Table 4. 1997 & 1998 Forage Yield (Mg ha-1) | |||||
Treatments | Adjusted Yield at 70% H2O | ||||
PAM | Herbicide | 1997 | 1998 | ||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
No PAM | Dual | 49 | 5 | 55 | 9 |
Eradicane | 50 | 12 | 51 | 4 | |
None | 51 | 10 | 53 | 6 | |
Average | 50 | 9 | 53 | 6 | |
NRCS STD | Dual | 56 | 7 | 54 | 10 |
Eradicane | 57 | 14 | 57 | 8 | |
None | 52 | 10 | 54 | 7 | |
Average | 55 | 10 | 55 | 8 | |
Patch | Dual | 58 | 10 | 56 | 11 |
Eradicane | 55 | 8 | 59 | 10 | |
None | 54 | 8 | 48 | 11 | |
Average | 56 | 9 | 54 | 11 | |
Average | Dual | 55 | 8 | 55 | 10 |
Eradicane | 54 | 11 | 56 | 8 | |
None | 53 | 9 | 52 | 8 |
Table 4. Forage Yield
Forage yields were similar among years and all treatments. There were slight yield increases associated with improved weed control and with PAM treatment. In this study, weed control until canopy coverage was reasonably good in all treatments because of conventional cultivation. Irrigation was adequate among treatments as well, therefore the increased infiltration was not greatly expressed as yield. Some loss of nitrogen may have occurred with increased infiltration, partially negating the yield advantage of improved infiltration.
|
|
[back to poster image map] | |
[Title] [Abstract] [Approach] [Table 1] [Table 2] [Table 3] [Table 4] [Conclusions] |