Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Final plant map results from the Hale County irrigated RACE variety demonstration, Halfway Research Center Farm, Halfway, TX, 2012.Test average 31.2 6.4 16.7 1.9 11.4 89.5CV, % 5.2 8.8 4.0 5.6 6.1 7.9OSL 0.0008 0.0567 † 0.1575 0.0022 0.1485 0.4458LSD 2.8 0.8 NS 0.2 NS NSFor Final plant map, numbers represent and average of 6 plants per variety per rep (18 plants per variety)CV - coefficient of variation.OSL - observed significance level, or probability of a greater F value.LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, † indicates significance at the 0.10 level, NS - not significantEntryFinal plant map 1-Octoberplant height(inches)node of firstfruiting branchtotal mainstemnodesheight to noderatiototal fruitingbranches open boll (%)45All-Tex Nitro-44 B2RF 30.0 6.8 16.4 1.8 10.6 82.5Croplan Genetics 3156B2RF 29.7 5.5 15.9 1.9 11.5 86.3Dyna-Gro 2570B2RF 33.0 6.9 17.0 1.9 11.1 95.5Deltapine 1032B2RF 31.3 6.0 16.0 2.0 11.0 88.2Deltapine 1219B2RF 32.6 5.9 17.2 1.9 12.3 88.8FiberMax 2011GT 29.7 6.1 17.2 1.7 12.1 91.2FiberMax 2484B2F 29.5 7.0 17.2 1.7 11.2 95.7NexGen 4111RF 32.5 6.7 17.2 1.9 11.5 88.2PhytoGen 499WRF 35.7 6.2 16.6 2.2 11.4 92.3Stoneville 4288B2F 28.1 6.6 16.6 1.7 10.9 86.3
Table 3. Final plant map results from the Hale County irrigated RACE variety demonstration, Halfway Research Center Farm, Halfway, TX, 2012.Test average 78.3 21.7 8.6 58.2 23.0 43.20CV, % 7.2 25.8 13.9 8.0 35.1 11.1OSL 0.8810 0.8810 0.1278 0.0071 0.9754 0.0986 †LSD NS NS NS 8.0 NS 6.8For Final plant map, numbers represent and average of 6 plants per variety per rep (18 plants per variety)CV - coefficient of variation.OSL - observed significance level, or probability of a greater F value.LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, † indicates significance at the 0.10 level, NS - not significantEntryFruiting and Retention 1-October% of fruit from 1stposition% of fruit from 2ndposition total fruit1st positionretention (%)2nd positionretention (%) total retention (%)46All-Tex Nitro-44 B2RF 81.3 18.7 7.5 57.0 19.7 41.47Croplan Genetics 3156B2RF 75.1 24.9 7.8 50.8 21.0 37.67Dyna-Gro 2570B2RF 74.5 25.5 8.7 57.7 27.2 44.67Deltapine 1032B2RF 77.7 22.3 8.8 62.0 24.9 46.30Deltapine 1219B2RF 80.4 19.6 10.1 63.9 22.6 46.40FiberMax 2011GT 77.8 22.2 8.6 54.2 21.4 39.63FiberMax 2484B2F 77.8 22.2 8.6 59.3 23.4 43.57NexGen 4111RF 79.3 20.7 8.6 57.4 22.4 43.47PhytoGen 499WRF 78.9 21.1 10.0 67.6 26.2 50.20Stoneville 4288B2F 80.2 19.8 7.2 51.7 21.3 38.60
Page 2 and 3: Systems Agronomic and EconomicEvalu
Page 4 and 5: Scott Russell, EA-IPM, Terry/Yoakum
Page 6 and 7: Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 8 and 9: Agronomic and Economic Evaluation o
Page 10: andomized complete block design was
Page 14 and 15: not significant at this location. H
Page 16 and 17: Table 1. Inseason plant measurement
Page 18 and 19: Table 3. HVI fiber property results
Page 20 and 21: Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 22 and 23: Table 7. Inseason plant measurement
Page 24 and 25: Table 9. Final plant map results fr
Page 26 and 27: Table 11. HVI fiber property result
Page 28 and 29: Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 30 and 31: Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 34 and 35: Replicated Sub-Surface Drip Irrigat
Page 40 and 41: Replicated LEPA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 80 and 81: Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 82 and 83: Results and Discussion:Acknowledgme
Page 96 and 97: Replicated LEPA Supplemental (Limit
Page 98 and 99: lb/acre for FiberMax 2989GLB2. Lint
Page 100 and 101: Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 102 and 103:
Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Tria
Page 104 and 105:
Biopolymer Research Institue for HV
Page 106 and 107:
Location 2 - DumasAt the Dumas loca
Page 108 and 109:
cotton yields to determine lint and
Page 110 and 111:
Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Replicated Dryland LargePlot Demons
Page 120 and 121:
Insecticides:Fertilizer management:
Page 122 and 123:
Table 1. Final plant map results fr
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Replicated Dryland Cotton Variety T
Page 128 and 129:
Results and Discussion:Significant
Page 130 and 131:
Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 132 and 133:
125Plains Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 134 and 135:
127Blanco Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 136 and 137:
129Dawson County Dryland RACE Demon
Page 138 and 139:
131Lynn County Irrigated RACE Demon
Page 140 and 141:
Subsurface Drip Irrigation Pre-plan
Page 142 and 143:
Effects of Variable In-Season Irrig
Page 144 and 145:
Table 1. Response of commercially a
Page 146 and 147:
Table 1. cont. †BrandVarietyVerti
Page 148 and 149:
There were six locations planted in
Page 150 and 151:
Table 2. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 152 and 153:
Table 4. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 154 and 155:
Table 6. Effect of variety on HVI r
Page 156 and 157:
Table 7. cont.Variety bRel.ValueRan
Page 158 and 159:
High Plains (TASS 1N and 1S)Planted
Page 160 and 161:
Lubbock Air TemperaturesMay, 2012Te
Page 162 and 163:
Lubbock Air TemperaturesSeptember,
Page 164 and 165:
Precipitation (inches)4.0LTA20123.0
Page 166 and 167:
Are side-by-side plots more valuabl
Page 168:
Is a one-year test valid, or are se
show all

Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?