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 Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Benjamin, J. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Benjamin, J. G. Agricola Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Benjamin, J. G. Related Collections Water Use Dryland Cropping Systems Other Forage Crops

Forage Yield Response to Water Use for Dryland Corn, Millet, and Triticale in the Central Great Plains

USDA-ARS, Central Great Plains Research Station, 40335 County Road GG, Akron, CO 80720

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Crop water use for corn, foxtail millet, and winter triticale grown for forage at Akron, CO, 1998 to 2004. (p = probability that the null hypothesis of no difference in water use due to crop species is true.)

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Harvest dry matter for corn, foxtail millet, and winter triticale grown for forage at Akron, CO, 1998 to 2004. (p = probability that the null hypothesis of no difference in dry weight due to crop species is true.)

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Dry matter water use efficiency for corn, foxtail millet, and winter triticale grown for forage at Akron, CO, 1998 to 2004. (p = probability that the null hypothesis of no difference in water use efficiency due to crop species is true.)

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Water use efficiency vs. dry matter yield for foxtail millet, winter triticale, and corn at Akron, CO, 1998 to 2004.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Harvest dry matter vs. water use with fitted linear regression responses for corn, foxtail millet, and winter triticale grown for forage at Akron, CO, 1998 to 2004.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Volumetric water content at planting and harvest for corn, foxtail millet, and winter triticale grown for forage at Akron, CO, 1998 to 2004. Values on right side of figure are probability (p) that the null hypothesis of no difference between planting and harvest volumetric water contents is true.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Frequency distributions of estimated dry matter production for corn, foxtail millet, and winter triticale at Akron, CO based on growing season precipitation (1965–2004) and water use/dry matter production functions.