Sorghum row direction x configuration x hybrid – Terry Hie Hie 2015–16

2015 - 2016

Research organisaton
Funding source

Trial details

Researcher(s) Mark Hellyer (NSW DPI)
Peter Perfrement (NSW DPI)
Loretta Serafin (NSW DPI)
Year(s) 2015 - 2016
Contributor Department of Primary Industries NSW
Trial location(s) Terry Hie Hie, NSW
Further information View external link
Sorghum row direction x configuration x hybrid – Terry Hie Hie 2015–16 locations
Aims

 To compare grain yield and quality responses with variations in row direction (north–south versus east–west) across a range of row configurations (to simulate various light interception orientations) and sorghum hybrids.

Key messages

Key message:

  • Varying row direction from north–south or east–west did not affect grain yield or quality.
  • Row configuration did not affect grain yield, however, there were some effects on grain quality. The solid row configuration produced higher grain protein and screenings levels, but lower test weight than the superwide and single skip treatments.
  • There were differences between the hybrids for grain yield and quality. MR Apollo and MR 43 produced higher yields than 84G22. Differences in grain quality were also found, with MR Apollo producing a higher grain protein level and 1000-grain weight than the other two hybrids.

Conclusions:

The effect from row direction on plant structures was minor, with only an increase in plant establishment detected from the north–south direction compared with the east–west direction. This difference did not translate into higher tiller or head production per hectare. There were slightly more tillers per plant and heads per plant from the east–west direction, but again this did not correlate with higher yields. Row configuration did not affect plant establishment or tillering, however, there were more heads produced per hectare from the solid configuration compared with the single skip. This did not translate into a difference in grain yield; however, there were some impacts on grain quality. The solid row configuration produced higher grain protein and screenings levels, but lower test weights than the superwide and single skip treatments. There were differences between the hybrids for grain yield, with MR Apollo and MR 43 producing higher yields than 84G22. There were also differences in grain quality, with MR Apollo producing a higher grain protein level and 1000-grain weight than the other two hybrids The results from this experiment suggest that there is no economic value in altering the sowing direction of rows to either north–south or east–west, or any yield benefit from altering row configuration between solid, single skip or superwide.

Lead research organisation Department of Primary Industries NSW
Host research organisation N/A
Trial funding source GRDC DAN00195
Related program Tactical crop agronomy of sorghum and maize in the northern region - NSW component
Acknowledgments

This experiment was part of the project Tactical crop agronomy of sorghum and maize in the northern region – NSW component (DAN00195), with joint investment by NSW DPI and GRDC. Thanks to Pioneer and Pacific Seeds for supplying the seed. Technical assistance provided by Delphi Ramsden, Angus Hombsch, Alice Bowler, Bronwyn Brennan (NSW DPI) is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to Michael Ledingham for hosting the experiment and Gavin McDouall, HM Ag for his assistance with the site.


Other trial partners Co-operator Michael Ledingham
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop type Cereal (Grain): Sorghum
Treatment type(s)
  • Crop: Variety
Trial type
Trial design

Terry Hie Hie 2015

Sow rate or Target density Plant establishment was targeted at a population of 50,000 plants/ha. The average plant population recorded was 50,190 plants/ha.
Sow date 17 September 2015
Harvest date 22 January 2016
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 3
Plot blocking The experiment was a split-split design with main blocks of row direction and sub blocks of row configuration with hybrids randomised within blocks. Three replicates were used.
Fertiliser

80 kg/ha Starter Z
 

Other trial notes

Treatments

Row direction

1. North–south

2. East–west

Hybrids

1. MR Apollo

2. MR 43

3. 84G22

Row configuration

1. Solid (1 m spacing)

2. Single skip

3. Superwide (1.5 m spacing)

RESULTS:

Plant structures

Plant establishment was targeted at a population of 50,000 plants/ha. The average plant population recorded was 50,190 plants/ha. Neither row configuration nor hybrid affected the established plant population. There was a significant effect from row direction, with higher plant establishment in the north–south direction at 52,530 plants/ha versus 47,840 plants/ha in the east–west direction. Tillering was quite low at this site in this season, with only 15,000 tillers/ha produced on average. There was no significant difference between hybrids, row configurations or row direction for tillering. Similarly, the number of heads produced was not high. There was no significant difference for hybrid or row direction; however there were differences across the row configurations. On average, 61,420 heads/ha were produced across treatments. There were more heads produced in the solid configuration compared with the single skip configuration (67,780 heads/ha vs 56,300 heads/ha). The superwide treatment was not different from either the solid or single skip treatments (60,190 plants/ha). There were slightly more tillers per plant and heads per plant produced by the east–west row direction than the north–south treatment (data not shown).

Days to flowering

Neither row direction nor row configuration affected the days to 50% flowering. However, there were significant differences between the hybrids. MR 43 was the quickest at 74 days, followed by 84G22 at 75 days. MR Apollo was 4–5 days slower reaching 50% flowering at 79 days.

Grain yield

The site mean grain yield was 3.54 t/ha. Neither row direction nor row configuration affected grain yield at this site in this season. However, there were significant differences in the hybrid performance. MR Apollo and MR 43 performed similarly, producing 3.83 t/ha and 3.58 t/ha respectively, while 84G22 produced less at 3.20 t/ha. There were no significant interactions between the three factors. 70 | NSW Department of Primary Industries

Grain quality

The grain protein levels averaged 9.2%. There was a significant interaction between row direction, row configuration and hybrid for protein content, however, no clear pattern was evident, making explaining the results difficult. When examining the significant single factors, the solid row configuration produced higher grain protein than the superwide or single skip treatments. Similarly, MR Apollo produced higher grain protein than the other two hybrids (data not shown). Unfortunately, growers are not remunerated based on protein content, making the differences more important from an academic and nutrient removal point of view. Test weights showed significant differences based on the treatments for hybrid and row configuration only. The solid row configuration produced a significantly lower test weight than the other two configurations, but well above the receival standards level. MR Apollo also had a lower test weight than the other two hybrids. Screening levels were low, with a site average of 2.1%. Significant interactions occurred for hybrid and row configuration. The solid plant produced more screenings than the other two configurations. 84G22 produced significantly higher levels of screening than the other two hybrids, but levels were still low. The only differences in 1000-grain weight were found between hybrids, with MR Apollo having a higher 1000-grain weight than MR 43, which was higher than 84G22

Terry Hie Hie 2016

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Plot blocking Not specified
Fertiliser Not specified
Other trial notes

Treatments

Row direction

1. North–south

2. East–west

Hybrids

1. MR Apollo

2. MR 43

3. 84G22

Row configuration

1. Solid (1 m spacing)

2. Single skip

3. Superwide (1.5 m spacing)

RESULTS:

Plant structures

Plant establishment was targeted at a population of 50,000 plants/ha. The average plant population recorded was 50,190 plants/ha. Neither row configuration nor hybrid affected the established plant population. There was a significant effect from row direction, with higher plant establishment in the north–south direction at 52,530 plants/ha versus 47,840 plants/ha in the east–west direction. Tillering was quite low at this site in this season, with only 15,000 tillers/ha produced on average. There was no significant difference between hybrids, row configurations or row direction for tillering. Similarly, the number of heads produced was not high. There was no significant difference for hybrid or row direction; however there were differences across the row configurations. On average, 61,420 heads/ha were produced across treatments. There were more heads produced in the solid configuration compared with the single skip configuration (67,780 heads/ha vs 56,300 heads/ha). The superwide treatment was not different from either the solid or single skip treatments (60,190 plants/ha). There were slightly more tillers per plant and heads per plant produced by the east–west row direction than the north–south treatment (data not shown).

Days to flowering

Neither row direction nor row configuration affected the days to 50% flowering. However, there were significant differences between the hybrids. MR 43 was the quickest at 74 days, followed by 84G22 at 75 days. MR Apollo was 4–5 days slower reaching 50% flowering at 79 days.

Grain yield

The site mean grain yield was 3.54 t/ha. Neither row direction nor row configuration affected grain yield at this site in this season. However, there were significant differences in the hybrid performance. MR Apollo and MR 43 performed similarly, producing 3.83 t/ha and 3.58 t/ha respectively, while 84G22 produced less at 3.20 t/ha. There were no significant interactions between the three factors. 70 | NSW Department of Primary Industries

Grain quality

The grain protein levels averaged 9.2%. There was a significant interaction between row direction, row configuration and hybrid for protein content, however, no clear pattern was evident, making explaining the results difficult. When examining the significant single factors, the solid row configuration produced higher grain protein than the superwide or single skip treatments. Similarly, MR Apollo produced higher grain protein than the other two hybrids (data not shown). Unfortunately, growers are not remunerated based on protein content, making the differences more important from an academic and nutrient removal point of view. Test weights showed significant differences based on the treatments for hybrid and row configuration only. The solid row configuration produced a significantly lower test weight than the other two configurations, but well above the receival standards level. MR Apollo also had a lower test weight than the other two hybrids. Screening levels were low, with a site average of 2.1%. Significant interactions occurred for hybrid and row configuration. The solid plant produced more screenings than the other two configurations. 84G22 produced significantly higher levels of screening than the other two hybrids, but levels were still low. The only differences in 1000-grain weight were found between hybrids, with MR Apollo having a higher 1000-grain weight than MR 43, which was higher than 84G22

Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information

Download results

Trial results Plant establishment, head production and yield across configurations

# Treatment 1
Plant density (plants/ha) Grain yield (t/ha) Head density (heads/ha)
1 Solid on 1m spacings 35830 4.25 83890
2 Single skip 24170 2.96 55170
3 Superwide (1.5m spacings) 25560 3.32 59440

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

Head density heads/ha


Loading

Plant density plants/ha


Loading

Trial results Variety effect on protein, 1000 grain weight and screenings

# Variety
Screenings (%) Protein (%) 1000 grain weight (g)
1 84G22 7.46 10.81 31.1
2 MR Apollo 4.81 10.33 34.59
3 MR 43 4.78 10.37 33.25

1000 grain weight g


Loading

Protein %


Loading

Screenings %


Loading
Observed trial site soil information
Trial site soil testing
Site Depth Type pH EC P K N A OC CAT
Terry Hie Hie, NSW 0 - 10cm 5.90 28.00 7.00 1.28
Terry Hie Hie, NSW 10 - 30cm 6.60 9.00 3.00 0.54
Terry Hie Hie, NSW 30 - 60cm 7.20 6.00 4.00 0.24
Terry Hie Hie, NSW 60 - 90cm 7.10 4.00 2.00 0.13
Terry Hie Hie, NSW 90 - 120cm 7.40 3.00 3.00 0.09
Soil conditions
Trial site Soil texture
Terry Hie Hie, NSW Not specified
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
Terry Hie Hie, NSW Chromosol
Soil Moisture Source: BOM/ANU
Average amount of water stored in the soil profile during the year, estimated by the OzWALD model-data fusion system.
Year Terry Hie Hie NSW
2016 701.8mm
2015 703.6mm
2014 633.1mm
2013 579.5mm
2012 597.5mm
2011 635.0mm
2010 673.2mm
2009 654.3mm
2008 673.0mm
2007 666.9mm
2006 658.5mm
2005 658.8mm
2004 668.9mm
2003 657.9mm
2002 643.5mm
2001 634.0mm
2000 588.4mm
National soil grid Source: CSIRO/TERN
NOTE: National Soil Grid data is aggregated information for background information on the wider area
Actual soil values can vary significantly in a small area and the trial soil tests are the most relevant data where available

Soil properties

Loading

Climate

Terry Hie Hie NSW 2015


Observed climate information

Rainfall avg ann (mm) 603mm
Rainfall trial gsr (mm) 167mm

Derived climate information

Terry Hie Hie NSW

NOTE: Exact trial site locality unknown - Climate data may not be accurate
Loading
Loading
Loading

Some data on this site is sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology

SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001). Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data , Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol 16/4, pp 309-330. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00008-1.

Trial report and links

2016 trial report

2015 trial report



Trial last modified: 17-07-2019 14:20pm AEST