Abstract

Management (M), variety (V), and environment (E) greatly influence wheat yield and quality. With the objective of determining the partial influence of V, E, and M, we conducted a field experiment where we imposed four management intensities to five wheat varieties during six site-years in Kansas and Oklahoma. Management intensities were 1) low-input (N fertility for a yield goal of 60 bu/a); 2) high-input (foliar fungi­cide, sulfur and chloride fertilizers, growth regulator, and nitrogen (N) fertility for a yield goal of 100 bu/a); 3) high-input minus fungicide; and 4) high-input minus addi­tional N. We selected commonly grown wheat varieties with contrasting yield potential and quality characteristics. We used a split-plot design with M as whole-plots (estab­lished in randomized complete block design), and V as sub-plot (completely random­ized within whole-plot). Variance component analyses suggested that E accounted for 63% of the variability in wheat yield and 55% of the variability in grain test weight; G accounted for 1 and 23% of the variability in yield and test weight, and M accounted for 1% of the variability of both. The interactions V × G and E × M accounted for 4 and 9% of the variability in yield, and 10 and 1% of the variability in test weight, respectively. Analysis of variance pooled across the entire dataset considering V and M fixed and E random suggested a significant G × M interaction on yield, which ranged from 49–61 bu/a. Meanwhile, both V and M affected test weight, which ranged from 52–58 lb/bu for the different V and from 55–57 lb/bu for the different M. These results suggest that E has the greatest impact in yield and quality, but there is room for yield improvement through V-specific M, and for quality improvement through V and M separately.

Keywords: wheat, intensive management, fungicide, nitrogen, variety

How to Cite:

Lollato, R. P., Jaenisch, B. R. & Marburger, D., (2019) “Intensive Wheat Management for Yield and Quality: The Role of Variety, Environment, and Management Practices”, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 5(6). doi: https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.7788