,\"." OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS. Place in book return to remove A ,T.Ch_mo from circulation records DIFFERENETAL RESPONSE OF COLORED AND NON-COLORED BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS Lg) TO A COMPACTED CHARITY CLAY By Jerry Lynn Taylor A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 1981 ABSTRACT DIFFERENTAL RESPONSES OF COLORED AND NON-COLORED DRY BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.) TO A COMPACTED CHARITY CLAY SOIL By Jerry Lynn Taylor Differences in plant response due to soil compaction were studied using two black and two white-seeded cultivars. Compaction resulted in increased bulk density, soil moisture levels and decreased air porosity. Compaction decreased the accumulation of roots at 14.0 cm and 21.6 cm depths and increased accumulation of roots in the surface 6.4 cm . Adverse effects of soil compaction included decreased shoot dry matter accumulation, plant height, and increased starch retention in roots and stems. Pod abscission was higher for plants grown on compacted plots. In contrast to other studies seed yield of black-seeded cultivars were reduced more than white-seeded cultivars. Yield comparisons of seven pairs of near-isolines, white and black-seeded showed a 28 percent reduction in seed yield due to compaction. Sixty-five cultivars grown at two levels of soil compaction for two years revealed a 13.1 percent reduction in seed yield due to compaction. To Kim and Jeff ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. M. W. Adams, my major professor, for his moral support, kindness and valuable guidance throughout this study and during thesis preparation. A special thanks to T. Falk, A. Guri, S. McBurney and others on the 1979 root soil sampling crew, for their assistance in taking soil core samples and washing roots. Also thanks to J. Pipoly for his assistance in collection of data on plant growth parameters. My special thanks extended to Dr. C. Cress for his patience and suggestions for statistical analysis. I am also very grateful to Dr. A. W. Saettler, Dr. A. Ghaderi, Dr. G.L. Hosfield, Dr. D. Christenson, and Dr. L. S. Robertson for their suggestions. I am very grateful to those who are very special to me, my wife Sandy, daughter Kim, and son Jeff, for their under- standing and sacrifices made during the course of this study. I wish to thank the members on my committee, Dr. M. W. Adams, Dr. G. L. Hosfield, Dr. L. S. Robertson, Dr. A. W. Saettler, and Dr. A. J. M. Smucker for their review of this study. iii L‘J «9—: EB TABLE OF CONT I Page LIST OF TABLES ..................................... v LIST OF FIGURES .................................... X INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 LITERAT ‘URER EVIEW .................................. 3 MATERIAL AND METHODS ............................... 11 RESULTS AED DISCUSSION ............................. 24 1.0 SOIL AND ROOT DATA ....................... 24 2.0 f& qVE GROUN VEGE TATIVE GROE’TH (lLQAlH-JTl-JR) 000000000000000000000000000000 42 "Tj 3.0 4.0 ECONOMIC (SEED) YI LD OF SEAFAREI, LAET REPRODUCTION PARAMETER.............. 59 BLACK T RTLLS UP, SA: r-T’ERI'A..E RAID IIFIP- 2 STRIAILFPJ IN OTIER TEST 00000000000000 66 5.0 COTOPIC YIWE ED OF SEVEN PAIRS CF ‘Thle‘IIDCL-LA«#300000000000000000000000000000 70 6.0 COMPARISON ON SEED YIELD OF 65 CULT IVARS ACROSS THO LEVELS OF SOIL COME AC ‘TION IN 1979, 1980 AND TH-4 TWO YEAR AVERAGE ...... 75 SUI‘ZIL'JIXRY AI‘ID COIICLUSIOIIS 0000000000000000000000000000 83 A‘DPTSIIDIX OOOOOOOOOOOOOO..000OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO 88 LITERIXTURT‘: CITED 0000000000000000.000000000000000000 10} iv Table 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. LIST OF TABLES Analysis of Variance Format................ Effects of compaction on bulk density in soil profile level one of Charity Clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979000000000000000.00000000000000000000 Effect of compaction on bulk density in soil profile level two of a Charity Clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979000000000000000000000000000000000000 Averaged soil bulk densities at three soil profile levels averaged over strains of a Charity Clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979............... Percent volumetric moisture in a Charity Clay soil at three soil profile levels at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979..... Simple correlations on a sample basis between bulk density and percent volumetric moisture at three soil profile levels of a Charity Clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27’ 1979000000000000000000000000000000000 Percent soil solids, soil moisture, and soil air at three soil profile levels of a Charity Clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27’ 19790000....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Average root weights over four varieties at each of three soil profile levels as determine on July 6, 1979 on the Bean and Beet Research FarmOOOCOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO0.0......0...... Correlations between root weights and soil parameters. Root weights averaged over four varieties sampled on July 6, 1979 at the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm00000000000000000 Averaged soil bulk density on six soil profile levels of a Charity Clay soil taken at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on AuSUStaa’197900000000000000000000000000000 Page 19 24 25 26 26 27 28 d 30 31 Table 11. 12. 13a. 13b. 14. 15. 16. 17. Page Percent volumetric moisture of soil sample take at six profile levels of Charity clay soil on August 28, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm......................... 32 Percent soil solids, saturation and air of soil samples taken at six profile levels, at two rates of soil compaction on August 29, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm.. 33 Average root weights (air-dried, in grams) of non-colored Seafarer and NEP-Z varieties at six soil profile levels on two levels of soil compaction on September 9, 1979 at the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farmoooooooooooooooo 36 Average root weights (air-dried, in grams) of colored Black Turtle Soup and San-Fernando strains at six soil profile levels on two levels of soil compaction on September 9, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm..... 3? Comparisons of plant populations of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and NEP-Z strains at two levels of soil compaction at the Bean and Beet Research ‘Farm on June 2, 19790000000000.000000000no. #2 Shoot dry matter accumulations at flowering of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and NEP-Z stains at two levels of soil compaction on July 12, 1979 at the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farmooooooooooooooooooooooooo #3 Shoot dry matter accumulation at mid-pod filling of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-Z strains at two levels of soil compaction on July 31, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm......... #4 Shoot dry matter accumulation at physiolgoical maturity for Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 at two levels of soil compaction on July 18, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm....................... #5 vi Table 18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 24. Page Height of plant canopy at 46 days from emergence of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and NEP-2 at two levels of soil compaction on July 18, 1979 at the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm................. 46 Starch ratings in roots at flowering, July 12; mid-pod filling, July 31; and physiological maturity, September 9, 1979 of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and HEP-2 strains at two levels of soil com-- paction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.. 58 Starch ratings in stems at flowering, July 12; mid-pod filling, July 31; and physiological maturity, September 9, 1979 of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research FarmOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOC00.0.00....0... 6O Pod length, in cm, at two day intervals of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and HEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research FarmCOOOOOOI.OOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0....0.0.0.0.... 61 Percent Pod Abscission of Seafarer, Black Turlte Soup, San-Fernando, and HEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm................................ 62 Days from emergence to flowering and to physiological maturity, for non-compacted and compacted treatment, respectively, for Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and NEP-Z strains on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.................. 63 Seed weight in grams of one hundred seeds of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and HEP-2 strains grown at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm in 1979.00.00.000000000000000......OI... 614- vii Table Page 25. Economic (seed) yield in kg/ha of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains on two levels of soil compaction in 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm.. 65 26. Seed yield data in kg/ha on Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction in secondary experiments in 1979 on the Bean and Beet Research Farm................ 67 27. Analysis of variance for economic yield of seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans grown in 1979 at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.....OOOOOOOOO0.0COCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 7O 28. Economic (seed) yield in kg/ha of seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans two-way table strain vs treatment. Grown in 1979 at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm................ 71 29. Two-way interaction of soil compaction treatment vs seed color on seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans grown in 1979 on the Bean and Beet Research Farm............. 72 30. Economic (seed) yield in kg/ha of seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans (black and white-seeded) grown at two levels of soil compaction at the Bean and Beet Research Farm in 19790.ooooooooooooooooooooooo0.00.00 74 31. Comparisons of seed yield, above or below the average yield, across two levels of soil compaction, on 65 dry bean cultivars grown in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm.....0.00....COO...IOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCC 75 32. Comparisons of seed yields of 65 cultivars in high or low yielding groups across two levels of soil compaction at the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm in 1979 and 19800000000009.000 78 33. Seed yield analysis of variance of 64 cultivars grown for two years at two levels of soil compaction in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm................ 79 viii A} 0 AA. Record of climatic conditions for the Months of April thru September.............. Seed yields of 65 entries on non-compacted and compacted plots in 1979 grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm................. Seed yield of 65 entries on non-compacted and compacted plots in 1980 grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm................. Seed yield of 65 entries on non—compacted and compacted plots, averaged over two years, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm....OOOOOOOOIOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...O Average performance of 22 high yielding cultivars, grown in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm................. Average performance of 20 medium yielding cultivars grown in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm................. Average performance of 22 low yielding cultivars grown in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm................. ix \0 O) 100 101 102 Figure 1. 2. .4. 5. 6. 9. LIST OF FIGURES Field layout used on the Bean and Beet Research Farm, 1979.................... Soil core sample. Soil sample divided into 18 cubes with a volume of 430 cc each. Soil core is 7.62 thick............... Phase two of root washer used to separate soil from roots in November 19790.ooooooocoo-00.000000...coco-0000000000 Seafarer plants from non-compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm.....O0.0IOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Black Turtle Soup from non—compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm.....o......................... Plants of San-Fernando from non-compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet ReseaI‘Ch Farm.....OOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...0.. Plants of NEP-2 from non-compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm........................... Seafarer on non-compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm............. Seafarer on compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.......... Page 12 15 17 39 39 41 Ln 49 49 Figure 10. 11. 12. 15. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. Black Turtle Soup on non-compacted plots A0 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.............................. Black Turtle Soup on compacted plot #0 days after emergence, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm, July 13, 1979...... San-Fernando on non-compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.... San-Fernando on compacted plots #0 days after emergence, July 13, 1979 grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm............. NEP-2 on non-compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm......... NEP-2 on compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farm....OOOOOOOOOOOOO Seafarer at flowereing on non-compacted plots 45 days after emergence, July 18, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm........... Seafarer at flowering on compacted plots #5 days after emergence, July 18, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm.... Seafarer plants from non-compacted and compacted plants approaching physoilogical maturity, August 8, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet ResearCh Farmooooooooooooooooo xi Page 51 51 53 53 55 55 57 57 69 20. Comparing two year averaged yield on the compacted soil treatment of the ten highest and ten lowest yielding cultivars on non-compacted soil treatment averaged over two years on the Bean and Beet Research Farm in 1979 and 1980.00.00.00000000000000000000000.00... Stability of yield of three cultivars over four environments, at two levels of soil compaction and two years grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm in 1979 and 1980.0I00000.0000.000000000000000...o... xii 79 82 INTRODUCTION An erratic decline over several years in average yield of navy bean (Phaégglgg‘zulggzig L‘) in Michigan accented the need for increased research. Variety selection, soil fertility, disease, seed quality, soil management, nematodes, and weed control are production aspects now being studied. While meteorological changes in temperature and moisture can cause fluctuating yields in beans, such effects generally average out over several years. While we cannot control the weather, it is possible to modify both the physical and chemical properties of soils used for bean production through the process of soil management. Most of Michigan's beans are grown on the fine textured soils of the Saginaw Valley and the thumb area of the state. Such soils require a high degree of skillful management. With the decrease in livestock numbers and the associated forage crops, and an increase in cash crop Operations, soil physical problems have become more prevalent. The use of larger and heavier farm tractors and implements seemingly has increased the soil compaction problems. The use of large flotation tires on tractors and machinery to reduce the pressure per unit area, is partly nullfied when treading wet soils. Compacted soil cause low crop yields because of oxygen deficiencies mechanical impedance to root penetration and soil crusting. In addition, stress caused by drought or excessive precipitation are accentuated in compacted soils. This research was undertaken to study the determine the effects of soil compactions by impliments on growth characteristics of different strains of dry beans. The objective was to determine the extent soil compaction affected plant growth and yield of dry beans. LITERATURE REVIEW Economic yield reduction and slower vegetative growth rates of agronomic crops when grown under conditions of soil compaction have led to the study of soil compaction by wheeled traffic as a contributing cause of the declining yields of beans (Phaseglus zglgagis .) grown on these soils. Data on other agronomic crops grown at various levels of soil compaction strongly implicate compaction as a causative factor of low yields. The degree of compaction of soil is directly related to moisture content of the soil when compactive forces are applied (Nelson 23 al., 1967; Blake gtpal., 1976; Strandberg and White, 1979). As depth from the soil surface increased, soil moisture content increased (Nelson 23 §;., 1967). Any increase in soil bulk density reduces macroporosity, resulting in a decreased water intake, and restricted gas movement, as reported by Nelson 23 a;., 1967. Blake gt,al., 1976 Showed that soil compaction impeded internal drainage, decreased volume of macropore space, and increased root impedance. Any decrease in macropore space, the easily dried pore space, would effect soil water properties. Micropore spaces hold soil water with increased force thus restrict soil water movement. (Blake gt §;., 1976), also stated that soil permeablility, either in saturated or unsaturated condition of moisture, was reduced by packing or by an increase in bulk density. 4 When moisture potential was greater than or less than that giving optimun yield, there was a reduction in yield, according to Forsythe and Legorda (1978). Seed production loss per unit bar of moisture potential suction change was 15 times greater where the matric suction was less than the optimun value, than when greater than the optimun value. With increasing moisture potential suction evaportranspiration decreased. Morris and Daynard (1978) stated that soil compaction can accentuate excess water stress. Excess water stress may be responsible for growth and yield restrictions that are frequently associated with compaction. Under field conditions soil compaction can seriously restrict water uptake and root elongation and hence the volume of soil in close contact with plant roots. Blake gt,al.,.(1976), stated that an air-filled volume fraction of 0.1 comprised a critical threshold level for 02 diffusion in the soil. Gill, Phillips, and Kirkham (1972) reported that a concentration of 02 in the soil air greater than 10% was adequate for plant growth. Thus, the con- centration of 02 in the soil air would be just as important as the total air-filled volume of the soil. Plants get 02 from soil water, and 02 in soil water must be maintained by diffusion from the soil air. Hopkins and Patrick (1969) reported that soil com- paction and 02 content interacted in their effect on root penetration. At highest soil compaction and lowest 02 levels, little or no root penetration occurred. At inter- mediate levels, both factors were operative in root penetration, but at Optimun levels of either factor root penetration was governed by the other factor. Root penetration and soil compaction were highly related when oxygen concentration was high enough for adequate 02 diffusion. Hopkins and Patrick (1969) stated in finer textured soil that 02 content may be a more limiting factor than mechanical impedance. In a greenhouse experiment which measured vegetative growth of green beans, and cotton, a reduction in dry shoot weights due to periods of low soil 02 was reported by Letey gt a;., (1962). Little or no root growth occurred during periods of low 02, and plants used less water. There was a definite time lag for recovery in root penetration at a normal 02 level after a period of low 02 levels. Low soil 02 is most detrimental during the early stages of growth, following germination. Green bean plants were not able to survive seven days of low 02 levels during the early stage of growth. Lemon and Wiegand (1962) reported that the rate of metabolic 02 uptake by root tissue varied with variety and physiological age of the tissue. When 02 was plentiful the "substrate supply" at the reaction locus determined the reaction rate, a chemical process sensitive to temper- ature. When 02 at the root surface was below the critical level, diffusion controlled the rate of 02 uptake, a physical process insensitive to temperature. The critical 02 level concentration at the root surface is strongly dependent upon the radius of the root, and the diffusion coefficient of 02 within the root. Nelson 33 al., (1975) reported that roots cannot grow into openings smaller than a root diameter. Thus, roots in a compacted soil must follow voids or avenues of weakness. Voorhees gtpgl., (1971) in a study of root penetration of non-compacted and compacted soil aggregates as compared with porous aggregates, which allowed roots to grow into and through. As density of soil aggregates increased so did aggregate strength and impedance to root penetration. Barley 33 gl., (1965) indicated that soil strength has an important influence on the penetration of clods (aggregates) or finely structured layers by plant roots of peas and wheat. Roots on non-compacted plots had more extensive distribution of finer roots (Blake gt a;., 1976). Taylor 2; al., (1963) concluded that root penetration is a function not only of soil strength but also of soil porosity-size continuity and tortuosity of voids within the soil. Thruman and Pokorny (1969) reported in studies with Bermuda grass that root length and dry weight of roots and tops decreased as compaction pressure increased. Fisher gt gl., (1975) investigated barley and kale grain on sandy clay loam, with wet and dry plowing and cultivating, ploughing when wet increased mean bulk density from 1.35 to 1.4 grams per cm3 . Wet cultivation reduced air porosity from 17.3 to 1A.1 cm} per 100 cm} . Dry matter accumulation of kale and vegetative growth of young barley were reduced by wet plowing and wet cultivation. Investigations by Smittle and Williamson (1977) indicated an 80% reduction in root growth due to tractor wheel com- paction. Soil strength increased, soil porosity decreased and dry root weight decreased with depth; as soil bulk density increased, soil strength increased, except for the 0 to 8 cm level of soil. Compacted plots yielded 25 to 35 percent less with a 50 percent reduction of tissue N03 and a decrease in fruit length/diameter ratio. Smitlle gtpgl., (1978) indicated that yield responses to nitrogen were dif- ferent when cucumbers were grown on non-compacted and com- pacted sites. Smittle gt‘al., (1977) reported studies on squash grown on a Tifton loamy sand; fruit yield was reduced by 46 to 58 percent by increased soil strength produced by tractor wheel traffic. Root dry weights were higher for 7.6 to 15.2, 15.2 to 22.9, and 22.9 to 30.5 cm levels, on the non-compacted plots; but the surface to 7.6 cm levels had higher root weights on the compacted plots. Soil compaction reduced nitrogen use efficency, as indicated by both petiole N03 analysis and economic yield. Investigations with carrots on an organic soil by Strandberg and White (1979) revealed tap roots were sign: ificantly shorter as soil strength increased. Impeded roots were thicker, convoluted and had increased branching. Olymbias and Schuabe (1978) in a greenhouse experiment with carrots, stated as mechanical resistance to root elongation increased in soil, that air capacity decreased affecting patterns of dry matter distribution between roots and tops. Reduction in root weight was 32 percent compared to a 19% reduction for tops. This was caused by the combined effects of lowered aeration and increased mechanical pressure. Economic yield of soybeans decreased with increased traffic from 0 to 8 passes of a tractor wheel on a 1.1 m row width. First pass caused a greater increase in soil strength than subsequent passes (Nelson 25 al., 1975). Com- paction of the whole profile of a La Morgot soil by 21 bars of pressure produced low yields and short plants of red kidney beans (Huertas, 1975). A high positive relation was found between penetration resistance and bulk density, and high negative relation between penetration resistance and the percent of soil porosity. Soil compaction reduced phosphate availability and increased mositure stress by impeding root growth (Janssen 25‘§;., 1977). An increase in soil strength gave rise to an increase in the cation exchange capacity of roots and carboxyl groups on the roots (Kulkarni and Sarant, 1977). Persistence of sub-soil compaction in a Mollisol was easily identified by penetrometer measurements nine years after a 7.5 bar pressure was applied to the bottom of the plow furrow. Bulk density did not change, and corn and alfalfa mean root weights were reduced 36 percent in the no to 90 cm soil layer. Packing affected the distribution of tap roots and fibrous roots in the profile (Blake 1976). Zone of compaction lasted two years in a sandy loam, even when wheel traffic was absent. Working soil early produced a good surface tilth, but left a compaction zone beneath (Pollard and Elliott, 1975). Growth and grain of spring barley were adversely affected by soil compaction which was related to wet soil conditions. ‘ Surface compaction had more influence on the date of heading of sorghum and sudangrass because of the importance of the physical condition of the sub-plow layer on the mature plant (Wittsell and Hobb, 1965). Weathering and the action of plant growth over three cropping seasons were not effective in improving water permeability of the compacted surface. Snap bean root and shoot weights were higher at lower moisture stress and increased with an increase in soil aeration (Schulteios and Kattan, 1971). Miller and Burke (1977) concluded that aggravation of root rot by low 02 diffusion rates is the principal cause of plant stunting and yield reduction that result from temporary excessive wetting of the soil in Egsggium infested soil. Near zero 02 levels in the soil air increased bean root injury by the fungus. Bean roots are restricted by relatively more compacted soil, such as that below the bottom of disked and plowed layers, (Burke.§p §;., 1972). Bean roots are 1O geotropic, but tend to grow laterally on compacted horizontal soil layers such as disk and plow soles. Phillips and Kirkham (1972) identified the problem in determining the exact mechanism by which soil compaction reduces plant growth, a difficulty in separating out effects of root impedance, soil density, poor aeration, and excess moisture stress. From the stand-point of water and nutrient uptake, a considerable volume of soil must be explored under most field conditions to satisfy plant requirements (Voorhees ;§$'§;., 1975). Thus, the most efficient root configuration for total water and nutrient uptake should allow near- maximun rates of both root branching and root elongation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Field research was conducted at the Saginaw Valley Bean and Beet Research Farm near Saginaw, Michigan in 1979. The soil is a Charity clay (containing 53% clay and in soil management group 1 c-c). It was used for this study because it has an unstable structure. Soil test results showed a pH of 7.6 with 38, 507, 11277, and 1854 kg/hectare of "available" P, K, Ca, and Mg, respectively. This soil contains 4.7% organic matter. The previous crop was corn. The soil was moldboard plowed in October of 1978 to a depth of 23 cm . The plot area was marked on two opposite sides by flags, spaced 6.4 m apart. By centering on these flags a traffic control pattern was established, where no wheel tracks were on the individual plots. (Fig. 1) Spraying and all secondary tillage was performed following the same tractor wheel marks. This traffic control pattern provided an alley 1.5 m wide between ranges of plots and 4.9 m for length of individual plots. Soil compaction was accomplished by use of a sheep's- foot traffic packer on May 18, 1979. It penetrated the soil surface approxiamtely 10 cm , with a pressure of 4.22 kg/cm2 . The intent was to leave the top (0-7) cm of soil relatively non-compacted for better seed germination and plant emergence. An International 656 tractor, weight approximately 3000 kg was used to pull the sheep's-foot packer; which 11 12 wees 950% we mpmflmcoo poam comm * 30m cmom AmCHpsmHmv mxomae Hmong howomaa IIOII Aewmaaflpv mxomae Hoes; AOpomaB III: phage 5:.w mmmam x .F magma; .mmmp .smmm noamomom been one comm opp so new: psommq names 8-8 0 . m _1v_( soil. on . o ”1 w .1 o o a ; IJIII. o u n n ,F . m “ V1 M n . .1 O _ no vi, 0 O a O A O 11: I. m H . . . M _ d u . T - F . .1 O O m 0 - _ , u N.“ . 5.4.00 _ Hm _ O 13 meant that some surface compaction (0.85 kg/cma) would be present. Two passes of the sheep's-foot traffic packer were used on the compacted treatment. Some variation in surface compaction could be expected since approximately 60 percent of the soil surface was treated by tractor wheels. All secondary tillage was done using a spring tooth harrow 6.6 m wide with two passes over both non-compacted and compacted plots to smooth and level the soil surface. A preplant tank mix of Eptam (2.5 kg.ha) and Treflan (0.6 kg/ha) was used for weed control, which was incorporated once by the spring tooth drag. Planting was done with a Ford 3000 tractor, pulling a mounted three-point hitch modified "Plantair" precision planter (Taylor, 1975). The tractor wheels were centered 2.03 m apart which straddled four rows spaced 50.8 cm apart. Out side rows were used as guard rows with all data collected from the center two rows. May 25 through 27 were planting dates with soil and soil moisture in good to excellent condition. An 18-46-0 fertilizer with 5% Mn and 2% Zn was banded to one side and below the seed at a rate of 314 kg/ha planting. Disyston for root worm control was applied in the fertilizer band at 9 kg/ha. Data was collected on four dry bean varieties, (Phaseolus 12;g§zl§‘é‘), namely, Seafarer, a commerical bush navy; Black Turtle Soup, a semi-vine type grown commericially; San-Fernando, a black colored semi-vine upright type, and 1L1 NEP-2, a white mutant of San-Fernando, also an upright semi-vine type. Also included was a set of seven pairs of near-isolines, of black and white seed color grown on similar compacted and non-compacted plots. A tractor mounted soil core sampler was used to collect all soil samples (Srivastava, 2; al., 1980). Each soil core was divided by a fractionator (Srivastava gt a;., 1980) into six sets of three, 7.5 cm cubes. The mid-point depths were 6.4, 14.0, 21.6, 29.2, 36.8, and 44.5 cm below soil surface (Fig.2). One dry bean plant was centered approximately 2 cm from the side of the soil core samples. When fractionated the tap root would be at the outside edge at level one. (Fig.2) Soil core samples were taken on June 27, Ju1y7, August 28, and September 9. Samples for soil bulk density and soil moisture were collected on June 27, August 28, and September 9. Core samples taken on June 27 and July 7 included only the 6.4, 14.0, and 21.6 cm depths, whereas core samples taken on August 28 and September 9 contained all six depths. Each core sample contained 430 cc. Three soil cores at each level, e.g. 6.4 cm, were averaged for data point. Soil moisture was calculated on a dry weight basis. Bulk density was measured in grams per cubic centenmeters weight/volume. Percent moisture on a volumetric basis was calculated by multipling percent moisture (gravitational) by bulk density. Percent total pore space equals one minus 15 Position of Plant 3 1 - Soil Distance from Surface Surface to Mid-cube Level 1 6.4 cm Level 2 14.0 cm Level 3 21.6 cm 8 O a: 4— Level 4 29.2 cm Level 5 36.8 cm Level 6 44.5 cm 25.4 cm Figure 2. Soil core sample. Soil sample divided into 18 cubes with a volume of 430 cc each. Soil core is 7.62 cm thick. 16 bulk density divided by particle density times one hundred. Percent saturation is equal to percent moisture (valumetric) divided by percent total pore space (Baver, gt al., 1972). To use the preceding equations, it must be assumed that particle density of a soil is a constant. An average value of 2.65 g/cm3 was used without appreciable error, (Baver gt al., 1972). Another assumption is that bulk density is constant at changing moisture contents. The Charity clay soil, containing 53% clay, swells with an increase moisture. Thus bulk density increases as this clay lost moisture (Baver §£_§l., 1972). This is a volumetric decrease per given volume of soil with amount of particles remainig the same. No account for soil with swelling and shrinking, by an increase or decrease in moisture was used in this study. Samples taken on July 7, August 28, and September 9 for root data were soaked in sodium sesquicarbonate and sodium tripolyphosphate solution for 24 hours to disperse soil aggregates. They were washed in an air bubbled water stream (Fig. 3), McBurney 2; al., (1981). Roots were collected on a fiberglass screen with a rectangular opening of 0.15 cm by 0.18 cm. Roots were washed again with water and lose organic was removed by hand, with forceps. Water was removed by filtering with #4 filter paper, the residual material was allowed to air dry and was weighted. Several root samples were entangled with organic matter to such 17 .43 K ’Root Collection Screen ~¢————-10.2 cm ID PVC Pipe Soil, Root Mass / 1:1 I} Figure 3. II \\\”d”””,.Air Bubbled Water Enter Here Phase two of root washer used to separate soil from roots in November 1979. 18 an extent that they were discarded. Stand counts were taken 15 days after emergence. Two 3 m row samples were counted per plot. Also, flowering dates were recorded and measured from day of emergence, (when 50 percent of the plants in a plot were flowering). At this time a solution containing 1 gram each of Ia and 1 gram of KI per 100 ml distilled H20 (Sass, 1958) was used to measure starch at the mid cross-section of the second internode of the stem and cross-section of the tap root 3 to 5 cm below the soil surface. Starch readings were subjective and ranged from 1 (no stain) to 5 (near complete staining of the cross section). Four plants per replication per treatment per strain were taken for these data. Starch readings were repeated at mid-pod and at physiological maturity. Canopy heights were measured on July 18. Three measurements were taken per plot and averaged for each data point. No extension of the plant stems or branches were done during measuring. Pod growth rate was measured every other day for a period of 8 days. Twenty pods per replication, per treatment, per strain, were selected and tagged when initial measurement was made between 1 to 1.5 cm in length. Due to time difference strains in flowering, these measurements were taken at different times for strains, but not treatments. Also, data was taken on percent of pods lost between first and last measurements. 19 Maturity was based on PM and measured from day of emergence. Four meters of row were hand pulled, field dried, and threshed with a hand-fed plot thresher. Beans were cleaned using hand screens and weighed. No adjustment for moisture was made. Weight per 100 seeds and harvest index are shown. Due to grouping of replications for compacted and non- compacted treatments, a semi-split plot design was in- corporated into the analysis of variance. Sums of squares for replications and the interaction of treatment sums of square x replications sums of squares were added together for error A. Sub-plots were treated as usual in split plot design. An analysis of variance (Table 1) was performed; Table 1. Analysis of Variance Format Source Deggee 9f Ezeedom Treatment (t-1) 1 Error A (r-1)+(r-1)(t-1) 4 Strain (s-1) 3 Strain x Treatment (s-1)(t-1) 3 Error B (r-1)(s-1)+(t-1)(r-1)(s-1) 12 Yield data on seven pairs of isolines (black and white colored seed coats) are included. No root or soil data were taken on this test, but the non-compacted, compacted, and tillage treatments were the same as used on the four strains. 20 These tests were included to see if other strains of beans have the same effects as the four cultivars used in this study. The seven isoline.pairs were added to study possible differential response 0f black and white colored strains. These seven pairs of near-isolines included white and black lines from NEP-2 and Black Turtle Soup crosses, also white mutant lines from Black Turtle Soup, N 203, and San-Fernando black seeded lines. In 1979 and 1980, advanced breeding lines were tested for yield at a non-compacted and compacted level. Yield testing at two levels of compaction increases cost, since more land and labor is needed per breeding line than with one level of soil compaction. To determine if we could eliminate the compacted treatment without losing our selection efficiencey, the following study was conducted. Sixty-five entries, both black and white, including seven commerical varieties used as checks, were selected for this study. Entry selection was based on each breeding line grown and harvested in both 1979 and 1980 on the Saginaw Bean and Beet Research Farm on non-compacted and compaCted sites. These entries had not been previously selected for yield performance at different levels of soil compaction. Entries were ranked, on yield data, from 1 to 65 for each level of treatment for 1979 and 1980 and on the average over both years. The average and the standard deviation for each level of treatment for each and two year average, were calculated. Each ranking ( 1 through 65) 21 was divided into three groups: Group one; those entries yielding higher than one half the standard deviation above the average. Group two; those entries yielding no more nor less than one half the standard deviation above or below the average, respectively. Group three; those entries yielding lower than one half the standard deviation below the average. Each level of treatment for each year and average over two years had its own particular average and standard deviation. The entries (advance breeding lines) in group one of non- compacted treatment were compared to the entries in group one of the compacted treatment for each year. The number of entries that were common to both groups were divided by the total number in that particular group for a percentage rating. Similarly low yielding entries in group three of both treatments were compared. The higher this percentage figure, the more similar these entries yielded across treatments. ' For yield data averaged over two years, entries were given either a plus if above the average or minus if below the average for each level of treatment. If yield for both levels of treatment, for each entry, were above the average (+,+) or below the average (-,-) it was considered a match; if one treatment was above the average (+) and the other one below (-) the average it was not a match. The more matches there were, the more entries that yielded above the average for both treatments or below the average for'both treatments. 22 An anlysis of variance was calculted on yield for the two years at both treatment levels. The sources of variation that should be tested would be compaction (two levels), years, the interaction of compaction times year, entry, entry times compaction interaction, and entry times year interaction. The entry times year times compaction three way interaction was used for testing the above source of variation. 'We would be most interested in the "entry times compaction" interaction. If it should prove significant, there would be a real difference in yield across the compacted and non-compacted treatments for entries. We could not drop (without loss of sufficient information) the compacted treatment since low yielding lines on non- compacted might be high yielding on non-compacted treatment and vice versa. None-the-less if " entry times compaction" interaction proved not significant, then there would be reason to eliminate the compacted treatment since low yielding lines would tend to yield low for both treatments and high yielding lines would tend to yield high for both treatments. A correlation analysis was calculated between yield on non-compacted and compacted plots averaged over two years. A high correlation coefficient near untiy would indicate that low yielding lines would yield low and high yielding lines would yield high at both treatments. A correlation coefficient near zero would indicate no or little 23 predictability on what a line would yield on the compacted treatment from known performance on the non-compacted treatment. The 65 cultivars were rated by regression on their performance over different environments (Eberhart and Russel, 1966). There are four environments in this study, two years of testing at two levels of soil compaction. Each environment has an environmental index which is equal to the average yield for all lines for that particular environment. Yield values for each cultivar are regressed against the environmental indexes. From this regression a response line of slope, b, and the sums of deviation from regression, d2, are calculated. A desired cultivar would have a high average yield, a slope, b near 1, indicating a cultivar stable over environments, and the deviations from regression, d2, was small as possible. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1.0 Soil and Root Data 1.1.1 Soil Sampling on June 22. Highly significant differences were found between bulk densities of compacted and non-compacted treatments at soil profile level one (6.4cm) and level two (14.0cm), but not at level three (21.6cm) on June 27 (Table 2 and 3). The low values for replication and treatment times replication sums of squares compared to treatment sum of squares indicate little interaction for replication and treatment times replication sources of variation. This indicates a true difference between compacted and non-compacted treatments. Table 2. Effect of compaction on bulk density in soil profile level one of a Charity clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979. Analysis of Variance §Q§p§e df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Treatment 1 .0968 .0968 47.5** Replication 2 .0011 .0006 .27 Treatment x Replication 2 .0161 .0081 3.95 Error 12 .0245 .0020 Total 17 .1386 ..... 2L1 25 Table 3. Effect of compaction on bulk density in soil profile level two of Charity clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979. Analysis of Vgriance Sgggge (gr Sum of Squares Mean Sgggres F Treatment 1 .0365 .0365 29.69** Replication 2 .0020 .0010 .82 Treatment x Replication 2 .0021 .0011 .86 Error 12 .0147 .0012 Total 17 .0553 ..... Table 4 indicates that differences between soil bulk densities between treatments were greatem'near the soil surface and decreased as depth below soil surface increased. Averaged differences were 0.15, 0.09, and 0.00 for levels 1,2, and 3 respectively. Due to the soil core sampling procedure, no difference in soil bulk densities between different strains of dry beans were taken. 26 Table 4. Averaged soil bulk densities at three soil profile levels averaged over strains of a Charity clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979. Soil Profile Soil Profile. Soil Profile Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 (6-4 CAI.) (14 92; (2.145.920. Non-compacted 1.16 1.30 1.37 Compacted 1.31 1.39 1.37 LSD (.05) .046 .03 Note: Values are in grams/cc of oven dry soil Percent moisture on a volumetric basis showed a highly significant difference for soil profile levels one and two (Table 5). These average percent volumetric moisture figures were highly correlated, r: 0.98, with the average bulk density figures in Table 4. Table 5. Percent volumetric moisture in a Charity clay soil at three soil profile levels at the Bean and Beet Reserach Farm on June 27, 1979. Profile Profile Profile Lgygll1 Level 2;, Levgl_3__ Non-compacted 32.0 38.5 40.3 Compagted 837.3 41.0 l39.4 LSD (.95) ¥_2‘25 1.86 NS Simple correlations were calculated between bulk density (BD) and percent volumetric moisture (PVM) at each soil profile level (Table 6). Highest correlations are shown between level one and two for ED 1 versus Bd 2, BD 1 versus PVM 1, and PVM 1 versus PVM 2. All three correlations 27 between level one and level three are negative, but near zero. Apparently, bulk density and soil moisture in level three had little relationship with levels one and two. Table 6. Simple correlations on a sample basis between bulk density and percent volumetric moisture at three soil profile levels of a Charity clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979. _;ng BD 2 PVM 1 PVM 2 PVM 3 BD 1 1.00 --- w.72 --- -_- BD 2 .79 1.00 .57 .52 --- BD 3 -.07 .27 -.04 .16 .36 PVM 2 --- --- .74 1.00 -—- £!h_1‘ - --- _,18 .91 lJ.QQ___ BD = Bulk density PVM = Percent volumetric moisture 1,2,3, = Soil profile levels 1,2,or 3 By using bulk density means, percent volumetric moisture means and the average particle density, percent of volume occupied by soil particles, the percent saturation and percent pore space occupied by air are shown in Table 7. As soil is compressed individual soil particles and water are not compressable thus, air-filled porosity is reduced. Table 7 indicates little changes with depth in pore space occupied by air in the compacted treatment compared to levels one verses level two and three on the non-compacted treatment. The percent pore space occupied by air is apparently, high enough (greater than 10 percent) for root development. 28 Table 7. Percent soil solids, soil moisture, and soil air at three soil profile levels of a Charity clay soil at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 27, 1979. Soil Profile Percent Percent Percent Level Soil Sglid Sgtuzgtign Air 1 43.8(49-4) 56.9(75-5) 43.1(24.5) 2 49.1(52.5) 75.5(78.2) 24.4(21.8) 3 51.7(51.7) 77.9(76.2) 22.0(23.8) Note: ( *)Idenotes values are for the compaction treatment unbracketed values are for the non-compaction treatment Brake (1976) has given an air-filled porosity value of 0.1 as the critical value. The data in table 7 indicates that percent soil particle increased and percent saturation increased as depth from soil surface increased. Percent air-filled porosity of the non-compacted treatments decreased with depth. The non-compacted treatment at level one which had lowest bulk density also had lowest percent saturation and highest percent air-filled porosity. Rainfall for each of the first three weeks after June 27 was 4.78, 1.96, and 9.17 cm , respectively. Pan evaporation for the same weeks were 1.11, 3.18, and 3.25 cm (Table A 1). The relationship between pan evapor- ation and evapotranspiration of dry beans near full canopy is 0.8. Rainfall for the next three weeks, June 27 through July 17 was 15.9 cm . Pan evaporation was 7.5 cm for the same period giving an apparent increase of 15.9 cm rainfall minus the quanity (7.5 cm x 0.8), 9.9 cm of 29 moisture. Tiles did drain, but the amount of water removed by tile drainage is unknown, but evidence points to an increase in soil moisture with a decrease in air-fiil porosity during this period. 1.1.2 Root datg on July 6. No significant differences were found in root weights at any soil profile level, between strains or treatments in samples taken on July 6. Root weights from sample cores were averaged at each level (Table 8). The greatest difference between treatments is the 14.1 percent difference in level two. In level one root weights on compacted plots were larger than in non-compacted plots. Figure 4, 5, 6, and 7 show the horizontal secondary roots of plants in compacted plots that gave larger root weights in level one. The weight of the tap root in level one is not included in either treatment (Table 8). Table 8. Average root weights over four varieties at each of three soil profile levels as determined on July 6, 1979 on the Bean and Beet Research Farm Soil Profile Weigh: ofifiootzl EgggefigigitTotal 1 .0816(.O931)* 47.4(58.3) 2 .0645(.0373) 37.5(23.4) 3 .0260(.0292) 15.1(18.3) T 1:221fll-596) Treatment differences are significant * ( ) denotes compacted treatment Unbracketed denotes non-compacted treatment 30 Simple correlations were calculated between average root weights as related to soil air, bulk density, and soil water, from samples taken on June 27 on both compacted and non-compacted treatments (Table 9). Root weights were positively correlated with soil air, but negatively correlated with bulk density and soil water. Since there were no significant differences between root weights, one shoul be careful not to emphasize the correlations in Table 9, only look at the trends they suggest. As soil bulk density increased weights of collected roots decreased. Table 9. Correlations between root weights and soil parameters. Root weights averaged over 4 varieties, sampled on July 6, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Root Weights Root Weights N Non-compacted Compacted Soil Air 6 .64 .61 Bulk Density 6 -.92* -.98* Soil Water 6 -.60 ‘a68 * significant at P = .05 1.2 Sgil Sggpling at Physiologigal Mgturity 1.2.1 Sgil Bulk Density on August 28. Highly signifiCant differences at soil profile levels one and two and significant differences at levels three and four, with no significant differences in levels five and six were found in soil bulk density at physiological maturity (Table 10). Level one showed the greatest differences of 31 0.22 grams/cc between treatments. Soil bulk density differences decreased with depth with no differences in levels five and six between treatments. Level five and six showed evidence of a hard pan or clay accumulation layer, with an increase in bulk density. The use of secondary tillage (3 times with harrow) did not loosen level one of the compacted treatment. No change was noted between levels 2, 3, and 4 in bulk density on compacted plots. The soil bulk density of the A horizons were 1.23 grams/cc and 1.40 grams/cc on non-compacted and compacted treatments, respectively. Table 10. Averaged soil bulk densities on six soil profile levels of a Charity clay soil taken at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on August 28, 1979. Soil Profile Lgygl, Non-compacted Cgmpgcted Diffeyenge 1(6.4)1 1.152 1.37 0.22H 2(14.0) 1.23 1.42 0.19** 3(21.6) 1.30 1.42 0.12% 4(29.2) 1.35 1.42 0.07* 5(36.8) 1.50 1.52 0.02 6(44.5) 1.48 1.48 0.00 1 cm from mid-point of soil cube to soil surface 2 Grams/cc 32 Table 11. Percent volumetric moisture of soil samples taken at six profile levels of a Charity clay soil on August 28, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Soil Profile Level . N-C C pDifference (c-nc) 1(6o4) 22.1 28.8 6.7** 2(14.0) 24.0 31.4 7.4** 3(21.6) 26.6 29.4 2.8* 4(29.2) 27.1 30.6 5.5* 5(36.8) 30.5 30.6 0.1 6(44.5) 28.7 31.4 2.7* * Significant at .05 ** Significant at .01 1.2.2 Soil Moisture on August 28. Comparison of soil moisture means is presented in Table 11. All levels, except level five, showed either highly significant or significant differences between non-compacted and compacted treatments. Moisture percent was always higher on compacted plots. Percent moisture increased with depth, except at level five, which had the highest bulk density, 1.5 gr/cc, in both treatments. The 31.4 percent moisture in level two of the compacted treatment may be attributed to sampling varietion. 33 Table 12. Percent soil solids, saturation and sir of ' soil samples taken at six profile levels, at two rates of soil compaction on August 28, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. ggéfiile Sgil Particles W§32;_ pg;;_______ Lays; NC c NC 9 ML 0 1 43.4 51.7** 39.0 59.6t* 61.0 40.4 2 46.4 53.6** 44.8 61.1** 55.2 32.3 ' 3 49.1 53.6* 52.3 63.4* 47.7 36.6 4 50.9 53-6* 55.2 65-9* 44.8 34-1 5 56.6 57.4 70.3 71.8 29.7 28.2 6 55.8 55.8* 64.9 71.0 35.1 29.0 All means in percent ** Treatment differences were highly significant * Treatment differences were significant 1.2.3 Soil Structure on August 28, Percent soil solids along with percent saturation and percent air saturation are shown in table 12. The compacted soils have higher moisture saturating percentages, especially soil profile levels one, two, three, and four with 20.6, 23.1, 10.1, and 10.7 percent differences, respectively. Percent of soil pore space which is air decreased with depth below soil surface and decreased as soil bulk density increased. None of the percent air saturation values (Table 12) are below or close to the 0.1 critical air- filled volume fraction given by Blake g;pgl., (1976). These data indicated by the values for percent air-filled pore space, that lack of oxygen was not detrimental to 34 plant growth at this period. Rainfall for the previous three weeks was 0.79 cm and pan evaporation was 7.97 cm thus suggesting a loss of soil moisture and an increase in the air-filled volume fraction for this period (Table A 1). The heavy rain on July 11 of 9.17 cm may have caused a temporary period in which soil moisture saturation was high enough to lower the air-filled volume fraction of the soil below the critical 0.1 volume (Blake 23 gl., 1976). Water remained standing on the compacted soils, but not on the non-compacted soils as long as 24 hours after this rain. 1.3 Plant Roots at Physiological Matuzity. Comparison of mean air-dried root weight showed significant differences at levels two and three with an LSD of .021 and .013 grams, respectively, between non-compacted - and compacted treatments (Table 13a and 13b). In level two Seafarer had the largest difference, .064 grams, with San-Fernando showing difference of .028 grams, and NEP-2 with a difference of .052 grams. In level three Seafarer showed a difference of .017 grams and San-Fernando .014 grams. With.one exception, (Seafarer at level two) root weights for both treatments decreased as depth below soil surface increased. Colored strains had a higher percent of their roots in level one than non-colored strains at both soil compaction levels. Plants in the compacted treatment had a higher percent of their roots in level one than plants in the non-compacted treatment. In level two, differences 35 in percent root weights between treatments were greater for non-colored strains than colored strains. Significant differences between strains occurred only in soil profile level one with an LSD (.05) of .027 grams. Roots of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, and San-Fernando at level one in compacted plots out weighed the corresponding roots produced in the non-compacted plots. NEP-Z was an exception. San-Fernando was the only strain with significant differences in root weights. The short tap root on plants from compacted plots, (Fig. 4,5,6, and 7) illustrates the higher root weights in level one. In the non-compacted plots the tap roots were not obstructed, they elongated deeper into the soil, and thus, less secondary and lateral roots developed in level one. High coefficients of variation, especially in levels four, five and six, among root weights indicate that air- dried weights of roots may not be the best indicator. A system estimating root length, diameter, and number of roots may better indicate relationships with above ground plant parameters. 36 .psmapMoap copommaoo1zo: monocov uopmxomanm: psoapMQAp umpommaoo wouomov A v .nousaosfl no: ma one Ho>oa mo poop awe .mpooa unflaclufim mo madam ca one wpnmfloa HH< .mpfiaanwnonm mo Ho>oa no.0 um memos psosummau somsuon mommaommfip pcmofiMstflm * Aemmm.vwe_:. Ammmm.vwo.:. Amm_m.vswae. annoy Am.m vm.: ANA—o.vmm.o. AJPNO.VMONO. Aw:_o.vmwpo. m A~.m vm.m Awmmo.vmomo. Awom.vu_mo. AwJ—O.v—mmo. m Ao.m vm.m Aommo.vmono. “ammo.v_mmo. Amwmo.vmmmo. : an.m_vm.m_ Aemmo.vwsso. Ammmo.vmoso. .Awsmo.vmmwo. m Am.mpvo.mm Armoo.v:_m_. *Amnuo.vmwmp. Amm¢0.vwm__. m Am.mmvm._n Ammmp.vmmm_. Am___.vammp. Anna..vmmm_. _ pcoohmm wmmuo>< mlmmz hohfimMmm ao>mm maawoym Hflom .samm soamommm poem one seem one as mum— .m Amnsoumom no moauowmsoo Haom mo mHo>oH oHHmonm Haow xam pm mmfipmanm> m1mmz one honeydew uonoaoouco: mo Amamam ca .cmanulnfimv magmams poem ommAm>< .mm. manna 37 vmvsaocfi #0: ma one Ho>oa mo poop mes pamEpMoAQ vopommaoolco: mopocmv ompoxommncb namepwmAp wouommaoo mmposop A V omPOOH UOHHUIHHN .HO wghw CH GHQ WHSWng HAHN . apfiaflanOAm mo Ho>oa no.0 as names psoSHMoap nomsumn monvoQMHv meQRMflmmHm * Aomem.vmwrm. Aowmm.vom_m. A_mo:.vmpmm. naonoa Am.: v_.: Ammpo.v_:_o. Ans—o.vo_.o. A_mpo.v_s.o. m A_.e v_.: Ammmo.vma_o. Amono.vo__o. Aomao.vmu_o. m Aw.o.vw.o Aemmo.vsmmo. Ammm0.vm_mo. Amamo.vmmmo. a as.m_v_.m_ Ao_mo.v_mmo. .Ammmo.vmmmo. Aamao.vsmao. m Am.mmvm.:m Aemmo.vomwo. .Aommo.vmnmo. Awmmo.vmeso. m Am.mevm.:: Aowu_.vm:m_. Amer—.v:___. Arm—m.vmump. _ ymooaom emmnm>< ocmmnhomIQmw mHm1 Hoamm mHHmOAm HHom .aamm sonmommm poem use seem esp pm mum. .m yonamumom no sofipommaoo HHow mo mHo>oH 03» so mao>oa oHHmoAm HHom me pm mmamnpm 06:5:H041cmw one msow mapase xomam cohoaou mo Amamnm ma .pofinclnflmv mpsmHoB pooh ommno>4 .nmp oHQme Figure 4. Figure 5. 38 Seafarer plants from non-compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Black Turtle Soup from non-compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 39 Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. 40 Plants of San-Fernando from non-compacted and compacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Plants of NEP-2 from non-compacted and com- pacted plots 25 days after emergence, June 28, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 41 e6 Figur 7. Figure 42 2.0 Aboye Ground Vegetative Growth (Parametegz 2.1 Plggt Population Plant populations were determined fifteen days after emergence. Mean numbers of plants are shown in Table 14. Thirty-two plants per three meters of row were considered as 100 percent germination. Soil crusting was of no consequence in either treatment. No significant differences were found between compaction treatments. Highly sign- ificant differences were found between strains with an LSD (.05) of 3.7 plants. Poor emergence of NEP-2 was due to poor seed quality, rather than treatment effects. Table 14. Comparisons of plant populations of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction at the Bean and Beet Research Farm on June 2, 1979. Non—oompacted Compacted Number of Number of Plants per Germination Plants per Germination 3 Wm 3 w Percent Seafarer 25.3 .78 24.6 .77 Black Turtle Soup 28.3 .88 26.6 .81 San-Fernado 27.7 .87 27.3 .85 NEP-2 19.0 .59 8.3 .57 LSD (.05) = 3.7 plants between strain means LSD (.05) - 5.6 plants between two strain means at the same treatment 2.2 Dry Matter Accumglgtign Dry matter accumulation was measured at time of flowering, mid-pod filling, and physiological maturity. Comparisons of 43 means determined at flowering show no significant differences between strains. LSD (.05) was 2.6 grams for strains (Table 15). Black Turtle Soup showed it's superiority with the highest dry matter weights. NEP-2's lighter dry matter weights reflect lower plant densities. Table 15. Shoot dry matter accumulations at flowering of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on July 12, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Non-compacted Compacted Non-compacted Advantage Seafarer 11.5 12.9 -1.4 Black Turtle Soup 14.7 15.3 -0.6 San-Fernando 10.7 10.6 0.1 NEP-2 8.4 8.6 -0.2 Average 11.3 11.9 -0.6 Figures are in grams of air-dried plants per 0.5 m of row LSD (.05) = 3.7 grams between strains at the same treatment Comparison of dry matter accumulation at the mid-pod filling stage showed hihgly significant differences between treatment means (Table 16). The LSD (.05) is 7.29 grams with a coefficient of variation of 12,3 percent. San-Fernando showed the widest range between treatments (Table 16). All compacted means were smaller than non-compacted means for corresponding strains. Comparisons between dry matter data at flowereing (Table 15) and at mid-pod filling (Table 16) indicate that NEP-2, even with lower plant population, was able to increase 44 dry matter accumulation to within 9.2 g and 7.4 g of Black Turtle Soup and San-Fernando, respectively, on non- compacted sites. There is a marked increase in the difference between treatments at mid-pod filling, as compared at flowering. At flowering, soil compaction affects on dry matter accumulation were not evident, but they were evident at mid—pod filling. Table 16. Shoot dry matter accumulation at mid-pod filling of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on July 31, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Non-compacted Compacted Non-compacted Advggpage Seafarer 52.6 46.0 6.6 Black Turtle SOUP 7501 [+803 214.07 San-Fernando 71.3 27.2 44.1 NEP-2 63.9 37.9 26.0 Average 65.2 39.9 25.3 Figures are in grams of air-dried plants per 0.5 m of row LSD (.05) = 7.3 grams between treatment LSD (.05) = 8.7 grams between two treatments at the same or different strains. At physiological maturity, dry matter accumulation means were significant between treatments, with an LSD of 42.5 grams. Black Turtle Soup, Sna-Fernando, and NEP-2 showed 49.1 g, 121.6 g, and 57.8 grams more dry matter produced on non- compacted plots, than on compacted plots. Seafarer showed no significant difference (Table 17). Differences between strains and the interaction of 45 strains x treatment were both highly significant. Seafarer didn't produce nearly as much dry matter as the other three strains. After a rainfall of 9.2 cm on July 11, there were 5 days during which the mean temperature ranged from 23 to 24 C . Seafarerer suffered severly, losing more than 50 percent of its leaves from bacterial blight and ozone damage. The other three stains were affected very little (Table 17). Table 17. Shoot dry matter accumulation at physiological ' maturity for Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 at two levels of soil compaction on September 9, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. ' Strain Non-compacted Compacted Average C/NC Ratio Seafarer 75.3 87.5 81.4 0.86 Black Turtle Soup 170.9 121.8 146.4 1.40 San-Fernando 228.3 106.7 167.5 2.14 NEP-2 213.6 155.8 184.7 1.37 Average 172.0 117.9 Figures in grams of air-dried plants per 0.5 m of row LSD (.05) = 42.5 grams between two treatments means .6 grams between two strain means 43.3 grams between two strain means at same treatment 31.5 grams between two treatment means at same or different strains. 2.3 Plant Cangpy Height Height of the plant canopy was measured on July 18 for over-all growth. Significant differences were found both among treatment and strain means (Table 18). Black Turtle 46 Soup showed greater height on non-compacted sites, whereas there were essentially no differences between strains on compacted plots. Figures 8 through 17 show the canopy for each strain at each treatment. Table 18. Height of plant canopy at 46 days from emergence of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 at two levels of soil compaction on July 18, 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Non-compacted Compacted C/NC RQtLQ Seafarer 37.0 35.3 1.04 Black Turtle Soup 46.3 34.6 1.34 San-Fernando 39.0 32.7 1.19 NEP-a 36.0 33.7 1007 Average 39.6 34.1 Figures in cm LSD (.05) = 1.5 between treatment means 3.7 between strain means 5.3 between two strain means at same treatment 3.8 between two treatment means at the same or different strains 2.4 sygych Rating of Rggts Starch ratings in roots increased from the flowering to mid-pod filling, stages of plant development in all four strains (Table 19). No difference was noted at mid-pod filling between treatments in the black-seeded strains, but significant differences were noted between treatments among the white-seeded strains. Root starch ratings of Seafarer and Black Turtle Soup decreased from mid-pod filling to physiological maturity, except Black Turtle Soup on the 47 compacted site. Starch ratings in roots of San-Fernando and NEP-2 increased to physiological maturity. Figure 8. Figure 9. 48 Seafarer on non-compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Seafarer on compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 49 Figure 9. 50 Figure 10. Black Turtle Soup on non-compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Figure 11. Black Turtle Soup on compacted plots 40 days after emergence, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm, July 13, 1979. 51 Figure 10. Figure 11. 52 Figure 12. San-Fernando on non—compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Figure 13. San-Fernando on compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 53 Figure 12. ngure 13. 54 Figure 14. NEP-2 on non-compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Figure 15. NEP-2 on compacted plots 40 days after emergence, July 13, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 55 Figure 14. Figure 15. 56 Figure 16. Seafarer at flowering on non—compacted plots 45 days after emergence, July 18, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Figure 17. Seafarer at flowering on compacted plots 45 days after emergence, July 18, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 57 Figure 16. Figure 17. 58 0:0:0000 000H0500 000: mewsflm0m 0Hnfimfi> o: m . "00000 000ommsoo 0 000000800120: 012 c0000m m.. m.m m.m ..m 0.. o meanness 1111 w.m m.m 0.. ... uuz anoamoaoamsam 200900 0. m.m N.N N.m u.m 0 0:0800000. mafiaaflm a. .a.. ..m m.m m.. 0.2 ooduoaz aH090m m. 0.. m.. ¢.. ... 0 000800090 N. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 012 wmfih0soam ovammhmh mmom .m0.vmma N1mmz 1:00 0H0ass xowam 00900000 0:08000AB 0000 .8400 noam0m0m 000m 0:0 :000 0:0 :0 :0H0ommaoo HHom mo 0H0>0H 030 00 0:00000 N1mmz 0:0 0020:9001000 .msom 0.00:5 x0000 .A040000m mo mum. .0 900800000 .h0fias0ma HmonOHOHmznm and “.m sane .meaaaaa ooouoaa um. sass .maanoeoaa no neoon ea omaaeoa nonoem .m. oases 59 2.5 Starch Rating pf Stems There were no differences in starch levels of stem at flowering as compared with mid-pod filling. Seafarer and Black Turtle Soup showed evidence of the largest treatment differences with a rating difference of 1.1, indicating more starch in plants on compacted treatment. Black Turtle Soup did not decrease as much on the compacted site. San-Fernando and NEP-2 increased in stem starch rating to physiological maturity (Table 20). There is similarity between root and stem starch ratings among strains and treatments. Treatment differences at mid- pod filling indicate the lack of a large enough sink in plants- on compacted site for carbohydrates being produced; thus inure sugars were stored in the stem and root as starch. Black Turtle Soup, NEP-2 and San-Fernando are later maturing varieties and they produce and retain more starch than Seafarer. 3.0 Plgpt Reproductive Parameteps 3.1 Epd Length Measurements Comparisons of pod length measurements are shown in table 21. Neither moisture deficit or heat stress were noted when these data was taken. Seafarer displayed the largest treatment differences of 0.9 cm , with Black Turtle Soup and San-Fernando showing a difference of:0.8 cm at the fourth measurement. NEP-2 revealed the least treatment difference 60 8000000 00000 020 00 08080000 00000800 000800 4 m 8000000 00090 000 00 08080000 000000> 08 n . “00000 000000800 0 0000008001808 012 111 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.. 0 111 0.0 m.0 0.. 2.. 012 00o00o0o00220 800800 u. m.. 0.. 0.0 0.0 0 seesanons 0800002 0. 0.. m.. 0.. 0.. 012 0o01002 111 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0 111 0.. 0.. ... 0.. 012 000002o00 00008000 0000 200.0800 01002 1000 000009 xo000 00000000 080800089 0008 .8900 00000000 0000 080 8000 0:0 80 8000000800 0000 00 000>00 080 00 800800 01002 080 008080001800 .0800 000089 00000 .00800000 00 000. .0 000800000 .20088008 0000000000200 080 m.m 2.00 .0800000 eo01efls .0. 20:0 .mafinosoam 00 08000 00 080000 2on000 .00 0000B 61 Table 21. Pod length, in cm , at two day intervals of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and HEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Measurements 1 g; 3 h Seafarer 109(105) 303(203) #08(306) 6ou(503) Black Turtle Soup 1.4(1.6) 4.0(#.o) 6.9(6.5) 9.1(8.3) San-Fernando 1.3(1.4) 2.2(2.3) 5.2(4.6) 7.1(6.3) NEP-2 1.2(1.2) 2.8(2.7) 4.2(3.9) 6.5(6.8) LSD (.05) treatment NS .1 .2 .5 LSD (.05) strain .1 .3 .5 .4 Two strain means at same level of Tmt. .2 .4 .7 .6 Two treatment means at the same or different level of strains .2 .4 .5 .3 Figure = non-compacted (compacted) Twenty pods per replication were measured at the first date in Table 21; the same pods were measured at sequential two-day periods. Pod Abscission was evident when these measuremts were taken. Pod abscission data are shown in table 22. Plants on compacted treatments lost significantly more pods than plants on the non-compacted treatments, except for the NEP-2 strain. Seafarer lost more than the other varieties, 15 and 35 percent on non-compacted and compacted plots, respectively. Pods were 1.5 to 1.9 cm long or longer before abscission occurred. 62 Table 22. Percent pod abscission of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Non-Compacted Compacted Seafarer 15 35 Black Turtle Soup 8 20 San-Fernando ' 2 13 NEP-2 5 5 LSD {.05} treatment 3. LSD (.05) strain 3. 3.2 -Dgys from Emergence to glowezing and Physiological Matur; ti! o No significant treatment differences were evident at flowering or at physiological maturiyt. Seafarer flowered eight days before the other strains. NEP-Z had the longest pod-filling period of #6 days, which should increase it's yield potential over other strains with a shorter pod-filling periods (Table 23). 63 Table 23. Days from emergence to flowering and to physiological maturity, for non-compacted and compacted treatment, respectively, for Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando and NEP-2 strains on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Flowering Physigwm Seafarer 3507(3607) 7603(7606) Black Turtle Soup 43.3(#2.7) 8h.3(80.o)* San-Fernando h#.5(#3.7) 83.3(80.0)* NEP-2 h4.3(47.0)* 90.7(92.3)* LSD (.05) 77 days .8 days Two strains at same level of treatment 1.0 days 1.2 days Two treatment means at different level of strain 1.5 davs lih_days *- denoted compacted treatment Unbracketed denote non-compacted treatment 3.3 Seed Size Comparisons of seed size are shown in table 20. Sign- ificant differences were found only between treatments with and LSD (.05) of 1.3 grams. Difference in seed size did not contribute to yield differences between non-compacted and compacted treatments of the same strains. 64 Table 24. Seed weight in grams of one hundred seeds of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains grown at two levels of soil com- paction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm in 1979. Strain Non-compacted Compacted Seafarer 18.3 16.1 Black Turtle Soup 19.6 19.9 San-Fernando 18.6 17.9 NEP-Z ¥:_p #17.3 17.5 LSD 3.05) between strains, 0.? grams between two strains at the same level of treatment, 0.9 grams between two treatments at the same or different levels of strain, 1.2 grams 3.4 Esgaggigllisld_ Economic yield comparisons indicates plants on non- compacted plots out yielded plants on compacted plots for all strains (Table 25). The yields of white-seeded lines, Seafarer and NEP-Z were not significant between treatments. Seafarer had the lowest yield, on nonacompacted plots which may have been due in part to bacterical blight and ozone, causing a premature loss of leaves. 65 Table 25. Economic (seed) yield in kg/ha of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 strains at two levels of soil compaction in 1979 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Non-compacted Compacted Non-compacted Advaatage Seafarer 1644 1552 92 Black Turtle Soup 2127 1085* 1042 San-Fernando 2405 1530 875 NEP-Z 2927 2680 47 Average 2276 1712 564 LSD (205) between treatments, 321 kg7ha between strains, 320 kg/ha between two strain means at the same or different strain, 503 kg/ha * All BTS replications were consistently low in this test, and markedly lower than this variety on other compacted plots in other experiments. The black-seeded lines did not respond in economic yield on the compacted plots as expected. Black Turtle Soup yielded 1042 kg/ha lower and San-Fernando yielded 875 kg/ha lower on compacted than on non-compacted plots. Yields were closely related to number of days from emergence to physiological maturity for each strain. 3.5 "Yield Components The following equation shows components of yield; (seed size x seed per pod x pods per plant x number of plant/ unit area 2 yield). Earlier data indicated no significant differences between treatments for seed size (except Seafarer) or number of plants per unit area. Thus differences in seeds per pod and pods per plant must have been largely responsible 66 for yield differences. Little difference was noted in length of pods, indicating small differences in seed per pod; thus number of pods per plant would be the important componment in yield differences between treatments. Figure 18 illustrates the greates number of pods 9n the plant from a non-compacted site than from the compacted site. 4.0 Economic (seed) Yield of Seafarer, Black Turtle Soup, San-Fernando, and NEP-2 Strains in other Test, The four strains discussed here were grown in other secondary experiments at the same location. Soil type, tillage, and planting operations were the same as previously stated. Both compacted and non-compacted treatments were used in the same experimental design. Soil compaction data were the same as that collected on the June 27 soil samples. Mean values for each treatment and for differences between means are shown in table 26. In the primary tests, Seafarer yielded 281 kg/ha below and 233 kg/ha above the averaged yields of the secondary tests on non-compacted and compacted sites, respectively. These yield figures of 1644 kg/ha and 1552 kg/ha are well within the yield range of the other tests. There is no immediate explanation for the low yield, (1085 kg/ha) of Black Turtle Soup on the compacted site, except standing water on these plots after the July 11 rain. Two of the three replications gave a low yield causing the 1530 kg/ha value for San-Fernando on the compacted site. NEP-2 yielded higher on both treatments by 499 kg/ha on the non-compacted and 440 kg/ha on the compacted site. Water stood 67 on the Black Turtle Soup and San-Fernando plots longer than on NEP-2 plots, which may lead to conclusion that lower economic yield was due to lack of sufficient 02. .61-3 Figure 18. Seafarer plants from non-compacted and compacted plants approaching physiological maturity, August 8, 1979, grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. 69 Figure 18. 70 mm canoe aohm mcwoa namfih mamas munoaaammxo Mom mvaoam mwmno>¢ .m mm magma scam wcamfih mo ommpso>om venommsoousoz .: mm magma acne memos «was eaaa» .m mucosanmmxm Ham pom mcaoam owwsm>o mo mmMpsw>nm umpommsoousoz .m mpsosfinmmxm Ham Mom paws» ommao>< .— awan mm:u wow 11Md. .mm 1:0. mmmu _wm m saw mum meo— mm : owmm mmmm 0mm, moem mwo_ sm.m mam. sew. n mm. m_: mm: mom m oemm swam mm_m uqmm one. .mmm m_m_ mmmp _ amm— mmim :_Fm mom. ome— n.2m mm_m mm.m m:_m w._m mp_m mam. 50mm ._.m o_m. mmmm mmom :wmm mum. :_:m o__m mum_ _m_m moo. swim 00.0 .mmm new. 5mm, moom wo_m - m_u_ :u_m so_m one. mmmm mam. :Pmp 60pm .mim mmmm son. womm mm__ mmom mo_m smsm .emm mm_m 0.5m omn— oomm amm— smom :o_m omem owmm m_o_ mm_m mo_m opa— mmm. __op .mm. mo_m om_m wom_ .wo. mew. Fo_m 6 oz 6 1m2 0 oz 0 oz, Nlmmz Ovmflnhmhlzmw msom. mdwhsm. xowam HmHfimfimm amp...“ .shmm nonwomom poem can zoom one :o mum. ca mucosfipmmxo hawcsoomm :H soapommsoo Hwow mo mao>oa 03a pm mQHmnpo Nammz new .ooswsaoMIsmm .msom maunse xooam .noummoom so on\wx :H «was vHon comm .mm magma 71 5.0 Econogic Yield of Seven Pairs of Near-Isglines With respect to the performance of seven pairs of white and black seeded near-isolines on non-compacted and compacted treatments, the F statistic for treatments was very high com- pared to F-values for stains, color, and their interaction (Table 27). Treatments and strains effects were both highly significant, and all two-way interactions were also satistically significant. Color differences were not signa ificant in this test. Large treatment differences apparently have influenced the two-way interactions. Thus, a closer look at the two and three-way interaction is necessary (Table 28). Table 27. Analysis of variance for economic yield of seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans grown in 1979 at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Sggrge Degree of Freedom F Treatment 1 416.9** Error 1 = rep rep x tmt 4 Strain 6 5.725** Color 1 .5579 Strain x color 6 2.591* Tmt x Strian 6 2-375* Tmt x Color 1 5.883* Tmt x Strain x Color 6 1.915 Error 52 72 Table 28 shows the San-Fernando pair, consisting of San-Fernando as black-seeded and NEP-2, its EMS mutant, as white-seeded, yielding the highest over both treatments. The Black Turtle Soup pair yielded highest of all strains on non- compacted plots. The 62271 pair yielded lowest in both com- pacted and non-compacted sites. The difference between treat- ment means of 644 kilograms per hectare is highly statistically significant. Table 28. Economic (seed) yield in kg/ha of seven pair of near-isolines of dry beans; two-way table strain vs treatment. Grown in 1979 at two levels of soil compaction on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Strain Non-com acted Com te Me 2 61328 2343 1673 2008 B 61061 2367 1722 2045 AB B T S 2413 1420 1915 B N203a* 2128 1750 1938 B N203b* 2278 1529 1903 B 62271 2078 1366 1722 C San-Fernando __§3§6 2993. 2180 A Means 2282 1633 LSD (.05) difference between two strains means, 170kg LSD (.05) difference between two treatment means, 148 kg 1 Figures are in kilograms per hectare 2 Means followed by same letter are not significantly different * Two white mutants from N203 were used in this test; the black seeded N203 was paired with each white mutant. White seeded strains on non-compacted soil out-yielded white-seeded strains on compacted plots by 753 kilograms per hectare (Table 29). Black-seeded strains on non—compacted soil out-yielded black on compacted soil by 534 kilograms per hectare. 73 White-seeded strains out-yielded pigmented seeded strains by 143 kg/ha on non-compacted plots, but the colored strains out-yielded the white-seeded on the compacted site by 76 kg/ha, indicating a treatment x seed color interaction. More important are the 32 percent and 24 percent reductions in yields of white and black seeded lines, respectively, due to averse effects of soil compaction. Table 29. Two-way interaction of soil compaction treatment vs seed color in seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans grown in 1979 on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Treatment White Black Means Non-compacted 2353 2210 2282 Compacted 1600 1676 1638 Percent decrease due to Compaction #32? 24? 28* Color differences were not significant LSD (.01) difference between treatment means, 145 kg Figure are in kilograms per hectare * Figures are in percent The three-way table 30 illustrates the color vs treatment interaction with each strain. Among the white-seeded lines, white-seeded variants of strain 61328 and N203b were depressed the most by soil compaction among the blacks, Black Turtle Soup and 62271 were depressed most. White-seeded strains of 61328, 61061, and Black Turtle Soup yielded the highest on non-compacted plots. Performance of five of the seven strains indicated that yields on non-compacted plots were about the same, regardless of seed color, but on compacted plots, yield of white-seeded strains were depressed more than their black- 74 seeded isoline counterparts. Percent decrease in yield due to adverse effect of soil compaction is shown in table 30. Black Turtle Soup had the greatest percent reduction (47 Percent). 61328 white, and N203b, the white mutant and had their yields reduced 39 percent by soil compaction. San-Fernando had the lowest reduction due to soil compaction in this test. More important is the 28 percent overall yield reduction in yield for all strains, both white and colored (Table 29). 75 Table 30. Economic (seed) yield in kg/ha of seven pairs of near-isolines of dry beans (black and white seeded) grown at two levels of soil compaction at the Bean and Beet Research Farm 1979. Three-way Table Strain Color Non-compacted Compacted % decrease due to compaction 61328 white 2430 1425 41 black 2255 1925 15, 61061 white 2440 1695 31 black 2295 1750 24 B T S white 2410 1560 35 black 2420 1280 47 N 203a white 2090 1745 17 black 2165 1755 19 N 203b white 2375 1395' 47 black 2180 1660 24 62271 white 2386 1465 39 black 1770 1260 29 San- Fernando white* 2345 1910 19 black ___;385 gififil, ._1;_____ Means white 2353 1600 32 2210 1676 bl ck LSD ( 0 5 _#_Lg 2 . 5 Difference between means of two strains (color) at same level of treatment, 240 kg Difference between two treatments at the same or different level of strain (color) - 250 kg Figures are in kilograms per hectare * The white mutant of San-Fernando is NEP-2 76 6.0 Compapisons on seed yield of 65 cultivars across two levels of soil compaction in 1979. 1980 and the two year average, Results of seed yields of 65 cultivars on non-compacted and compacted treatments are listed in table A2, A3, and A4 for the years 1979, 1980 and the average over both years, respectively. Columns A and B on table A2, A3, and A4 have either a plus or a minus depending on whether the yield for that cultivar at a particular level of soil compaction is above or below the average yield for treatment and year. This is summarized in Table 31. Table 31. Comparisons of seed yield, above and below the average yield, across two levels of soil compaction, on 65 dry bean cultivars grown in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Number above Percent of Cultivars the §£2I38§* $2.22$£_EEQEE§____ Year Non-compacted Compacted 1979 35(2811) 36(2296) 56.9 1980 34(2878) 39(2650) 76.9 Two year average 33(28431 33(2422) 76.9_i * Only the above the average groups are shown ( ) denote average yields for year at a level of soil com- paction. In 1979 thirty seven 56.9 percent cultivars matched for yields above or below the average across two levels of soil compaction. In 1980 and the two year average of 50 cultivars or 76.9 percent matched for yield across levels of soil com- paction. Cultivars were more stable in yields across levels of soil compaction in 1980 than in 1979. Detrimental effects 77 of soil compaction on yield were greater for 1979, 515 kg/ha or 18.3 percent reduction than in 1980, 228 kg/ha or 7.9 percent reduction. This data indicates that high yielding cultivars tend to yield high for both levels of soil com- paction. Since medium yielding cultivars would be more prone to mismatch more than high or low yielding cultivars, cultivars were divided into three groups of 1 (high); 2 (meium); and 3 (low) yielding. Data is in table A2, A3, and A4 under columns headed "Group" and is summarized in table 32. Table 32 indicates, in 1979, repeatability of high yield- ing, group 1, cultivar is higher, 65 percent, than low yielding, group 3 cultivar, 37 Percent, across the two levels of soil compaction. In 1980, 78 percent, 18 out of 23 high yielding cultivars were common to group 1 on the non-compacted and compacted soil treatments. Thirteen of 18 cultivars for the low yielding group 3, were in the yielding group for both levels of soil treatment. Genotype tended to be more stable over soil treatments in 1980 than in 1979. Figure 19 indicates data average over two years, all cultivars in group 1 (high yielding) of non-compacted treat- ment were not below the average in the compacted treatment. Similiarly cultivars in group 3 of the non-compacted treat- ment were not above the average yield for the compacted treat- ment. Since cultivars selection would usually select the higher yielding lines, selection of superior yielding genotype can be accomplished without testing at different levels of es\mx ea cams» seen A ommam>m how» 038 msoaw mcwnamflh 30H u was oz noon op :ossoo mum>HuH26 mo ucoohmm muonm mcfloamflm Boa u cam 02 anon on cossoo mam>HpHSo mo Amnszz Quouw wzfioaoah swan o so 02 neon 0» 208800 mnm>fluHSo mo accuses macaw mcfioaofih :ma: 0 was 02 nuon on 208800 mam>HpHSo mo 969852 I oopommsoo n o uopommeoolcoz n oz 11 II amp—14.0,, mm m “mow—vvo_ Amemmvom_ on m AmmmmAvw AmmwmAvop 0 mm 9 Kim v5. Csmmvvw. we 2 Rmmmofi 3:?me 89 em a Ammomvvw_ Aommmvemp mm m, AwmemAvom AesmmAvom mnm_ a m 6 02 m a o .62 wqamwsa» son (seamaoas sea: use» .89 was mum. :H Show nonsmmom poem use comm mnp pm soapomQEOQ Hfiom Mo mao>oa osu whosom msouw wcflvaofla 30H no swan :H mnm>wpaso no mo mcaoflh comm mo wcomflhmmsou .mm manna 79 soil compaction. Simple correlation between yields average over two years on these 65 cultivars on non-compacted and compacted soil treatments was calculated with r = 0.84. This is significant with 63 degrees of freedom. This supports the concept that high yielding cultivars tend to yield high across different levels of soil compaction normally found in field conditions. Analysis of variance table for these cultivars is shown in table 33. Using the three-way, entry x year x com- paction as the error term, all main and two-way interactions are highly significant, except the cultivar x compaction interaction. Thus, the interaction between yield of cultivars at different levels of soil compaction was not significant and high yielding cultivars would tend to yield high for both levels of soil compaction and low yielding cultivars would tend to yield low for both levels of soil compaction. Table 33. Seed yield analysis of variance for 64 cultivars grown for two years at two levels of soil com- paction in 1979 and 1980 at the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Source of Vagigtion d,f. MS Compaction (6) 1 6098430** Year (Y) 1 4246175** C x Y 1 888777** Cultivars 63 541380** Cultivars x C 63 47642 n.s. Cultivars X'Y 63 222552** Cultivaps x Y x C 63 40119 ** Significant at 1 percent level n.s. = Not significant 80 .ome cam mum, :H Show noamomom poem was spam on» so whom» 03» Ho>o cowm9o>m psosamohp HHom vmpowmsoouco: so whm>Hpaso wcfloaofih pmosoa son was pwmnmfl: sop on» mo psoSuanp aflom vmpoQQSOo on» :o vamflm townho>m new» 03p one woaammsoo psoSpwohu Hwow vopomoeoo no msflnamfim 304 pcmspmmpp HHom oopommsoolco: :o weavaoflm 30A psospmoap HHom ompommsoo no mchHon swam uzosummnp Hfiom oopommsoolno: so mcfivaoflm nmflm «m\me 00, ea eama» o m E22- \m \\ .\ .\C\‘ \\\\\ \\\\\ llllllllllllllll .9 II] Ii flfll II \J'J'J Number of Cultivars I CC .maa 81 Figure 20 indicates how yield results of three cultivars of dry beans on four environments, two years at two levels of soil compaction. The line with slope, b = 1, passes through the mean yield for each enviornment. Cultivar, 790248, has a less than average yield over all environments. Its yield response increased is nearly equal (by: 0.91) to the average yield increase in more favorable environments. Mean square deviations from regression were small for it's yield response line and r2 was 0.89 which is significant (Table A7). This indicates a stable yielding cultivar over environments, but would not select 790248 on yield alone, since it yields are below the average. The yield response line (b = 0.28) for the cultivar, Sanilac, is way below the average yield for all environments, and does not response with increase yields in more favorable environments. It has low mean square deviations from regression, but r2 is only 0.22. One would not select this cultivar on this data. The cultivar, 62036, is above the average for all environments. With more favorable environments its yield potential increase, (b = 1.13). Mean square deviations from regression for the yield response line are 128, the smallest of all cultivars tested and r2 is 0.99 which is highly sign- ificant. With above average yield performance, slope of yield response line near 1 and low mean square deviations for regression and highly significant r2, 62036 would be highly favorable cultivars for further testing. 82 The main fault with these comparisons, as I have presented here, are the few, (4) environments from which the data was taken. If the number of environments could be increased to 10 or higher, we could get a better indication of the true yield response over environments for each cultivar. Projection of the lepe line below or above the most unfavorable and most favorable environments could lead to very unrealistic yield comparisons. 83 35- * b 30- * m .2: h x: 25- C) c: C °r-'1 "G 1—1 ii 20 >4 0 AL 1 LJ 2' I I T l I l 0 U 25 o 2:23 30 O\ c> owo [\ CO L\CD O\ O\ O\O\ 1.13(62036) 1 o.91(790248) b = 0.28(Sanilac) Fig. 20. Stability of yield of three'cultivars over four environments, at two levels of soil compaction and two years grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm in 1979 and 1980. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Soil parameters and growth response of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L,) strains were investigated at two levels of soil compaction. This experiment was conducted on a Charity clay soil at the Saginaw Bean and Beet Research Farm near Saginaw, Michigan. Soil samples taken on June 27, 1979 had bulk densities values of 0.14 and 0.08 g/cm3 less on non-compacted plots, than on compacted plots at depths of 6.4 and 24 cm , respectively. These differences in soil bulk densities were highly significant. Soil moisture expressed as percent volumetric moisture increased as soil bulk density increased. Percent air pore space comprised of air was highest for the non-compacted 6.4 cm level, but in no soil profile level, 6.4, 14, or 21.6 cm , at either treatment level at soil compaction, was the percent air saturation below the 0.1 critical value indicated by Brake (1976). Weight of roots collected on July 6 decreased with depth at both levels of soil compaction. Plants from compacted plots had a higher percentage of their roots in the 6.4 cm soil profile level. Correlations between average root weights were significant and negatively correlated with bulk density. At physiological maturity of the beans, soil bulk density increased from 1.15 g/cm3 in soil profile level one to 1.35 g/cm3 in level four on non-compacted plots, and 1,37 g/cm3 in level one to 1.42 g/cm3 in level four of compacted plots. 81+ 85 Level five and six were not significantly different with respect to bulk density. Percent soil moisture was always higher on compacted plots. On non-compacted plots the soil lost moisture more readily and showed an increase in air-filled porosity. Root weights at physiological maturity decreased with soil depth. Compacted plots had 45.1% of dry root weights in level one, whereas level one of non-compacted plots had only 37.5% of total collected root dry weights. Among commerical strain, Seafarer showed the greatest difference in root weights at level two and three, between non-compacted and compacted treatments. No significant differences were found between plant populations on non-compacted and compacted plots. NEP-2 had the lowest germination, 58 percent. Dry matter accumulation at mid-pod filling indicated a significant difference between treatments for all strains, except ' Seafarer. Plant weights on the non-compacted plots were greater on the compacted plots by an average of 25.3 grams (38.8 percent). San-Fernando on compacted plots produced the lowest dry matter yields, 27.1 grams per 0.5 m of row at mid-pod filling. At physiological maturity, Seafarer produced the least dry matter of any strain, at either level of soil compaction. San-Fernando produced the most dry matter accumulation on non-compacted plots and its white-seeded mutant NEP-2 produced the most dry matter accumulation on the compacted 86 Compaction reduce dry matter at physiological maturity by 31.4 percent. Plant heights showed significant differences between soil treatments and between strains. All plant heights on non-compacted plots were higher than for plants on compacted plots. Black Turtle Soup was highest of all strains (46.3 cm) on non-compacted and shortest on the compacted plots (32.7 cm). Both root and stem starch ratings generally increased as age of plants increased for San-Fernando and NEP-2. San-Fernando and it's white-seeded mutant NEP-2 had a relatively strong tap root and hypocotyl, which stayed viable longer than Seafarer and Black Turtle Soup. Seafarer's starch rating increased to mid-pod filling, then decreased ' at physiological maturity, but decreased less on compacted plots. Seafarer showed the largest difference in pod length be- tween the two levels of soil compaction, whereas NEP-2 re- vealed the least difference. Pod abscission was significantly higher on compacted plots, except for NEP-2. Seafarer had highest abscission rates of 15 and 35 percent on non-compacted and compacted plots, respectively. A higher rate of pod abscission of plants on compacted plots caused a decreased sink for photosynthate, thus more starch was retained in plants on compacted plots. Low yields of Seafarer (1644 kg/hs) on the non-compacted plots were due to bacterical blight and ozone, causing a premature loss of leaves. NEP-2 yielded highest of the four 87 varieties across both levels of soil compaction. The low yield of San-Fernando (1530 kg/ha) and Black Turtle Soup, (1085 kg/ha) on the compacted plot is contrary to other reports. San-Fernando and Black Turtle Soup should have yielded 25 and 50 percent better on the compacted plots. Water covered the San-Fernando and Black Turtle Soup on compacted plots more than 24 hours after the July 11 rain, whereas the NEP-2 compacted plots were not flooded. It is difficult to say whether the stronger rooting system of NEP-2 or a less detrimental effect of soil compaction produced it's superior yields. Comparisons of yield data of seven pairs of isolines indicated a black and white-seeded interaction with com- paction treatment. 0n non-compacted plots, white-seeded strains out-yielded the black-seeded strains. All yields were reduced on the compacted plots by 28 percent, but the black-seeded strains out-yielded the white-seeded strains on compacted plots. In comparisons of seed yields with these same varieties in secondary experiments on the same Charity clay soil under similar non-compacted and compacted treatments, the two black- seeded varieties, San-Fernando and Black Turtle Soup, were 598 and 671 kg/ha higher, respectively, on compacted plots in the secondary experiments, than on compacted plots in the primary tests. NEP-2 seed yields in the primary study were 499 kg/ha on non-compacted plots, and 440 kg/ha on compacted plots, above the yields in the secondary experiments. 88 Seafarer in the primary tests was 281 kg/ha below its average in secondary tests on the non-compacted plot and 233 kg/ha above its average on the compacted plots of the secondary test. All strains had reduced yields on compacted plots (18.5 percent), when compared to non-compacted plots. The commercial strain, Seafarer, had it's yield lowered the most by com- paction. Black Turtle Soup and San-Fernado yields were reduced similarly by compaction, although San-Fernando out- yielded Black Turlte Soup at both levels of compaction. Indications from this study are that there are differences between strains of dry beans, both white and black-seeded, in their response to compaction. The low yields of Black Turtle Soup and San-Fernando on compacted plots in my experiments compared to yields in other experiments on similar compacted plots on the same Charity clay, indicates that some other factor besides just the increase in soil bulk density was limiting yields. The relatively high rate of repeatability of high yielding cultivars at both levels of soil compaction, plus a correlation of 0.84 between yield averaged over two years at both levels of soil compaction, and non-significance of the two-way cultivars x compaction interaction strongly _ indicate that high yielding lines would tend to yield high at both levels of soil compaction. Thus, testing at more than one level of soil compaction is not essential for selection of superior genotypes. This would reduce labor and cost of 89 testing large numbers of early generation genotypes of dry beans. However, the evaluation of commercial cultivars of various seed classes for specific fitness to compacted soils of differnet soil types may be very important; and should be continued until or unless contrary evidence is obtained. APPENDIX 90 Table A1. Record of climatic conditions for the months of April thru September. Date Temperature Precipation Pan Evapor. April Max. Min. Mean Add Remove 1 35 31 33 ,_ 2 42 30 36 .12 3 48 28 38 .13 4 4O 32 36 .25 5 45 14 3O .15 6 3O 15 23 T 7 38 16 27 T 8 31 27 29 .22 9 41 24 33 10 47 20 34 ll 42 30 36 12 64 34 49 .41 .09 13 61 47 54 .05 14 54 36 45 T 15 47 39 43 T .43 16 57 35 46 .13 17 62 32 47 .21 18 57 29 43 .18 19 65 . 27 46 .16 20 7O 35 53 .17 21 66 48 57 .14 22 7O 46 58 .27 23 74 38 56 . .19 24 71 37 54 .10 .01 25 69 56 63 .25 .25 26 63 44 54 .43 .34 27 56 39 48 .07 28 44 38 41 .05 .13 29 55 27 41 .02 30 45 36 41 .34 Total 2.51 2.05 .73 9f Table A1. Continued. Date Tempepatpre Precipation Pan Evgpgp, May Max. Min. Mean Add Remove 1 53 31 42 T .11 2 65 39 52 T .22 3 57 48 53 .67 .38 4 33 34 44 .05 5 46 25 36 .04 6 72 46 59 T 28 7 82 46 64 .44 8 89 6O 75 .51 9 89 60 75 .37 10 86 56 71 T .21 ll 85 56 71 .24 .04 12 55 46 51 .18 13 64 38 51 T .15 14 69 42 56 T .23 15 62 4O 51 T .21 16 66 36 51 .32 17 73 43 58 .40 18 82 55 69 .22 19 81 51 66 T 20 75 47 61 .78 21 64 44 54 T .26 22 65 34 50 .28 23 69 5O 60 T ‘.22 24 55 46 51 T .28 25 59 48 54 .21 26 52 44 48 .04 27 59 46 53 .23 28 62 48 55 T .08 29 69 40 55 .16 3O 67 4O 54 .14 31 80 49 65 .27 Total 1.36 6.40 .46 92 Table A1. Continued Date Tempepgture Precipatign Pan Eygpor, June Max, Min._ Mean Add Remove 1 77 56 67 .15 2 79 40 6O 3 83 50 67 4 87 39 63 .31 5 71 58 65 .05 .15 6 8O 49 65 .05 .22 7 84 63 74 .25 8 88 65 77 .02 .12 9 87 67 77 .24 10 83 51 67 1.39 11 69 50 60 T .18 12 69 45 57 .26 13 75 42 59 .31 14 84 53 69 .37 15 88 68 78 .35 16 88 68 78 17 79 59 69 18 67 55 61 .36 19 80 44 62 .55 2O 85 61 73 .48 .14 21 82 66 74 .35 22 7O 48 59 .15 23 56 44 5O 24 64 41 53 .56 25 75 34 56 .26 26 8O 45 63 .36 27 84 62 73 .26 .04 28 78 51 65 .29 29 74 59 67 .64 .62 30 62 51 59 .70 .70 Total 3.59 5-79 1-5 93 Table A1. Continued gape Temperature Precipation Pan Evapor, £313 Max,, Min. Mean Add Remove 1 64 58 61 .28 .28 2 77 56 67 .11 3 67 45 56 T .04 4 74 54 64 .14 .14 5 73 45 59 .25 6 78 44 61 .10 7 82 48 65 .58 8 80 52 66 9 78 63 71 T .18 IO 84 54 69 .63 .38 11 83 63 73 3.61 12 86 6O 73 .18 13 88 65 77 .06 14 84 67 76 .58 15 87 64 76 16 79 59 69 .28 17 73 53 63 .18 18 78 46 62 .24 19 81 47 64 .21 20 83 51 67 .12 21 85 52 69 .62 22 88 57 73 23 86 61 74 .17 24 83 66 75 .22 25 79 7O 75 .87 .65 26 72 62 67 .12 27 84 55 7O .42 28 83 65 74 .11 29 84 56 70 31 86 70 78 T .23 Total 5.64 5.14 1.03 94 TableAl. Continued Date Temperature Precipation Pan Evapor. August Max, Min. Mean Add remove 1 75 63 69 .21 2 80 61 71 .30 .23 3 80 54 67 .10 4 84 58 71 5 82 59 71 .42 .02 6 75 54 65 .22 7 89 58 74 -21 8 77 6O 69 T .06 9 74 49 62 T .13 10 80 56 68 .75 11 67 49 58 12 73 41 57 .45 13 69 58 64 T .18 14 66 49 58 .19 15 71 48 60 .21 16 73 38 56 .20 17 62 53 58 .25 18 74 57 66 .05 19 77 53 65 .17 20 75 54 65 .11 21 82 53 68 .24 22 78 53 66 T .11 23 81 64 73 .19 .07 24 75 63 69 .09 25 73 52 63 26 78 47 63 .36 27 73 54 64 .04 .03 28 74 63 69 T .06 29 80 59 70 T .10 3O 85 59 72 .18 31 84 53 69 .15 Total 2.10 3.68 .30 95 Table Al. Continued Date Temperature Precipatigp Pgn Eggpgp, Sept. Max. Min. Mean Add Remove 1 83 60 72 '.40 2 81 62 72 .08 3 79 55 67 .18 4 81 52 67 .15 5 85 53 69 .17 6 83 54 69 .19 7 63 49 56 T .06 8 64 38 51 .27 9 71 38 55 T 10 75 55 65 .02 .06 11 74 44 59 .18 12 85 51 68 .15 13 78 6O 69 T .15 14 7O 51 61 .10 15 63 42 53 .46 16 78 46 62 17 79 45 62 .21 18 78 52 65 .24 19 64 34 49 .18 20 74 35 55 .16 21 7O 5O 60 T .09 22 65 39 52 .36 23 66 31 49 24 73 34 54 T .17 25 76 44 60 .19 26 82 39 61 .20 27 82 42 62 .21 28 80 45 63 .18 29 83 48 66 .17 3O 78 46 62 .19 Total .10 5.07 0.0 96 Table A2. Seed yields of 65 entries on non-compacted and compacted plots in 1979 grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Non-compacted Compacted, Entry Yield Rapk, Group a Yield Raph Group b 4044 3408 1 1 + 2587 15 1 + 61065 2866 25 2 + 2096 49 2 - 61068 3281 8 1 + 2881 4 1 + 61341 2934 23 2 + 1934 54 3 - 61356 2667 44 2 - 1640 61 2 - 61380 2810 31 2 + 2158 45 2 - 61612 3335 5 1 + 2138 . 47 2 — 61618 2804 32 2 + 2619 14 1 + 61622 3378 3 1 + 2583 17 1 + 61690 3350 4 1 + 2878 5 1 + 62036 3014 17 1 + 2559 18 1 + 62038 2799 33 2 + 2316 34 2 + 62041 3301 7 1 + 2189 41 2 - 62267 2498 54 3 - 1906 56 3 - 72220 2546 50 3 - 2326 33 2 - 790001 2538 52 3 - 2169 43 2 - 790007 2371 60 3 - 2290 36 2 - 790047 2511 53 3 - 2261 39 2 - 790087 3055 15 1 + 2164 44 2 - 790089 2666 45 2 - 2442 24 2 + 790092 2790 36 2 - 2000 51 3 - 790097 2854 27 2 + 2026 50 3 - 790124 2729 40 2 - 2405 26 2 + 790126 3307 6 1 + 2380 29 2 + 790127 2866 26 2 + 1942 53 3 - 790129 2843 29 2 + 1934 55 3 - 790130 2799 34 2 + 2206 40 2 - 790131 2632 47 3 - 2147 46 2 - 790137 3057 14 1 + 2777 8 1 + 790248 2677 43 2 - 2188 42 2 - 790254 2733 38 2 - 2627 13 1 + 790255 2794 35 2 + 2355 31 2 + 790329 2936 22 2 + 1671 60 3 - 790332 2953 21 2 + 1877 57 3 - 790334 2723 41 2 - 2273 37 2 - 790339 3009 19 1 + 1813 59 3 - 790340 2998 20 1 + 2128 48 2 - 790454 2854 28 2 + 2335 32 2 + 790456 2913 24 2 + 2736 10 1 + 790457 2731 39 2 r 2759 9 1 + 790458 2773 37 2 - 2511 20 1 + 790459 2600 48 3 - 2389 2 2 + 790460 2834 30 2 + 2661 11 2 + 97 Table A2. Continued. Non-coppacted Compacted Entry Yield__ Rank Groppg a Yield Rank Group__p 790481 2416 58 3 - 2587 16 1 + 790488 2498 55 3 - 2267 38 2 - 790489 2338 63 3 - 2470 23 2 + 790491 2542 51 3 - 2483 22 2 + 790494 2256 64 3 - 2355 30 2 + 790498 2470 57 3 - 2514 19 1 + 790521 3130 12 1 + 2837 7 1 + 790522 3111 13 1 + 2313 35 2 + 790523 2576 49 3 - 2406 25 3 + 790525 3254 9 1 + 3044 2 1 + 790527 3184 11 1 + 2490 21 2 + 790532 3380 2 1 + 3054 1 1 + 790536 2658 46 2 - 2383 28 2 + 790537 3048 16 1 + 2643 12 1 + 790538 3010 18 1 + 2981 3 1 + Seafarer 2347 62 3 - 1483 63 3 - BTS 2380 59 3 - 1214 65 3 - Tuscola 1883 65 3 - 1360 64 3 - HEP-2 3232 10 1 + 2859 6 1 + Sanilac 2485 56 3 - 1962 52 3 - Riso 23 2355 61 3 - 1528 62 3 - San Fernando 2692 42 2 - 1712 58 3 _ a Non-compacted; +, above average yield, - below average yield b Compacted; +, above average yield; - below average yield 0 Yields are in kg/ha \0 CL) Table A3. Seed yields of 65 entries on non-compacted and compacted plots in 1980 grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Non-compacted Compacted Entry. Yield Rank Grgpp a Yield Rank Group b 4044 3023 27 2 + 2612 43 2 - 61065 2815 41 2 - 2377 51 3 - 61068 2864 35 2 - 2734 30 2 + 61341 3091 24 2 + 2898 19 1 + 61356 2690 47 2 - 2650 39 2 + 61380 3133 21 1 + 2616 42 2 - 61612 2927 33 2 + 2786 27 2 + 61618 3361 11 1 + 2961 12 1 + 61622 3437 9 1 + 2915 18 1 + 61690 3154 18 1 + 3054 8 1 + 62036 3301 14 1 + 2942 15 1 + 62038 2995 28 2 + 2827 23 2 + 62041 3260 15 1 + 2832 22 2 + 62267 2758 45 2 - 2445 49 3 - 72220 2946 31 2 + 2420 50 3 - 790001 2257 54 3 - ‘ 1883 61 3 - 790007 2510 50 3 - 2554 45 2 - 790047 2854 37 2 - 2883 21 1 + 790087 2517 49 3 - 2304 54 3 - 790089 2774 44 2 - 3105 6 1 + 790092 2384 53 3 - 1883 32 2 + 790097 2020 64 3 - 2655 38 2 + 790124 2824 40 2 - 2658 37 2 + 790126 3033 26 2 + 2887 20 1 + 790127 2099 61 3 - 1860 63 3 - 790129 1967 65 3 - 1899 60 3 - 790130 2593 48 2 - 2064 57 3 - 790131 2030 63 3 - 1627 65 3 - 790137 2855 36 2 - 2776 28 2 3 790248 2726 46 2 - 2633 40 2 - 790254 2906 34 2 + 2718 34 2 + 790255 3119 23 1 + 2704 35 2 + 790329 2992 29 2 + 2761 29 2 + 790332 3143 19 1 + 2971 11 1 + 790334 3058 25 2 + 2790 26 2 + 790339 2957 30 2 + 2721 33 2 + 790340 3212 16 1 + 2601 44 2 - 790454 2906 43 2 - 2631 41 2 - 790456 3406 10 1 + 3123 5 1 + 790457 3360 11 1 + 3060 7 1 + 790458 3915 1 1 + 3642 1 1 + 790459 3500 6 1 + 2446 4a 5 - 790460 3209 17 1 + 2922 17 1 + 99 Table A3. Continued. Non-compacted Compacted Entry Yield Rank Gropp a Yield Rank Group b 790481 2944 32 2 + 2723 31 2 + 790483 3549 4 1 + 3052 9 1 + 790489 3330 13 1 + 3041 10 1 + 790491 3449 8 1 + 2930 16 1 + 790494 2831 39 2 - 2554 46 2 - 790498 2033 62 3 - 2189 56 3 - 790521 3495 7 1 + 2955 14 1 + 790522 3556 3 1 + 2791 25 2 + 790525 2130 60 3 - 2370 52 3 - 790527 2429 51 3 - 2360 53 3 - 790532 2843 38 2 - 2961 13 1 + 790536 2243 56 3 - 2471 47 2 - 790537 3592 2 1 + 3296 3 1 + 790538 3530 5 1 + 3308 2 1 + Seafarer 2134 59 3 - 1869 62 3 - B T S 2809 42 2 - 2826 24 2 + Tuscola 2252 55 3 - 1985 58 3 - HEP-2 3141 20 1 + 2663 36 2 + Sanilac 2170 58 3 - 1857 64 3 _ Rico 23 2184 57 3 - 1928 59 3 - San- Fernando 2417 52 3 - 2258 55 3 - a Non-compacted; +, above average yield; -, below average yield b Compacted; +, above average yield; -, below average yield 0 Yields are in kg/ha Table A4. Seed yields of 65 entries on non-compacted and compacted plots, averaged over two years grown on the Bean and Beet Research Farm. Entry Yield Rank 4044 3216 9 61065 2841 34 61068 3073 17 61341 3012 23 61356 2679 48 61380 2972 26 61612 3131 14 61618 2939 30 61622 3408 1 61690 3252 8 62036 3158 13 62038 2898 31 62041 3332 4 62267 2628 49 72220 2746 41 790001 2398 59 790007 2440 56 790047 2683 46 790087 2786 39 790089 2721 42 790092 2587 51 790097 2437 57 790124 2777 40 790126 3170 11 790127 2483 54 790129 2406 58 790130 2696 44 790131 2332 60 790137 2956 29 790248 2702 43 790254 2819 37 790255 2956 28 790329 2964 27 790332 3048 19 790334 2891 32 790339 2983 25 790340 3105 16 790454 2827 36 790456 3160 12 790457 3046 20 790458 3344 2 790459 3050 18 790460 3017 22 Non-compacted Group SD Compacted NN—eNNNNNNNNNNNNKNNKNKNNNKNNNNNWWNN-eNNd—‘NNNNNNNH +-++-+-+1 +-1+-+4-+ 11 +1 1 11 + 11 1 11 1 11 1 .4.+.+4.+-1+.+. +-+1 + Yield, Rank Group b 2600 25 2 + 2236 50 2 - 2808 9 2 + 2416 41 2 - 2124 55 2 - 2388 43 2 - 2462 34 2 - 2790 12 2 + 2749 18 2 + 2966 5 1 + 2751 17 2 + 2751 17 2 + 2572 27 2 + 2176 53 2 - 2373 44 2 - 2027 56 3 - 2422 39 2 - 2573 26 2 + 2234 51' 2 - 2773 14 2 + 2361 46 2 - 2341 48 2 - 2531 30 2 + 2633 24 2 + 1872 62 3 - 1917 59 3 - 2136 54 2 - 1887 61 3 - 2777 13 2 + 2411 42 2 - 2672 21 2 + 2530 31 2 + 2216 52 2 - 2424 38 2 - 2531 29 2 + 2267 49 2 - 2365 45 2 - 2483 33 2 + 2930 6 1 t 2910 7 1 + 3077 2 1 + 2418 40 2 - 2792 11 2 + 101 Table A4. Continued. Non-compacted Compacted Entry Yield Rank Grogp. a Yield Rank Group b 790481 2680 47 2 - 2656 23 2 + 790488 3023 21 2 + 2660 22 2 + 790489 2835 35 2 - 2755 16 2 + 790491 2996 24 2 + 2707 19 2 + 790494 2544 53 2 - 2455 35 2 - 790498 2252 63 3 - 2352 47 2 - 790521 3313 6 1 + 2897 8 1 + 790522 3334 3 1 + 2553 28 2 + 790523 2854 33 2 + 2798 10 2 + 790525 2693 45 2 - 2707 20 2 + 790527 2807 38 2 - 2425 37 2 - 790532 3112 15 2 + 3008 3 1 + 790536 2451 55 3 - 2427 36 2 - 790537 3320 5 1 + 2970 4 1 + 790538 3270 7 1 + 3144 1 1 + Seafarer 3241 64 3 - 1676 64 3 - B T S 2595 50 2 - 2020 57 3 - Tuscola 2065 65 3 - 1673 65 3 - HEP-2 3186 10 1 + 2761 15 2 + Sanilac 2328 61 3 - 1892 60 3 - Rico 23 2270 62 3 - 1727 63 3 - San Fernando 2554 52 2 - 1985 58 3 - a Non-compacted; +, above average yield; -, below average yield b Compacted; +, above average yield; -, below average yield 0 Yields are in kg/ha 102 02 00. 00. 00000 0:.01+00.0 0000 000000 4 00. 00. 0:00. mm.01+.¢.. 00.0 000000 02 00. 00. 00000 0m.01+m0.01 0000 000000 02 00. 00. 0.000 .0.01+00.. 0000 000000 4 00. 00. 0000. 00.01+00.. 0:00 000000 02 00. :0. 00.0. 00.01+00.0 00.0 .00000 02 00. 00. 00000 00.01+0m.. 0000 .04000 02 00. 00. 0.000 00.01+00.. .400 000000 ** JQ. mm. pomh ON.OI+O®.O DOON OOJOQB 02 .0. 00. 00.00. 00..1+00.0 ..0m 004000 0: 00. 00. 0:00: 0:.01+¢0.0 0000 004000 02 .0. :0. 0000. 00.01+0¢.0 0400 004000 02 mm. ... 0000. 00.01+0..0 0000 00.000 02 00. 00. 0.000 00.01+0... 0000 00.000 02 00. 00. 4000: 00.01+00.. 0000 .4000 *4 00. 00. 00. 00.01+m... 0000 00000 02 00. me. 00000 0m.01+0:.0 00.0 000.0 02 00. 00. 000mm 0:.01+mm.. 0000 000.0 02 00. 00. 00s.. 00.01+:0.0 0000 0.0.0 02 00. 00. 00000 .0.01+.m.0 .000 000.0 02 mm. 00. .0000. 00.01+00.0 0000 4:0: 02 :0. 00. 000mm ss.0n+0s.0 4000 01002 0 0 0a 600 0 00600 nwsaeaso .SAML nonmmwmm pmmm 000 ammm.0:p pm 000. 000 mum. :0 00000 mam>flpH00 mzH0H000 :00: mm m0 00008900009 ommae>< .m< magma 103 0005 000 8000 m000000>00 0000000 00 800 u mm 000000>00 00000000 1+ 00HH 0000000000 00 emoam 1 n 00\mx 0H mp0080000>00 0 00 0H000 0000 00000>0 caeflw 02 00. 0.. 00.00. 00..1+:0.0 0.00 000000 02 :0. 0.. 00000 0:..1+00.01 0000 000000 .02 0:. 0.. 000000 00..1+00.0 0000 00:000 02 :0. 00. .0000 .0.01+.0.0 0000 .0:000 02 00. 0:. 00000. ....1+00.. :000 00:000 ** mm. mm. mom— OP.OI+Pm.O mmwm ¢miomu . 00. 00. 000.. 00.01+00.. 0000 0:0000 02 .0. 00. 000.0 0:.0140... ..00 :00000 02 00. 00. :000. 00.01+0... 0:00 000000 02 .0. 00. .0:0 0..01+00.0 0:00 :00000 4* 00. 00. 000. 00.01+00.0 :000 :0.000 02 00. 00. 0.0:0 00.01+:0.. :0:0 000000 02 0:. .0. 0.0.0 00.01+00.0 0:00 000000 02 00. 00. 00.00 00.01+0... 0.00 000000 0 00. 00. 00000 0:.01+0... .0:0 000000 . :0. 00. :000. 00.01+00.. 0000 00000 02 00. 00. .000: :0.01+00.. 0000 0.0.0 . 00. 00. 0000. 00.01+00.. 0000 000.0 4 00. 00. 00000 00.01+.0.. :.00 .:0.0 4 00. 00. 0.00. 00.01+00.. 0000 000.0 0 0 0,H 600 0 00000 ewsfiefiso 000. 000 000. 00 03000 .0000 0000000m 000m 000 000m 000 00 000>00H00 0000H000 800008 ON 00 00005000000 00000>< .m< manme 104 0000 00000000 0000 8000 000000>00 000000 000: n 000 000000>00 00000000 1+ 0000 00000000 0000 00 00000 n n 0000B0000>00 : 00 00000 0000 00000>< n 00000 02 0.. 00. 000:0 0:.0-+0..0u 00:0 000000 00 00. 00. 0000. .0.0-+00.0- 0000 00:000 02 .0. 00. 0.000. 0:.0:+00.0 0000 :0:000 mz 00. 00. 00000 .0.0-+00.. 0000 000000 02 00. 00. 00000 00.0-+:0.0 0000 000000 *0 :0. 00. 0000 00.0u+.0.0 0000 0:0000 02 00. 00. 0.:00. 00..u+0:.0u 0..0 .0.000 02 00. 00. 00000. 00.0-+00.0 0.:0 00.000 02 .0. 00. 0.00: :0.0:+00..n 00.0 00.000 02 00. :0. 000:0 00.0u+00..u 00.0 00.000 02 :0. 00. :.0000 00.0u+0..0 0000 000000 02 .0. 00. :00000 .0.0-+00.: 0000 0:0000 02 :0. 00. 000:00 00..u+00.0 00.0 .00000 02 00. 00. .::00 0:.0-+.0.0 0000 00000 * 00. :0. 00:0 00.0u+00.. 00:0 00000 02 00. 00. 0000: 00.0u+00.. 00:0 000.0 02 00. 00. 00000 00.0-+0... 0000 000000001000 02 00. 00. 000.0 00.0-+00.. 000. 00 0000 00 0:. 00. :00.0 00.0-+00.0 0..0 0000000 02 00. .0. 00000 .:.0u+00.0 000. 0000050 * 00. 00. .:000 0:.0u+00.0 0000 .0 .0 .0 02 00. 00. 00.: 0..0u+0:.0 000. 00000000 0 0 00 000 0 00000 00>00000 .8000 0000000m 000m 000 000m 000 00 000. 000 000. 00 03000 000>00000 00000000 300 mm 00 0000800000@ 00000>< .00 00000 LITERATURE CITED 6. 10. 11. LITERATURE CITED Barley, K. P., Farrell, D. A., and Creacent, E. L. 1965. The influence of soil strength on the penetration of loam by plant roots. Australian Journal of Soil Research 3:69-79 Baver, L. D., Gardner, W. H., and Gaedner, W. R., 1972 Soil Physis Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 284-287. Burke, D. W., Homes, L. D., and Barker, A. W., 1972 Distribution of Fusarium-solanief-sn:phasegl; and bean-D roots in relation to tillage and soil compaction. Phytopathology 62 (5):550-554. Eberhart, S. A., and Russell, W. A. 1966. Stability Parameters for Comparing Varieties. Crop Science 6:36-40. Fisher, N. M., Gooderham, P.T., and Inysam, J. 1975. The effect on the yields of barley and kale of soil conditions induced by cultivation at high moisture content. J. Agr. Science 85 (3)3385-393. Forsythe, W. M., and Legorda, B. L., 1978. Soil water and aeration and red bean production. I mean maxium soil moisture suction. Turrialba 28 (1): 81-860 Gill, W. R. 1961. The mechanical impedance of plants by compact soils. American Society of Agricultural Engineers 4:238-242. Hopkins, R. M., and Patrick, W. H. Jr. 1969. Combined effect of oxygen content and soil compaction on root penetration. Soil Science 108 (6)3408-413. Huertas, G. A. 1975. Efecto de la resistencia mecanica del suelo sobra la producion del frijol (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)variedaled 27-R. Thesis Mag. Sc. Turrialba, Costa Rica Instiuto Inter- americano de Ciencias Agricolas de la OEA. 71 p. Janssen, B. H., and VanDer Weert R. 1977. The influence of fertilizars, soil organic matter and soil compaction on maize yields on the Surinam Zandering Soils. Plant Soil 46 (2):445—458. Kulparni, B. R., and Savant, N. K. 1978. Effects of soil compaction on root cation exchange capacity of crop plants. Plant Soil 48 (2):269-278. 105 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 106 Lemon, E. R., and Wiegand, C. L. 1962. Soil aeration and plant root relations. II Root respiration. Agronomy Journal 54: 171-175. Letey, J., Stolzy, L.'H., and Blank, G. B. 1962. Effect of duration and timming of low soil_oxygen content on shoot and root growth. Agronomy Journal 54:54-57. McBurney, S. L., Smucker, A. J. M., and Srivastava, A. K. 1981. Hydropneumatic Elutriation System (Hy PBS) for the Quantitative Separation of Root and Soil Materials. Paper presented at the Agronomy Meeting. Detroit, Michigan. December 4. 1979. Miller, I. E., and Burke, D. W. 1977. Effect of temporary excessive wetting on soil aeration and Fusarium root rot of beans. Plant Disease Reporter 377377775479. Morris, D. T., and Daynard, T. B. 1978. Influence of soil density on leaf water potential of corn. Canada Journal of Soil Science 58 (2):275-278. Nelson, W. E., Rahi, G. S., and Reeves, L. Z. 1975. Yield potential of soybean as related to soil compaction induced by farm traffic. Agronomy Journal 67 (6):769-772. Olymbias, C. M., and Schuabe, W. W. 1978. Effects of aeration and soil compaction on growth of the carrot Dancus-Carota. Journal of Horticulture Science 52 (45:h85-500. Phillips, R. E., and Kirkham, D. 1972. Soil com- paction in the field and corn growth. Agronomy Journal 54:29-54. Pollard, F., and Elliott, J. G. 1975. The effect of soil compaction and method of fertilizar placement on the growth of barley using a concrete track technique. Journal of Agricultural Engineers 23 (2):203-216. Sass, John F. 1958. BotanicalfiMicrotechniqpe. 5rd. edition. Iowa S. U. Press. Ames, Iowa. Schulteis, D. T., and Kattan, A. A. 1971. Response of snap beans to root microclimate. Arkansas Farm Research 20 (1):9. N be 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 50. 51. 107 Smittle, D. A., and Williamson, R. E. 1977. Effect of soil compaction and nitrogen source on growth and yield of squash. Journal American Society of Horticulture Science 102 (5):555-557. . 1977. Effect of soil compaction , an nitrogen and water use efficiency root growth ”yield and fruit shape of pickleing cucmbers. Journal American Society of Horticulture Science 102 (6):822-825 . 1978. Modification of cucumber response to seed grading and nitgrogen source by soil compaction. Horticulture Science 10} (A): 439-441. Srivastava, A. K., Smucker, A. J. M., and McBurney, S. 1980. A mechanical soil sampler for root growth studies. Paper presented at the 1980 winter meeting of American Society of Agriculture Engineers. Chicago, Illinos. Dec. 2-5. Strandberg, J. 0., and White, J. M. 1979. Effects of soil compaction on carrot roots. Journal American Society Horticulture Science 104 (5):}44-549. Taylor, H. M., and Gordon, H. R. 1965. Penetrations of cotton seedling taproots as influenced by bulk density moisture content and strength of soil. Soil Science 96:153-156. Taylor, J. L. 1975. A Modified Air Planter "Plantair” for use in experimental plots. Paper presented at the Bean Improvement Cooperation and National Dry Bean Council Meeting. Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan. Nov. 5-7:57. Thurman, P. C., and Pakorny, T. A. 1969. The relation- ship of several amended soils and compaction rates on vegetation growth root deveIOpment and cold resistance to Tifgree Bermula Grass-M. Journal American Society of Horticulture Science 94 (5): A65-465. Voorhees, W. E., Min Amemiya, Allmaras, R. R., and Larson, W. E. 1971. Same effects of aggregate structure heterogeneity on root growth. Soil Science Society American Proceedings 55:655-645. 1 0‘8 32. Voorhees, W. B., Farrell, D. A., and Larson, W. E. 1975. Soil strength and aeration effects on root elongation. Soil Science Society American Proceedings 59:948-955. 53. Wittsell, L. E., and Hobbs, J. A. 1965. Soil compaction effects on field plant growth. Agronomy Journal 57 2 534- 537 . R! A“ R” 8"! L”! H Y". T” I" 7 210 1111111111111 293 0317 illtllllflllfflllli