response to N rate across sites as affected by tillage system (left) and residue removal
rate (right). Corn grain yield increased with N application at each site each year. Yield across sites and years with the chisel plow system was 14 bu/acre higher compared to no-tillage, with that difference consistent across N rates (Figure 5). The removal of corn residue increased corn grain yield an average across N rates of 9 and 13 bu/acre for the 50 and 100% removal, respectively. As N rates approached the highest applied rate, however, the difference between residue removal and no removal decreased and at the YEONR was only 5 bu/acre lower when no residue was removed. These yield results reflect the canopy NDVI values measured at V10 and the lower corn plant stress when residue from the previous corn crop was harvested. Tillage system had no differential effect on N response or EONR (Figure 5). Crop residue harvest, however, resulted in lower EONR than with no removal. The EONR with the 50 and 100% residue removal was 20 and 41 lb N/acre less,
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 121 respectively, than with leaving all previous corn crop residue. The EONR values were quite high due to continuous corn and years with above normal rainfall.
Tillage Residue removal
Treatment Chisel plow No-tillage None 50% 100%
EONR (lb N/acre) 206 210 228 208 187
YEONR (bu/acre) 179 168 170 175 175
EONR, economic optimum N rate; YEONR, yield at the economic optimum N rate.
Figure 5. Corn grain yield response to N rate across sites as affected by tillage system (left) and residue removal rate (right).
Summary
The use of chisel plowing as a soil management practice increased corn plant response to applied N compared to no-tillage (V10 stage crop canopy NDVI values). Corn grain yield was 11 bu/acre (6%) lower with no-tillage at the YEONR, with no difference in EONR between tillage systems. In this continuous corn system, harvesting the previous corn crop residue increased mid-vegetative corn plant growth (canopy NDVI values); increased corn yield across all N rates by 9 and 13 bu/acre with the 50 and 100% residue removal, respectively, however, the difference at the EONR was only 5 bu/acre (3%); and decreased EONR by 20 lb N/acre (9%) and 41 lb N/acre (18%), with 50 and 100% residue removal, respectively. These results indicate a change in short-term conditions with corn residue harvesting that influences corn growth, yield, and N response. Likely factors include soil N availability, N immobilization/ mineralization, high C:N ratio corn stover decomposition, and soil temperature. Long-term study will help confirm crop and soil responses across tillage systems and residue removal rate, and needed change in corn N fertilization requirement in a continuous corn system.
Acknowledgments
The rye cover crop project is part of a regional collaborative project supported by the USDA-NIFA, Award No. 2011-68002-30190, Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP): Climate Change, Mitigation, and Adaptation in Corn-Based Cropping Systems. Project Web site: sustainablecorn.org. This project is also supported in part by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation, through funds appropriated by the Iowa General Assembly. The corn residue harvesting project was supported in part by the Iowa State University Agronomy Department Endowment. Appreciation is extended to the personnel of the Iowa State University research and demonstration farms for their support of field activities.
Nitrate loss in subsurface drainage as affected by nitrogen application rate and timing under a cornsoybean rotation system
Matthew J. Helmers, associate professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Reid D. Christianson, Extension program specialist, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; John Sawyer, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Introduction
Subsurface agricultural drainage has allowed for enhanced crop production in many areas of the world including the upper Midwest, United States. However, the presence of nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N) in subsurface tile drainage water is a topic of intense scrutiny due to several water quality issues. Many studies have been conducted looking at ways to reduce nitrate-N in tile drainage (Baker et al., 1975; Baker and Johnson, 1981; Hanway and Laflen, 1974; Kanwar et al., 1988).With the growing concern for the health of the Gulf of Mexico (Mitsch et al., 2001; Rabalais et al., 1996) and local water quality concerns, there is a need to understand how recommended nitrogen management practices, such as through nitrogen rate and timing, impact nitrate-N concentrations from subsurface drainage systems. The objective of this paper is to summarize results of studies from within Iowa and nearby states that have documented the impact of nitrogen application rate and timing on tile drainage nitrate loss.
Results from nitrogen rate studies

From 1990-2004, the impact of various nitrogen application rates on nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage were studied at a site near Gilmore City, Iowa (Lawlor et al., 2008). From this work, the relationship shown in Figure 1 was developed relating nitrate-N concentration in a corn-soybean rotation to nitrogen application rate to corn. This relationship is useful to assess how changes in nitrogen application rate could positively or negatively impact nitrate-N concentration. Since this study was at only one location in Iowa, it is important to know if the nitrate-N concentration response is similar to that at other locations and soils. If so, then the relationship from Lawlor et al. (2008) can be used to estimate tile flow nitrate losses in other areas of Iowa. That comparison is shown in Figure 2. Results presented in Jaynes and Colvin (2006), Jaynes, et al. (2001), Jaynes et al. (2004), Kaspar et al. (2007), Weed and Kanwar, 1996, Bakhsh et al. (2002), Sawyer and Randall (2008), Randall and Sawyer (2008), as well as additional data from Walnut Creek Station 310 in Story County all show consistently similar trends of nitrate-N concentration with nitrogen application rate regardless of whether the study was plot or watershed scale (Figure 2). Consequently, the application rate and nitrate-N concentration relationship developed by Lawlor et al. (2008) seems to be applicable in general across Iowa. The relationship shown in Figures 1 and 2 can be useful in estimating potential changes in nitrate-N concentration as a result of changing nitrogen application rate. For example, an estimated state-wide average nitrogen application rate to corn in a corn-soybean rotation, considering fertilizer and manure nitrogen, might be in the range of 158 lb N/acre and the Maximum Return to Nitrogen from the nitrogen rate calculator (Sawyer et al., 2011) might be approximately 133 lb N/acre at $5.00 per bushel corn prices and nitrogen fertilizer costing $0.50 per pound N. Implementing a reduction in nitrogen application rate from 158 to 133 lb N/acre would be expected to result in a 15% decrease in tile flow nitrate-N concentration based on the relationship in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1. Overall nitrogen application rate effect on nitrate-N concentration in tile drainage for a corn-soybean rotation 1990-2004 (not all rates present in each year) from Gilmore City, IA (Lawlor et al., 2008).
Figure 2. Nitrogen application rate effect from various studies on nitrate-N concentration for a corn-soybean rotation compared to the rate response curve developed by Lawlor et al. (2008).
Results from nitrogen timing studies

For timing of nitrogen application, a best management practice would be to apply nitrogen as close as possible to when the crop can use the nitrogen. However, there may be logistical reasons why this cannot be accomplished. As a result, there is a need for studies that investigate the impact of timing of nitrogen application on nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage. The question of nitrogen application timing, fall versus spring or early season sidedress, has been studied for extended periods of time at sites near Waseca, Minnesota with anhydrous ammonia in a corn-soybean rotation (Randall and Mulla, 2001; Randall and Vetsch, 2005; Randall et al., 2003) and near Gilmore City, IA with aqua ammonia in a corn-soybean rotation. The studies at Waseca have shown mixed results, with Randall and Mulla (2001) reporting a 20% load reduction when moving from fall to spring nitrogen application to corn in a corn-soybean rotation, and Randall and Vetsch (2005) and Randall et al. (2003) showing a combined average of 10% concentration reduction over the collective ten years of the study. Additionally, there were several years when nitrate-N concentrations were higher in the soybean year when nitrogen was applied in the spring to the preceding corn crop compared to when nitrogen was applied in the fall to the preceding corn crop. The range of observations for an individual year in these studies was an 80% increase in nitrate-N concentration to a 36% decrease for fall relative to spring application. From 2001-2004, fall versus spring application of both liquid swine manure and aqua ammonia to corn in a cornsoybean rotation was investigated at the drainage research site near Gilmore City, IA (Lawlor et al., 2011). In this study aqua-ammonia was applied at nitrogen application rates of 150 lb N/acre and 225 lb N/acre and liquid swine manure was applied at a total nitrogen application rate of 200 lb N/acre. Results from this study indicated that timing of nitrogen application had little differential effect on nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage (Table 1). The largest effect was rate of application. Table 1. Flow-weighted nitrate-N concentrations for a corn-soybean rotation from 2001-2004 at Gilmore City, IA. Means within years and on average with the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05 Treatment Fall 150 Spring 150 Fall 225 Spring 225 Fall Manure 200 Spring Manure 200 2001 14.8d 18.0bcd 19.5bcd 28.7a 17.0cd 24.6abc 2002 11.7c 10.9c 17.4ab 19.3ab 15.6bc 18.7ab 2003 14.7b 15.0b 19.7ab 23.0a 18.6ab 15.0b 2004 15.7c 15.8c 19.9ab 21.9a 16.0bc 15.1c Average (2001-04) 14.2c 14.9c 19.0b 23.2a 16.8bc 18.4b
----- Nitrate-N concentration (mg L-1) -----
Similar to the studies from 2001-2004 at Gilmore City, recent research from 2006-2009 also indicated little difference in fall versus spring application on nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage (Tables 2 and 3). Studying monthly flow-weighted nitrate-N concentrations, there were some months where the concentrations of nitrate-N were higher when the nitrogen had been applied in the fall rather than the spring (Figure 3). While not different on an annual basis, these results suggest fall fertilizer nitrogen application may be slightly riskier than spring application.
Figure 3. Monthly tile drainage nitrate-N response to fertilizer application timing for 2006-2009, Gilmore City, IA. The symbols represent significance where denotes p = 0.10 and * denotes p = 0.05.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 127 Table 2. Annual subsurface tile flow weighted nitrate-N concentrations in the corn year of the rotation for 75 lb N/ac and 125 lb N/ac from 2006-2009, Gilmore City, IA. Means within years with the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05. Treatment Fall 75 Spring 75 Fall 125 Spring 125 2006 17.3a 18.3a 16.0a 15.4a 2007 10.6b 10.0b 13.8a 12.9ab 2008
-1
2009 10.8a 11.2a 11.2a 13.0a
----- Nitrate-N concentration (mg L ) ----15.7a 14.5a 14.9a 13.0a
Table 3. Annual subsurface tile flow weighted nitrate-N concentrations in the soybean year of the rotation for 75 lb N/ ac and 125 lb N/ac to preceding corn crop from 2006-2009, Gilmore City, IA. Means within years with the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05. Treatment Fall 75 Spring 75 Fall 125 Spring 125 2006 10.4a 12.0a 14.0a 13.6a 2007 11.1a 13.5a 11.6a 12.9a 2008 9.5a 9.7a 11.5a 12.1a 2009 11.9a 11.8a 10.9a 11.9a ----- Nitrate-N concentration (mg L-1) -----
Conclusion
Studies that have examined nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage using various nitrogen management practices are important for assessing the impact of in-field nitrogen management on water quality. Two management practices that receive considerable attention relative to nitrogen management are rate and timing of application. As expected, as nitrogen application rate to corn increases, the nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface tile drainage water increase. This highlights the need for appropriate nitrogen application to corn and to avoid over application. However, it is important to note that even when recommended nitrogen application rates are used, nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage are still elevated and may exceed the EPA drinking water standard for nitrate-N of 10 mg L-1. Relative to timing of nitrogen application, i.e. moving from fall to spring application, studies conducted in north-central Iowa and south-central Minnesota have documented little to moderate potential to decrease nitrate-N concentrations. Likely the largest factor when looking at the effect from fertilizer application timing is when precipitation and associated nitrate-N loss occurs. Although timing of nitrogen application is important, much of the research collected would tend to support conclusions reached by Power and Schepers (1989) that perhaps the most important factor is to apply the correct amount of N.
References
Baker, J. L., and H. P. Johnson. 1981. Nitrate-nitrogen in tile drainage as affected by fertilization. Journal of Environmental Quality. 10(4): 519-522. Baker, J. L., K. L. Campbell, H. P. Johnson, and J. J. Hanway. 1975. Nitrate, phosphorus, and sulfate in subsurface drainage water. Journal of Environmental Quality. 4(3): 406-412. Bakhsh, A., R.S. Kanwar, T.B. Bailey, C.A. Cambardella, D.L. Karlen, and T.S. Colvin. 2002. Cropping system effects on NO3-N loss with subsurface drainage water. Transactions of the ASAE. 45: 1789-1797. Hanway, J. J., and J. M. Laflen. 1974. Plant nutrient losses from tile outlet terraces. Journal of Environmental Quality. 3(4): 351-356.

Jaynes, D., T. Colvin, D. Karlen, C. Cambardella, and D. Meek. 2001. Nitrate loss in subsurface drainage as affected by nitrogen fertilizer rate. Journal of Environmental Quality. 30: 1305-1314. Jaynes, D.B., and T.S. Colvin. 2006. Corn yield and nitrate loss in subsurface drainage from midseason nitrogen fertilizer application. Agronomy Journal. 98: 1479-1487. Jaynes, D.B., D.L. Dinnes, D.W. Meek, D.L. Karlen, C.A. Cambardella, and T.S. Colvin. 2004. Using the late spring nitrate test to reduce nitrate loss within a watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33: 669-677. Kanwar, R. S., J. L. Baker, and D. G. Baker. 1988. Tillage and split N-fertilization effects on subsurface drainage water quality and crop yields. Transactions of the ASAE. 31(2): 453-461. Kaspar, T.C., D.B. Jaynes, T.B. Parkin, and T.B. Moorman. 2007. Rye cover crop and gamagrass strip effects on NO3 concentration and load in tile drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality. 36: 1503-1511. Lawlor, P. A., M. J. Helmers, J. L. Baker, S. W. Melvin, and D. W. Lemke. 2008. Nitrogen application rate effects on nitrate-nitrogen concentrations and losses in subsurface drainage. Trans. ASABE 51(1): 83-94. Lawlor, P.A., M.J. Helmers, J.L. Baker, S.W. Melvin, and D.W. Lemke. 2011. Comparison of liquid swine manure and aqua-ammonia nitrogen application timing on subsurface drainage water quality in Iowa. Trans. ASABE 54(3): 973-981. Mitsch, W. J., J. W. Day, Jr., J. W. Gilliam, P. M. Groffman, D. L. Hey, G. W. Randall, and N. Wang. 2001. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River basin: Strategies to counter persistent ecological problems. Bioscience. 51(5): 373-388. Power, J.F and J.S. Schepers. 1989. Nitrate contamination of groundwater in North America. Agric.Ecosyst.Environ. . 26:165-187. Rabalais, N. N., W. J. Wiseman, R. E. Turner, B. K. Sen Gupta, and Q. Dortch. 1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries. 19(2): 386-407. Randall, G.W., and D.J. Mulla. 2001. Nitrate nitrogen in surface waters as influenced by climatic conditions and agricultural practices. Journal of Environmental Quality. 30: 337-344. Randall, G.W., and J.E. Sawyer. 2008. Chapter 6 - Nitrogen application timing, forms, and additives, p. 73-85 Final report: gulf hypoxia and local water quality concerns workshop. ed. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Saint Joseph, MI. Randall, G. W., and J. A. Vetsch. 2005. Nitrate losses in subsurface drainage from a corn soybean rotation as affected by fall and spring application of nitrogen and nitrapyrin. Journal of Environmental Quality. 34(2): 590-597. Randall, G.W., J.A. Vetsch and J.R. Huffman, 2003. Nitrate losses in subsurface drainage from a corn-soybean rotation as affected by time of nitrogen application and use of nitrapyrin. Journal of Environmental Quality. 32:1764-1772. Sawyer, J. E. Nafziger, J. Camberato, K. Steinke, J. Lamb, C. Laboski. 2011. N-Rate Calculator. Release 1.5. Iowa State University: Agronomy Extension, Ames, IA. Sawyer, J.E., and G.W. Randall. 2008. Chapter 5 - Nitrogen Rates, p. 59-71 Final report: gulf hypoxia and local water quality concerns workshop. ed. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Saint Joseph, MI. Weed, D.A.J., and R.S. Kanwar. 1996. Nitrate and Water Present in and Flowing from Root-Zone Soil. Journal of Environmental Quality. 25: 709-719.
Can conservation complement agriculture?

John Doudna, graduate research assistant, Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University; Matt Helmers, associate professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Matt ONeal, assistant professor, Entomology, Iowa State University
Introduction
Agriculture will need to produce at least 70% more food by 2050 to ensure global food security (FAO 2009). However, increased productivity has historically come with on-farm and societal costs such as increased soil erosion and nutrient run-off. While conservation is often considered separate from the needs of agriculture, recent research at ISU suggests that targeted conservation practices can positively impact management of farm land, especially for preventing soil erosion and nutrient run-off. Long-term productivity and stability are already being realized through the implementation of conservation management techniques. Many farmers currently implement no-till and conservation tillage practices that help control erosion and run-off. These practices have been found to provide enhanced soil fertility and crop productivity (Lafond et al. 2008). In order to have a conversation about the impacts of conservation practices on crop productivity and farmer and societal benefits, we need to establish a common language for the discussion. As is the usual case, this means the use of jargon that farmers, industry specialists, and academics are equally comfortable using. Two of the most important terms and their associated concepts are ecosystem services and multifunctional landscapes. Ecosystem services are goods and services provided to society by any landscape (www.csrees.usda.gov). For example, a first approximation of current farmland ecosystem services might be farm income; which in 2011 was $103.6 billion (ers.usda.gov). As large as this number is, there is room for improvement of the total value of ecosystem services provided. Multifunctional landscapes are landscapes which are managed to provide multiple, distinct goods and services. For a multifunctional landscape, its total value is best described by the summation of all ecosystem services provided. In 1997, economists estimated the US$/ha/yr value of all land cover types (Costanza et al. 1997). Global cropland was estimated, on average, to provide $92/ha/yr. This included $52 for food production, $24 for biological control, and $14 for pollination services. Within this evaluation, several services were not evaluated, but could be provided by agricultural lands: gas regulation, erosion control, nutrient cycling, habitat, and recreation. Additional focus on these services has the potential to maintain or improve income, while enhancing other services such as preventing soil erosion and nutrient run-off.
Goals of conservation techniques

Increased productivity can result from on-farm service provisioning. Providing landscape elements that reduce runoff and erosion will protect topsoil and reduce future costs. Intensive rainstorms are especially detrimental to in-field soil and adjacent waterways, but researchers at ISU have found that narrow strips of prairie can prevent most soil loss even during intense rainstorms (STRIPs at Neal Smith). With just 10% of crop area converted to native prairie filter strips (PFS), surface runoff was reduced by as much as 50%, sediment export was reduced by more than 90% (e.g. from 22.5 down to 1 T ha-1 with 10% PFS). Nitrogen and phosphorous run-off were reduced by about 90% in years of heavy rains in fields using PFS. Increased pollination is another service provided by small amounts of non-crop habitat. In the Costanza and colleagues (1997) paper, pollination services of croplands were estimated to be $14/ha/yr, and grassland/rangeland were approximately double that. Following this logic, of increased pollinator services in grassland plantings, researchers are examining the pollinator communities of prairie plantings and designing non-crop habitat to support native pollinators. Native bees are especially important, as they have been shown to be much more efficient than European honeybees for some crops (e.g. 80 times more efficient in apple orchards) (Vaughan et al. 2007, p. 8). The high floral diversity of a prairie strip provides resources and nesting habitat for these efficient pollinators. For any crop that benefits from pollination, planting small amounts of diverse prairie is likely to increase pollinator abundance, richness, and services. Another target of conservation techniques is increased biocontrol, which can reduce input costs and ultimately improve local water quality. Researchers at ISU have found that field mice and crickets are proficient weed seed consumers, but do not attack planted crop seed. A study evaluating removal of weed seeds by these species found as much as

20% of seeds removed per day (Hartzler et al. 2007). Combined with additional crop rotation, and an associated boost to insect and mouse seed predators, farmers have in fact seen weed seedbank declines (Houghton 2005). This is supported by models, which predict weed seedbank decline with a 4-year rotation, 25% seed predation, and 80% less herbicide inputs (Hartzler et al. 2007). Current research at ISU is further evaluating how field mice respond to waste grain after harvest and the interaction with weed seed consumption (Danielson Lab). The mouses potential for regulating invertebrate pests such as corn borer are also being evaluated. Well-managed, non-crop habitat has the potential to provide multiple services. The STRIPs at Neal Smith Project has found that a single managed habitat type, small but strategic plantings of diverse prairies, can provide many of the most desirable ecosystem services. For example, in a highly erodible field, prairie plantings slow water flow, reducing soil erosion and soil loss. At the same time, reduced erosion and flow reduces nutrient runoff to streams. The diverse planting provides year-round habitat for beneficial insects; improving recolonization time by natural enemies when pest insects begin to attack crops, enhancing habitat for invertebrate weed seed predators, and improving the diversity and abundance of pollinators. The prairie strip is also habitat for native wildlife, which could be managed to provide recreational hunting or viewing opportunities. Accordingly, an agricultural field can be managed as a multifunctional landscape, providing diverse ecosystem services throughout the field. We refer to the multiple benefits from a single management practice as stacking of ecosystem services, analogous to stacking desirable traits in crop varieties. Recent evaluations suggest that farmers should be allowed to stack conservation credits, rewarding them for managing these diverse habitats (WRI 2009).
Summary
Multifunctional agricultural landscapes provide multiple ecosystem services to crop productivity and society. Managing for multiple ecosystem services throughout the field and in targeted non-crop habitat can provide greater independence, reduced costs, and enhanced productivity.
References
Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. ONeill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260. http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf Enhancing ecosystem services from agricultural lands: management, quantification, and developing decision support tools. updated June 2010. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/nre/in_focus/ ecosystems_if_epa_service_grants.html Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009. 2050: A third more mouths to feed. News Release http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/ Hartzler, B., M. Liebman and P. Westerman. 2007. Weed seed predation in agricultural fields. http://www.weeds. iastate.edu/mgmt/2006/seedpredators.shtml Houghton, D. 2005. The Enemy of My Enemy. The Furrow. www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/Publications/ 2005%20Furrow.pdf Lafond, G., F Walley, J. Schoenau, W. May, C. Holzapfel, J. McKell, and J. Halford. 2008. Long-term benefits of no. till: What can we expect? FarmTech Conference Proceedings. http://www.reducedtillage.ca/docs/ Long_Term_No_Till_Lafond_Proceedings_FarmTech_2008.pdf Net farm income forecast up 31 percent in 2011. updated August 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/ farmincome/nationalestimates.htm Stacking payments for ecosystem services. 2009. World Resources Institute Fact Sheet. http://pdf.wri.org/factsheets/ factsheet_stacking_payments_for_ecosystem_services.pdf STRIPs at Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.nrem.iastate.edu/research/STRIPs/ Vaughan, M., M. Shepherd, C. Kremen, and S. Black. 2007. Farming for bees: Guidelines for providing native bee habitat on farms. The Xerces Society. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/ farming_for_bees_guidelines_xerces_society.pdf
Residue biomass removal and potential impact on production and environmental quality
Mahdi Al-Kaisi, associate professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Jose Guzman, research assistant, Agronomy, Iowa State University
Introduction
The implementation of conservation systems to sustain soil and improve environmental quality has to be considered in the current trend toward the increase of continuous corn acreage and future thinking of corn residue removal for cellulosic ethanol production. There is a high possibility that continuous corn production can increase the use of conventional tillage. The increase in conventional tillage coupled with high use of N fertilizer in continuous corn will present a significant soil and water quality challenge. This trend will present economic and environmental challenges that we need to consider as well. The use of corn stover for cellulosic ethanol production or any other purposes should be weighed against the potential impact on soil productivity, environmental consequences, and food availability. It is imperative that alternative perennial biomass sources for lingocellulosic ethanol production should be explored in combination with corn grain ethanol to strike a balance between environmental sustainability and economic viability. Leaving crop residue on soil the surface will improve nutrients cycling and ultimately soil quality that increase and sustain soil productivity. Post-harvest residues are a critical source of soil organic matter, provide protection to the soil surface against water and wind erosion, and improvement of soil and water quality. On the contrary, alternative utilizations of corn residues for various purposes, such as, baling residue for animal use or for lignocellulosic ethonal production needs to be approached carefully, which potentially can have adverse effects on soil and water quality. Sustainable stover removal rates depend on several factors, which include soil erodibility, surface slope, cultural practices, and climate conditions. Recent studies suggest that only 20% to 30% of the total stover production could be removed for biofuel, based on ground cover requirements to control soil erosion. It is not clear or well documented the methods or the guidelines for residue removal from any given field. It is also not clear whether current management practices for soil erosion control are appropriate for maintaining soil organic matter level and soil quality in general. Residue removal impact on soil productivity and environmental quality is not a short-term outcome, particularly in the Midwest, where high organic matter, high soil productivity, and good agriculture production conditions minimize such effect in the short-term. However, it will have a devastating impact on soil sustainability and environmental quality in the long-term as documented by many studies in the Midwest and elsewhere. The continuous removal of corn residue coupled with intensive tillage is well documented in long-term studies, where soil quality, crop productivity, and air quality are compromised. In a long-term study established in 1888 and continuing to present in Missouri and Illinois with different crop rotations, manure, and tillage treatments, continuous corn production coupled with intensive tillage decreased soil organic matter by almost 64%. The loss of original soil organic matter due to tillage practices will exceed any potential additional of carbon from crop residue, because the majority (70-80%) of crop residue carbon when it decomposes will be lost as CO2 to the atmosphere. Therefore, the loss of residues due to removal for any use can accelerate soil organic matter loss and nutrient source to the soil. It is also well documented that intensive tillage and mono-cropping systems such as continuous corn along with residue removal can have significant negative impact on degrading soil organic matter and increase CO2 release and potential water quality problems. It was found in a longterm study that corn stover removal had reduced total source of carbon (SC) by 20% and corn derived soil organic carbon by 35% in 13 yr period. Possible short term impacts of corn stover removal may include an increase in N, P, and K, Ca, and Mg nutrients application to replace these nutrients due to residue removal and potential deficiencies in soil nutrients pool in the long term. In one study, it was estimated that these macro-nutrients replacement cost due to residue removal was approximately $10/ton of harvested residue. These nutrients will be permanently lost from the soil system nutrients pool due to lack of replenishment from crop residue and they have to be added to keep soil productivity. In addition to the potential of productivity and soil quality losses, there is high potential for accelerating soil erosion due to lack of vegetative cover for significant length of time during any year. There are over 20 million acres in the state in row crop production. These acres normally have no crop growing on them from November to late March. During these five months soils are at the most vulnerable conditions, where high potential of surface runoff is very likely to take place. The soil loss from 20 million acres of cropland can be on average 4.7 tons/acre. The economic loss due to the

loss of soil and organic matter as a source of most of the nutrients needed for corn or soybean productions coupled with off-site losses can be in the billions of dollars. The approximate cost of on-site (productivity loss) per ton of soil loss estimated to be $8/ton of soil and offsite cost was estimated to be $13/ton of soil. Crop residue along with conservation practices can lessen the impact of our demanding row cropping system to at least keeping the soil in its present conditions.
Study description
In agricultural systems, like any other ecosystem, the alteration of one part of the system may have large effects on the system as a whole. Under current agricultural practices, corn stover remains on the field after harvest and is reincorporated into the soil with conventional tillage accelerating decomposition, or is left on the surface with no-till where decomposition is slower. Some studies have suggested that in order to meet the demands of the bioethanol industry, farmers will need to increasingly adapt to no-till practices in order to offset soil C losses from corn stover removal. It has also been suggested that additional N fertilization will be needed to increases root biomass to further aid in soil C sequestration as a consequence of corn stover removal. Therefore, the objectives of this study is to establish coordinated field and laboratory studies to determine the shortterm and long-term impacts of varying corn stover removal and N fertilization rate and tillage systems on soil, air, and water resources. The project has four anticipated outcomes which include; (1) reliable estimates of C and nutrients removed and returned to the soil, (2) soil C and N sequestration potential, (3) amount of greenhouse gases being emitted, and (4) impacts on soil physical properties. Study was established in fall of 2008 on a Nicollet-Webster (poor drainage) soil association at Iowa State University Agronomy Research Farm and Marshall (well drained) soil association at Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm southwest of Atlantic, IA. There were three treatments; the main treatment was tillage practice (no-till and chisel plow), which was split into three different corn stover removal rates (0, 50, and 100%) which was then further split into six N fertilization rate treatments varying from 0 to 250 lb N/acre in spring of 2009. Soil measurements are being conducted every August which include soil C, N, P, K, and bulk density. Additionally, soil temperature is being monitored on an hourly basis as well as weekly soil moisture. After every harvest, crop measurements include harvested corn for grain yield, and N, P, and K uptake. In addition, CO2 and N2O are measured on weekly basis. Other soil properties such as infiltration rate, soil compaction, aggregate stability, soil moisture, and soil temperature will be collected. Also, crop measurements including above ground and below ground biomass will be collected.
Results and discussions Corn yield response to residue removal

Corn yield response due to residue removal by N rate is summarized in Figure 1. In 2009, there was generally no significant effect of residue removal on corn yields. The only exception is when no N was applied, removing residue increased corn yields. Both the poorly and well-drained sites had unusually cold and wet spring prior to June. In 2010, there was a significant residue removal effect on corn yields as affected by different N rates and tillage. Corn yields were much lower in 2010 due to a cold and wet spring similar to 2009 yields. In the well-drained soil, corn yields were higher when 50 and 100% of the corn residue was removed across all N rates. In the poorly drained soil, corn yields were also higher when 50 and 100% of residue was removed at N rates ranging from 50 to 200 lbs N ac-1. Corn yields were also affected by tillage (Figure 2). The lowest corn yields occurred when no residue was removed and under no-till. Hence, the highest corn yield occurred when 50 and 100 % of corn residue was removed under chisel plow. Increases in corn yield due to residue removal may be attributed to higher soil temperatures increasing potential organic mineralization resulting in greater biomass and grain production.

Corn Yield (bu ac-1)

North Central, Iowa poorly draining soil
2009
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 250
South West, Iowa well draining soil

2009
*
0 % removal 50 % removal 100 % removal
2010
2010
200
150
*
100
* * *
50
0 0 50 100 150 200 250

-1
50
100
150
200
250
SIde-dressed UAN (lbs N ac )
SIde-dressed UAN (lbs N ac-1)
Figure 1. Residue removal effects on corn yields as affected by N rate in 2009 and 2010 for poorly and well-drained soils. Asterisk indicates significant difference between residue removal within each N rate at p=0.05.

160 140 120
Chisel plow No-till

a b
b a c d b ab b
100 80 60 40 20 0
b c
50
100
50
100
Residue Removal (%)
Residue Removal (%)
Figure 2. Residue removal effects on corn yields as affected by tillage in 2010 for poorly and well-drained soils. Different letters indicate significant difference between residue removal and tillage at p=0.05.
134 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University Residue removal effects on total soil carbon
After two years of residue removal and under different N rates and tillage practices, there were no significant differences in total soil C compared to the baseline year in 2008 for both sites (Figure 3). This was not entirely unexpected, since total soil C in these sites are relatively high and ranged from 2.3 to 4.5 %. Any changes in total soil C would be difficult to detect after only two years, where maximum increases in total soil C have been recorded to be as high as 0.06 % in one year. This is often masked by natural soil variability which in these sites, total soil C varied by 0.5 %. Residue removal effects on labile (new, easily decomposable) soil C pool are greater and much easier to detect. Soil microbial biomass-C is used as an indicator for labile C in the soil, and was done in this study.

6 5 Baseline = 4.46 a a a a
Chisel plow No-till

Baseline= 2.39
Soil Organic Carbon (%)
a a
4 3 a 2 1 0 0 50 100 0 5 10 a a a a a
Corn Residue Removal (%)
Figure 3. Total soil carbon as affected by two years of residue removal for poorly and well-drained soils. Different letters indicate significant difference between residue removal at p=0.05.
Residue removal effects on potential soil organic carbon sequestration

A carbon budget approach by estimating net ecosystem productivity was used to determine if residue removal under different N rates and tillage management had net gains or losses in potential C sequestration (Figure 4.). Results from the C budget show that only under high N rates and no-till with very little residue removal, there were potential gains in soil organic C (SOC) in poorly and well-drained soils. In the poorly-drained soil site, approximately 15 % of the residue can be removed without having a net loss in potential SOC sequestration. In the well-drained soil site, only approximately 9 % of the residue can be removed without having a net loss in potential SOC sequestration. Under typical N rates in Iowa (150 lbs N ac-1) with continuous corn, even when no residue was removed and under no-till, it was observed a potential net losses of SOC. Furthermore, potential losses of SOC sequestration were greatly increased when residue was removed. The adoption of no-till did lessen the potential losses of SOC due to residue removal in the poorly-drained soil site, but not in the well-drained soil site. Potential losses of SOC sequestration were greatest under management practice with high residue removal, no N application, and chisel plow.
NC Iowa, poorly draining soil -1 Net SOC Sequestration (ton C ac )

0 lbs N ac-1
0.5
Chisel plow No-till
150 lbs N ac-1
250 lbs N ac-1
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0 0.5
y = -0.6228 - 0.0036x, R2 = 0.72, CP y = -0.5281 - 0.0038x, R2 = 0.97, NT
y = -0.3059 - 0.0090x, R2 = 0.90, CP y = -2049 - 0.0083x, R2 = 0.98, NT
y = -0.1649 - 0.0086x, R2 = 0.91, CP y = 0.1377 - 0.0092x, R2 = 0.82, NT
SW Iowa, well draining soil -1 Net SOC Sequestration (ton C ac )
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
y = -0.8993 - 0.0006x, R2 = 0.61, CP y = -0.6428 - 0.0016x, R2 = 0.54, NT

0 20 40 60 80 100
y = -0.5230 - 0.0036x, R2 = 0.54, CP y = -0.2915 - 0.0080x, R2 = 0.90, NT

0 20 40 60 80 100
y = -0.1397 - 0.0089x, R2 = 0.85, CP y = 0.0584 - 0.0068x, R2 = 0.92, NT

0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 4. Potential changes to net soil organic carbon from carbon input from above- and below-ground biomass minus losses from microbial respiration to a depth of 15 cm. Carbon budget was conducted in 2010 in a well-drained soil and poorly-drained soil under different tillage and N fertilization regimes.
Residue removal effects on soil physical properties after two years of residue removal
After two years of residue removal and under different N rates and tillage practices, there were significant differences in bulk density compared to the baseline year in 2008 for both sites (Figure 5). In the poorly-drained soil site, bulk density was significantly greater when 100% of the residue was removed under both tillage systems. Similar results were observed in the well-drained soil site, except there were also significant increases in bulk density under no-till when 50% of the residue was removed. In addition, the lack of N application also significantly increased bulk density under both sites and tillage practices, where significant reduction in root biomass took place which has direct impact on soil structure and bulk density (data not shown). Corn residue removal also negatively impacted soil aggregation after only two years (Figure 6). In general, the greatest soil aggregation occurred under no-till and when no residue was removed. Significant decreases in soil aggregation occurred when 50% of residue was removed compared to 0%, and tended to further decrease with 100% residue removal, although not significantly different. The addition of higher N rates did not appear to significantly affect soil aggregation. However when no N was applied, significant decreases in soil aggregation were observed.

1.6 1.5 Baseline: 1.28
Chisel plow No-till

Baseline: 1.25
Bulk Density (g cm )
-3
1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0 50 b b b b
a a b b b a a
100
50
100
Residue Removal (%)
Residue Removal (%)
Figure 5. Soil bulk density as affected by two years of residue removal and tillage systems for poorly and well-drained soils. Different letters indicate significant difference between residue removal and tillage at p=0.05.

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 50 100 b a
Chisel plow No-till
Aggregate Mean Weight Diameter
bc c c c b
170
280
-1
Residue Removal (%)
SIde-dressed UAN (kg N ha )
Figure 6. Aggregate mean weight diameter as affected by two years of residue removal, tillage and nitrogen rate systems for a poorly-drained soil site. Different letters indicate significant difference between residue removal, tillage and nitrogen rate at p=0.05. The results of higher bulk density and lower soil aggregation due to residue removal and subsequently reduced steady water infiltration rates (SWIR) in the well-drained soil site only (Figure 7). These decreases in SWIR were only observed under chisel plow and 100% residue removal. Consequently, the adoption of no-till did help maintain SWIR when corn residue was removed. In the poorly-drained soil site, SWIR were already low, with only 17% of the water infiltrated into the soil and 83% as runoff when simulated rainfall rates of 0.42 cm per minute were used.

Steady Infiltration Rate (cm min )
-1

Chisel plow No-till
0.3
a 0.2 a ab ab a
0.1
c a a a a
0.0 0 50 100 0 50 100
Residue Removal (%)
Residue Removal (%)
Figure 7. Steady water infiltration rates as affected by residue removal and tillage for poorly and well-drained soil sites. Different letters indicate significant difference between residue removal and tillage at p=0.05.
Summary
After two years of corn residue removal in poorly and well-drained soil sites, there were no significant decreases in grain yield. In general, removing residue increased grain yields due to soil warming under cold and wet conditions early in the spring. In addition, there were no significant decreases in total SOC concentrations compared to baseline year. However, potential decreases in SOC sequestration were observed when residue was removed. The adoption of no-till and increased N rates did reduce some of the C losses due to residue removal. However, only with adoption of no-till and N rates greater than 150 lbs N ac-1 with very little residue removed, potential increases in soil C were observed. In the poorly drained soil site, approximately 15% of corn residue can be removed without seeing a net loss in potential SOC sequestration. In the well-drained site, only approximately 9% of the residue can be removed without having a net loss in potential SOC sequestration. Significant short term effects of residue removal on soil physical properties were observed. Increases of bulk density were observed with 100% residue removal regardless of tillage and increased N fertilization rate. Furthermore, decreases in soil aggregation were observed with residue removal, regardless of tillage and increased N fertilization rate. Subsequently, SWIR were significantly reduced in the well-drained soil site. In general, the adoption of no-till over chisel plow and increased rates of N fertilization did offset some of the negative impacts of residue removal, but potential losses of SOC sequestration and deterioration of soil physical properties were still observed.
References
Akala, V.A., Lal, R., 2001. Soil organic carbon pools and sequestration rates in reclaimed Minesoils in Ohio. J. Environ. Qual. 30: 20982104. Al-Kaisi, M., and J. Grote. 2007. Cropping systems effects on improving soil carbon stocks of exposed subsoil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:1381-1388. Al-Kaisi, M.M., Yin, X. 2005. Tillage and crop residue effects on soil carbon and carbon dioxide emission in cornsoybean rotations. J. Environ. Qual. 34: 437-445. Allmaras, R.R., Linden, D.R. and Clapp, C.E. 2004. Corn-residue transformations into root and soil carbon as related to nitrogen, tillage, and stover management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68: 13661375. Balesdent, J., and Balabane, M. 1996. Major contribution of roots to soil carbon storage inferred from maize cultivated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. (28): 12611263.

Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., Post, W.M., Izaurralde, R.C., and Owens, L.B. 2006. Corn stover impacts on near-surface soil properties of no-till corn in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70: 266278. Blanco-Canqui, H. Lal, R., Post, W.M., and Owens, L.B. 2006b. Changes in long-term no-till corn growth and yield under different rates of stover mulch. Agron. J. 98: 11281136 . Hoskinson, R.L., Karlen, D.L., Birrell, S.J., Radtke, C.W., and Wilhelm, W.W. 2007. Engineering, nutrient removal, and feedstock conversion evaluations of four corn stover harvest scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy (31): 126136. Karlen, D.L., Wollenhaupt, N.C., Erbach, D.C., Berry, E.C., Swan, J.B., Eash, N.S., and Jordahl, J.L. 1994. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil and Tillage Res. (31): 149-167. Larson, W.E., Clapp, C.E., Pierre, W.H., and Morachan, Y.B. 1972. Effects of increasing amounts of organic residue on continuous corn. II. Organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur. Agron. J. (64): 204-208. Linden, D.R., Clapp, C.E. and Dowdy, R.H. 2000. Long-term corn grain and stover yields as a function of tillage and residue removal in east central Minnesota. Soil and Tillage Res. 56: 167-174. Mann, L., Tolbert, V., and Gushman, J. 2002. Potential environmental effects of corn stover removal with emphasis on soil organic matter and erosion. A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 8): 149-166. McCool, D.K., Stott, D.E., Laflen, J.M., and Schertz, D.L. 1995. Residue incorporation by tillage-Interaction of mass and cover. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50: 563-567. Power, J.F Koerner, P.T., Doran, J.W., and Wilhelm, W.W. 1998. Residual effects of crop residues on grain production ., and selected soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62: 1393-1397. Reicosky, D.C., Kemper, W.D., Langdale, G.W., Douglas Jr., C.L., and Rasmussen, P.E. 1995. Soil organic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50: 253-261. Wilhelm, W.W., Johnson, J.M.F Hatfield, J.L., Voorhee, W.B. and Linden, D.R. 2004. Crop and soil productivity ., response to corn removal: A literature review. Agron. J. 96: 1-17. Wilts, A.R., Allmaras, R.R., and Clapp, C.E. 2004. Long term corn effects: Harvest Alternatives, soil carbon turnover, and root-derived carbon. . Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68: 13421351.
Water quality benefits of perennial filter strips in rowcropped watersheds

Matthew J. Helmers, associate professor, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Xiaobo Zhou, assistant scientist, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University; Heidi Asbjornsen, associate professor, Natural Resource and the Environment, University of New Hampshire; Randy Kolka, soil scientist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station; Mark D. Tomer, soil scientist, USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment
Introduction
Nonpoint source pollution is an increasingly serious problem in agricultural landscapes, especially as growing populations intensify pressures on a fixed land area for food and energy, and climate change threatens production stability. Vegetative filter strips (VFS) have been demonstrated as a practical strategy in reducing soil loss and nutrient transport from agricultural land. While restoration of native grassland on agricultural landscapes would improve environment quality, however, this practice is not feasible across large regions where local communities depend on agriculture. One alternative strategy for erosion control and water quality improvement is the incorporation of relatively small amounts of vegetative filter strips in strategic locations within agricultural landscapes (Dosskey et al., 2002). Vegetative filter strips within crop production systems are bands of perennial vegetation established at the lower portion of the watershed or distributed upslope along the contour (Dillaha et al., 1989). They are designed to remove sediment and other pollutants from agricultural runoff by slowing flow velocity, increasing water infiltration, and promoting plant uptake of excess nutrients. The majority of studies assessing the environmental benefits of VFS were conducted on a plot scale, and assessments at the watershed scale are lacking (Helmers et al., 2005; Baker et al., 2006). Accounting for the heterogeneity of watersheds in topography, soils and land use is particularly challenging. This is underscored by findings suggesting that performance of VFS under on-farm conditions is rarely as effective as that for plot settings (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2006). This trend is largely explained by the less uniform and more concentrated flow that develops in watersheds having longer slopes compared to shorter slopes at the plot scale. Further, the effectiveness of VFS has often been investigated from simulated or natural rainfall events over relatively short periods. Therefore, there is a critical need for long-term monitoring and multi-year data to assess the performance of VFS with commonly-adopted field operations, while accounting for variability in both climate and field conditions. This paper presents results from the first four years of a long-term field experiment testing the impacts of prairie filter strips (PFS) on sediment and nutrient export in runoff from watersheds maintained under annual rowcrop systems in central Iowa.
Materials and methods

The study was conducted at the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NSNWR; 4133 N; 9316 W) in Jasper County, Iowa. A total of 12 watersheds in the NSNWR and within the Walnut Creek watershed were selected to evaluate the benefits of integrating PFS in rowcrop agriculture for enhancing water quality in central Iowa (Figure 1). A balanced incomplete block design was implemented across four blocks each with three plots, with each treatment excluded once from of the blocks. Two blocks are located at Basswood, one block at Interim, and one block at Orbweaver. The size of the watersheds varied from 1.2 to 7.9 acres, with average slopes ranging from 6.1 to 10.5% (Table 1). Ladoga silt loam (fine, smectitic, mesic Mollic Hapludalf) and Otley silty clay loam (fine, smectitic, mesic Oxyaquic Argiudolls) are predominant soils in the study watersheds.

Table 1. Site description and experimental design. Size (acre) Basswood-1 Basswood-2 Basswood-3 Basswood-4 Basswood-5 Basswood-6 Interim-1 Interim-2 Interim-3 Orbweaver-1 Orbweaver-2 Orbweaver-3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 3.1 2.1 7.4 7.9 1.8 2.9 5.9 3.1 Slope (%) 7.5 6.6 6.4 8.2 8.9 10.5 7.7 6.1 9.3 10.3 6.7 6.6 Location and percent of grass filters* 10% at footslope 5% at footslope and 5% at upslope 10% at footslope and 10% upslope 10% at footslope and 10% upslope 5% at footslope and 5% upslope All rowcrops 3.3% at footslope, 3.3% at sideslope, and 3.3% at upslope 10% at footslope All rowcrops 10% at footslope 6.7% at footslope, 6.7% at sideslope, and 6.7% at upslope All rowcrops
*Percent of grass filters = area of filters / area of watershed Prior to treatment, all watersheds were in bromegrass for at least 10 years without fertilizer application. In August 2006, all watersheds were uniformly tilled with a mulch tiller. Basswood-1-6 and Orbweaver-1 were tilled again in spring 2007 to further level field residue. Starting in spring 2007, a two-year no-till corn-soybean rotation (soybeans in 2007) was implemented along the contour in areas receiving the rowcrop treatment. Standard herbicide- and fertilizerbased weed and nutrient management practices were applied in each watershed. Consistent with methods used for other prairie reconstructions at the NSNWR, areas receiving PFS treatment were seeded with a diverse mixture of native prairie forbs and grasses using a broadcast seeder on July 7, 2007. No fertilizer was applied in the PFS areas. Each watershed received one of 4 treatments (3 replicates per treatment): 100% rowcrop (RC), 10% PFS at the footslope position, 10% PFS distributed between the footslope position and in contour strips further upslope in the watershed, and 20% PFS distributed between the footslope position and in contour strips further upslope in the watershed (Zhou et al., 2010). Treatments were randomly assigned to watersheds within each block. A fiber glass H flume was installed at the bottom of each watershed in 2005 and early 2006 according to the Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology. Plywood wing walls were constructed at the bottom of watershed to guide surface runoff to the flumes. ISCO 6712 automated water samplers (ISCO, Inc., Lincoln, NE) equipped with pressure transducers were installed in 2007 at each flume to record flow rate and collect water samples. Flow stage was measured by pressure transducers and logged every 5 minutes. Each ISCO autosampler contained 24 one-liter bottlers that were filled during storm events. A total of three samples were placed in each bottle in sequential fashion. Water samples were refrigerated at 4C until analysis. The data (including flow stage and a record of sample date and time) were downloaded on at least a monthly interval using an ISCO 581 Rapid Transfer Device (RTD). Concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (N) and total phosphorus (P) in surface runoff were analyzed in the Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering Water Quality Research Laboratory at Iowa State University. Sediment and nutrient load was then calculated based on the measured concentrations and total flow volume for the specific period during which the sample was collected. Flow-weighted concentrations were calculated by dividing the total load by the total flow volume for the period. Meteorological data were obtained from two weather stations located within the NSNWR and near the study watersheds: the Mesonet station is 0.8 2.3 miles from the watersheds and the NOAA station is 0.7 2.1 miles from the watersheds. The observed rainfall amount from the two weather stations was averaged to obtain daily rainfall during 2007-2010 to account for spatial variability in rainfall distribution. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedures for SAS (SAS Institute, 2003).
Results and discussion

The entire study period (2007 2010) received higher than normal rainfall compared to the long-term average. Total rainfall during the growing season (April October) ranged from 31.9 inches in 2009 to 48.1 inches in 2010 (Table 2), well above the long-term mean of 28.1 inches. Year 2008 had a wet June and July but a dry August. Monthly rainfall was 13.3 and 14.7 inches for June and August 2010, respectively; the total rainfall amount in these two months alone was already greater than the long-term mean rainfall for the entire growing season. The largest rainfall event during the monitoring period occurred on August 8 11, 2010, with 9.8 inches of rain producing 8.2 inches of discharge, which was approximately 60% of the total flow during 2007 2009. This event produced record flood stages in several nearby streams and rivers. The driest month was October 2010, with only 0.5 inches of rainfall compared to the 2.6 inches on average for October. Table 2. Monthly precipitation during April through October in 2007-2010 at the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, IA. 2007 April May June July August September October Total 4.9 5.8 3.4 1.8 8.4 3.7 5.0 33.0 2008 4.5 4.8 10.5 8.1 2.2 4.7 3.2 38.0 2009 4.9 3.0 5.8 3.3 6.2 2.2 6.5 31.9 2010 4.9 4.6 13.3 6.1 14.7 4.0 0.5 48.1 --------------------------- inch ------------------------
Surface runoff exhibited a wide range of inter-annual variation, varying from only 1.3 inches in 2007 to 14.1 inches in 2010. Overall, increasing rainfall led to greater runoff with the exception of 2007, which had slightly more rainfall but much less runoff than 2009. This could, in part, be attributed to differences in seasonal rainfall distribution between the two years: more rainfall occurred during August and September in 2007 than in 2009, and the late-season rainfall events in 2007 may have resulted in less runoff due to greater interception by the well-developed crop canopy and high evapotranspiration (ET) during this growth stage. As expected, more runoff was observed in spring than in summer for a comparable rainfall amount due to wet field conditions and low water use by crops at their early growth stage. In 2009, as an example, 4.9 inches rainfall in April produced 2.4 inches runoff, while 6.2 inches rainfall in August only produced 0.02 inches runoff. PFS treatments reduced surface runoff to varying extents compared to 100% row-cropped fields. The higher runoff amount in 2007 for some watersheds with PFS compared to 100% agricultural watersheds could be due to the limited vegetation cover in the PFS at that time. Averaged over the four years, runoff was reduced by 59, 17, and 24% for treatments of 10% PFS at footslope, 10% PFS in contour strips, and 20% PFS in contour strips, respectively, compared with 100% rowcrop. Overall, the reduction was more evident at the early growth stage of rowcrop (Figure 1), likely due in part to the higher ET and canopy interception in PFS than cropland during this period. In contrast, watersheds with 100% cropland had less runoff than watersheds with PFS during rainfall events occurring when crops were completely developed. However, other factors including improved soil structure and infiltration may also account for the difference in runoff amount between treatments. During consecutive days of rainfall (9.8 inches) in August 8-11, 2010, watersheds with PFS had 25% less runoff than watersheds with 100% rowcropped corn. Since corn had comparable ET with native prairie at this growth stage, more runoff water likely infiltrated into subsurface soils under PFS. The improved soil structure and dampened flow rates under PFS could facilitate infiltration of runoff water.
Figure 1. Cumulative annual (a) surface runoff, (b) sediment export, (c) total N export, and (d) total P export in runoff from cropped watersheds during 2007-2010. It is important to note that no-tillage alone did not prevent soil loss on these 6-10% slopes from approaching or even exceeding the annual tolerable soil loss rate of 5 t ac-1 during wet years of 2008 and 2010; however, the combination of no-tillage and PFS was highly effective and kept average sediment export to below 0.5 t ac-1 during the crop season (April through October) of the entire study period. Watersheds with 100% rowcrop had significantly higher sediment concentration in runoff and total sediment yield than watersheds with PFS (Table 3 and Figure 1). For example, the annual sediment concentration was reduced from 12,016 ppm in 100% cropped watersheds to 687-818 ppm in PFS watersheds in 2008. Similarly, the total measured total N and total P export during the growing season were greatly reduced in the watersheds with PFS compared to the watersheds without PFS (Table 3 and Figure 1). Sediment and nutrient export from the watersheds were highly variable during the study period. Higher sediment and nutrient export occurred in 2008 and 2010 than in 2007 and 2009 due to the relatively higher precipitation in 2008 and 2010. Year 2008 had the highest sediment and nutrient load, although 2010 had 48 inches of precipitation during the growing season compared to 38 inches in 2008. This could be attributed to the initial soil disturbance by the tillage that occurred in 2006 and 2007.
Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. 5 This document is available at www.aep.iastate.edu.
2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 143 Table 3. Annual flow-weighted sediment, TN and TP concentrations in surface runoff during growing season (AprilOctober). Letters indicate the significance test of mean difference among four treatments within each year at p<0.1. 100%RC 10%PFS at footslope 77.8b 818.3b 129.3b 176.3b 335.12b 5.2a 9.5b 3.8a 5.6b 6.0b 0.5a 1.6b 0.9a 0.8b 1.1ab 10%PFS in contour strips 90.6b 790.6b 74.7b 90.5b 297.38b 4.0a 8.0b 5.1a 6.4b 5.8b 0.4a 1.5b 0.7a 0.5b 0.9b 20%PFS in contour strips 263.0a 686.7b 183.1b 138.9b 322.90b 4.2a 4.7b 2.2a 6.1b 4.3b 0.3a 1.4b 0.8a 0.4b 0.6b 0.5 4.9 1.8 0.8 4.2 20.9 6.7 7.4 Mean
---------------------------------- Sediment (ppm ) -----------------------------------2007 2008 2009 2010 Average 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average 125.4b 12016.3a 1963.8a 1419.4a 4222.68a 3.4a 61.3a 15.6a 11.5a 22.9a 1.0a 13.9a 6.2a 1.6a 5.2a 139.2 3578.0 634.4 481.7
------------------------------------- TN (ppm ) --------------------------------------
------------------------------------- TP (ppm ) --------------------------------------
Summary
Sediment and nutrient export from 12 agricultural watersheds in central Iowa was monitored at watershed outlets from 2007-2010 to evaluate the effectiveness of prairie filter strips (PFS) in improving water quality from agricultural runoff. The above normal annual precipitation and number of extreme events during the study period provided the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of PFS in reducing pollutant transport. The four-year study suggests that an appropriate placing of PFS at the watershed scale could effectively reduce sediment and nutrient loss and supports what has been found previously at the plot scale. The amount and distribution of PFS showed no significant impact on runoff and pollutant load likely due to the relatively large width of the PFS in this study, suggesting that converting 10% of agricultural cropping systems to perennial systems at the bottom of a watershed could effectively control erosion and nutrient loss from cropped area at the small watershed scale while being convenient for field operations. For areas with severe soil erosion problems additional conservation measures, including but not limited to terraces, riparian buffers, and change in land use should be considered.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, USDA North Central Region SARE program, and USDA-AFRI Managed Ecosystems program. We would like to thank Pauline Drobney and the staff at the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge for their support of this project. We would also like to thank the ecohydrology group at Iowa State University for helping collect the data in the field.
144 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University References
Baker, J.L., Helmers, M.J., Laflen, J.M., 2006. Water management practices: rain-fed cropland, in: Schnepf, M., Craig, C. (Eds.), Environmental benefits of conservation on cropland: the status of our knowledge. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, pp. 89-130. Blanco-Canqui, H., Gantzer, C.J., Anderson, S.H., 2006. Performance of grass barriers and filter strips under interrill and concentrated flow. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 1969-1974. Dillaha, T.A., Reneau, R.B., Mostaghimi, S., Lee, D., 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution-control. Trans. ASAE 32, 513-519. Dosskey, M.G., Helmers, M.J. Eisenhauer, D.E., Franti, T.G., Hoagland, K.D., 2002. Assessment of concentrated flow through riparian buffers. J. Soil Water Conserv. 57, 336-343. Helmers, M.J., Eisenhauer, D., Dosskey, M.G., Franti, T.G., Brothers, J.M., McCullough, M.C., 2005. Flow pathways and sediment trapping in a field-scale vegetative filter. Trans. ASAE 48, 955-968. SAS Institute, 2003. The SAS system for Windows. Release 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Zhou, X., Helmers, M.J., Asbjornsen, Kolka, H. R., Tomer., M.D., 2010. Perennial filter strips reduce nitrate levels in soil and shallow groundwater after grassland-to-cropland conversion. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 2006-2015.
Notes
Notes
Notes

Owen Alternativeto Glyphosate ICM11

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Owen Alternativeto Glyphosate ICM11

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Proceedings of the 23rd Annual

Integrated Crop Management Conference

2 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

Prepared by Brent A. Pringnitz, program coordinator

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 3

Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Integrated Crop Management Conference

Long silks, short pollena long year? .............................................................................................................. 15

Making silage from Iowas forage crops............................................................................................................. 17

Midwest crop weather 2011-2012: What follows a strong La Nia? ................................................................. 21

Crop and biofuel outlook for 2012................................................................................................................... 23

Sustainable production and distribution of bioenergy for the Central US ......................................................... 27

Energy management for crop production ......................................................................................................... 31

11. Weed management for 2012 ............................................................................................................................ 41

12. Herbicide-resistant weeds: An evolving problem of importance in Iowa crop production................................. 45

13. A reintroduction to soil applied herbicides ....................................................................................................... 49

16. Update on the soybean aphid efficacy program ................................................................................................ 59

4 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

Nutrient management 23. Fertilizer situation and outlook ........................................................................................................................77

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 5

Speaker contact information

6 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 7

Growin good corn: Rocket science or common sense?

300 Bushels per acre is achievable today!

8 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

Relative annual yield gain (% of trend yield)

100 Trend yield (bu/ac)

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 9

The secret to producing 300+ bushel corn

Rocket science or common sense?

Yield influencing factors (YIFs)

Kernel rows per ear Kernels per row

Weight per kernel

10 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 11

Key factors to consider

Manage trash in no-till

Avoid soil compaction

12 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

Continuous corn or not?

Starter fertilizer or not?

Remember, it aint rocket science!

14 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 15

Long silks, short pollena long year?

16 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

Lessons from 2011

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 17

Making silage from Iowas forage crops

The ensiling process

Aerobic, pre-seal phase

18 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 19

Non-protein nitrogen sources (NPN)

Added carbohydrate sources

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 21

Midwest crop weather 2011-2012: What follows a strong La Nia?

22 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 23

Crop and biofuel outlook for 2012

24 2011 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04