HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Farrer, D. C. Articles by White, J. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Farrer, D. C. Articles by White, J. G. Agricola Articles by Farrer, D. C. Articles by White, J. G. Related Collections Other Crop Management Best Management Practices Wheat

Minimizing Protein Variability in Soft Red Winter Wheat

Impact of Nitrogen Application Timing and Rate

^a Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
^b Dep. of Soil Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7619

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Soft red winter wheat yield response: (A) mean yield vs. N applied at growth stage (GS) 30 for five N fertilizer treatments applied at GS 25 across seven environments; (B) yield vs. N applied at GS 25 at each of seven environments; (C) yield vs. N applied at GS 30 at each of seven environments.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Soft red winter wheat test weight response to N applied at growth stage (GS) 30 for five N fertilizer treatments applied at GS 25 at each of seven environments: (A) C2001, (B) C2002, (C) L2001, (D) P2001, (E) P2001nt, (F) P2002, (G) T2002.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Soft red winter wheat grain protein response to N applied at growth stage (GS) 30 for five N fertilizer treatments applied at GS 25 at each of seven environments: (A) C2001, (B) C2002, (C) L2001, (D) P2001, (E) P2001nt, (F) P2002, (G) T2002.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A) Treatment mean wheat grain protein content (averaged across environments); and (B) treatment grain protein SD (solid black circles), and CV (open gray circles) vs. the total amount of spring N applied for each of 25 N fertilizer treatment combinations.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Linear regressions of grain protein content (g kg–1) for individual treatments at a given environment against the mean grain protein content (g kg–1) of all treatments at that environment. Each of the seven environments is identified along the x axis (T2002; Tidewater Research Station 2002, C2001; Cunningham Research Station 2001, L2001; Lower Coastal Plains Research Station 2001, C2002; Cunningham Research Station 2002, P2002; Piedmont Research Station 2002, P2001; Piedmont Research Station 2001, and P2001nt; Piedmont Research Station 2001 no-till). Four N fertilizer treatments (those receiving a total of 0.0, 67.2, 134.4, and 201.6 kg spring N ha–1 with half the N applied at growth stage 25 and the second half at growth stage 30) are shown.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Quadrant chart with deviations from the regression (of N treatment grain protein content at a given environment against the mean grain protein content of all treatments at that environment) on the y axis (computed as the error mean square), and the regression coefficient (b value) on the x axis for each of the 25 N treatment combinations. The amount of N fertilizer applied at growth stage 25 and 30 (rounded to the nearest kg ha–1) are indicated for the treatment combinations falling in the lower left quadrant.