Abstract
ABSTRACT Winter triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) has the potential to introduce valuable economic and environmental benefits to U.S. grain production systems. To maximize triticale's value, research was conducted to identify planting dates that allow maximum productivity after soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Winter triticale was planted at 10‐d intervals from 15 September to 15 October at three Iowa locations: central, NE, and SW, during three growing seasons: 2001–2002, 2002–2003, and 2003–2004. Grain yield decreased with planting dates after late September at the NE and SW locations in 2002–2003, and the central, NE, and SW locations in 2003–2004. Yield reductions from planting in mid October rather than late September ranged from 13 to 29%. At the NE location in 2001–2002 and the central location in 2002–2003, grain yield was 15% less for mid September than late September planting, similar for late September and early October plantings, and 13 to 15% less for mid October. Grain yield did not change with planting date at central Iowa in 2001–2002. The greatest yields occurred for planting dates where between 533 and 955 growing degree days (GDD, 0°C base temperature) accumulated between planting and 31 December. Winter triticale would most likely be placed after soybean in Iowa, suggesting that a 2‐wk period would be available for planting winter triticale without diminished yield caused by late planting.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Yield declined with planting dates after late September at northeast and southwest sites in 2002–2003 and all sites in 2003–2004.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale
×Triticosecalet0 - Treatment
- planting dates after late Septembere0
- Outcome
- Grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- late Septembere0
- Setting
- NE and SW locationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield decreased with planting dates after late September at the NE and SW locations in 2002–2003, and the central, NE, and SW locations in 2003–2004”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid October planting reduced yield by 13 to 29% versus late September.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- planting in mid Octobere0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 13 to 29%e0
- Comparator
- late Septembere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield reductions from planting in mid October rather than late September ranged from 13 to 29%”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid September planting yielded 15% less than late September at specified sites and years.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- mid Septembere0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 15%e0
- Comparator
- late Septembere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield was 15% less for mid September than late September planting”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Late September and early October plantings had similar yields.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- early October plantingse0
- Outcome
- similare0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- late Septembere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“similar for late September and early October plantings”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid October planting yielded 13 to 15% less in the specified sites and years.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- mid Octobere0
- Outcome
- 13 to 15% lesse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 13 to 15%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and 13 to 15% less for mid October”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
At central Iowa in 2001–2002, grain yield did not change by planting date.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- planting datee0
- Outcome
- Grain yielde0
- Direction
- did not changee0
- Setting
- central Iowae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield did not change with planting date at central Iowa in 2001–2002”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Greatest yields occurred with 533 to 955 accumulated growing degree days before December 31.
- Taxon
- Winter triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- planting datese0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 533 and 955 growing degree dayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The greatest yields occurred for planting dates where between 533 and 955 growing degree days (GDD, 0°C base temperature) accumulated between planting and 31 December”
t0“Winter triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest a two-week planting window after soybean without late-planting yield loss.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- 2‐wk period would be available for planting winter triticale without diminished yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“suggesting that a 2‐wk period would be available for planting winter triticale without diminished yield caused by late planting”
t0“Winter triticale”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.