| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
a Dep. of Plant Agriculture, Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
b Agronomy Dep., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054
* Corresponding author (bdeen{at}uoguelph.ca)
Received for publication August 8, 2005.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOPNOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
No-till soybean often does have slower early season growth rates than that planted in conventional systems. Soybean planted no-till following corn (Zea mays L.) has been reported to be 5 to 15 cm shorter than in conventional systems 4 to 8 wk after planting (Lueschen et al., 1992; West et al., 1996) and have slower canopy development rates, resulting in reduced early season light interception and delayed complete canopy closure (Philbrook et al., 1991). Soybean planted no-till following corn has also been reported to be more susceptible to lodging, perhaps because of smaller stem diameter than soybean planted conventionally (Guy and Oplinger, 1989).
Following winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Ontario, Vyn et al. (1998) reported that soybean planted no-till had lower biomass 5 wk after planting than soybean planted with fall moldboard systems, with no-till soybean biomass decreasing as the quantity of wheat straw increased.
Numerous studies have reported that often full season soybean yields are lower, and perhaps more variable across environments, when planted no-till than with conventional (fall moldboard) systems (Dick and van Doren, 1985; Griffith et al., 1988; Guy and Oplinger, 1989; Lueschen et al., 1992; Meese et al., 1991; Philbrook et al., 1991; Vyn et al., 1998; West et al., 1996). No-till systems have been reported to have increased incidence of soil-borne diseases such as phytophthora root rot (Dick and van Doren, 1985) and residue-borne diseases such as brown stem rot (Meese et al., 1991; Adee et al., 1994), which can result in substantially lower no-till soybean yields. Selection of appropriate disease-resistant soybean cultivars can be very effective in minimizing no-till yield reductions in disease-susceptible no-till environments (Dick and van Doren, 1985; Meese et al., 1991); however, lower no-till yields can continue to occur even when disease-resistant cultivars are planted (Adee et al., 1994).
Vyn et al. (1998) reported that zone-till (strip-till) resulted in wide-row (76-cm) soybean yields greater than for no-till and equivalent to the fall moldboard system following wheat. A similar fall zone-till study conducted for corn in Ontario reported that fall zone-tilled strips dried down more quickly and had a more finely aggregated seedbed and warmer soil temperatures than no-till systems (Opoku et al., 1997). Tillage in zone-till systems is usually limited to a 20- to 25-cm-wide strip on 76-cm centers into which the crop is planted. Since the majority of the field area is left untilled in zone-till systems, it may be possible to retain most of the soil-conserving potential of no-till while increasing crop yield potential in situations where no-till is associated with reduced yield potential. Fall zone-tillage systems also provide an opportunity to conduct deep tillage (i.e., 20–30 cm), which has been reported to increase soybean yield (Reeder et al., 1993). Another potential advantage of fall zone tillage is that faster soil dry-down rates in fall zone-tilled strips may increase the likelihood of early May planting, which has been reported to significantly increase soybean yield potential in northern production areas (Lueschen et al., 1992).
Soybean in fall zone-till systems will have to be planted in wide rows (e.g., 76 cm), which generally produces yields 10 to 20% lower than soybean planted in row widths between 19 and 25 cm (Ablett et al., 1984, 1991; Lueschen et al., 1992). Since zone-till systems are limited to wide-row planting patterns, soybean yield increases associated with the use of zone-till systems may not match potential yield increases associated with planting soybean with no-till in narrower rows (i.e., 19–38 cm). A twin-row planting pattern, where two 19-cm-wide rows are planted into the zone-tilled strip, may offer the possibility of capturing most of the increase in yield associated with narrow-row widths, as well as tillage benefits in environments associated with lower yield potential when planted no-till. To our knowledge, a twin-row seeding pattern in a fall zone-till system has not been reported.
This study was designed to evaluate soybean response to row width (including twin rows) in no-till, fall moldboard, and various zone-till tillage systems. The specific objectives were to: (i) investigate soybean response to various depths and timing of zone tillage, (ii) determine if twin-row planting patterns for zone-till systems based on 76-cm centers significantly increases soybean productivity, and (iii) examine if zone tillage produces yields superior to those obtained in no-till or fall moldboard systems planted in narrower row widths (i.e., 19 or 38 cm).
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
The soil at Granton in 1998 and 1999 was a Huron silt loam (moderately well-drained, fine and moderately fine, mixed, moderately to very strongly calcareous Typic Hapludalf) and in 2000 it was a Perth silty clay loam (imperfectly drained, fine and moderately fine, mixed, moderately to very strongly calcareous Aquic Hapludalf). At Strathroy, the soil in 1998 was a Brookston clay loam (poorly drained, fine or fine and moderately fine, mixed, alkaline, moderately to very strongly calcareous Typic Humaquept), in 1999 it was a Brookston silty clay loam, and in 2000 it was a Huron loam. Each year at Woodstock the soil was a Guelph loam (well-drained, medium, mixed, alkaline, moderately to very strongly calcareous Typic Hapludalf). Soils at all locations were dominated by smectitic clays. Specific information on actual clay, silt, sand and organic matter content in the Ap horizon (surface 15 cm) for each experimental site is presented in Table 1. The particle size analysis was conducted using a pipette method described by Sheldrick and Wang (1993) and the soil organic matter content was determined using the method described by Walkley and Black (1934).
|
The preceding year's crop for all 3 yr at Granton was grain corn, and soybean at Woodstock. At Strathroy in 1998, the preceding year's crop was silage corn, and was switched to soybean in 1999 and 2000 because of difficulty associated with finding sites following silage corn with at least 5 yr of continuous no-till management.
Experimental Design and Treatments
The experimental design at each site was a randomized complete block with four blocks. Each site contained 16 treatments consisting of a combination of tillage system and soybean row spacing. The plot dimensions were 6.1 by 18 m long. Five tillage systems were evaluated in this study and are described as follows:
For each of the five tillage systems above, soybean was planted in single and twin rows spaced 76 cm apart. Twin rows refers to a row planting configuration where two 19-cm-spaced rows (twins) are planted on 76-cm centers. Seeds were dropped randomly in each of the twin rows. In the fall moldboard and no-till systems, soybean was also planted in 57-, 38-, and 19-cm-wide rows.
Cultural Practices
When necessary, perennial weeds were controlled before fall tillage operations using glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine] at 1.5 kg a.i. ha–1. A similar rate of glyphosate was applied at all sites in the spring, 5 to 10 d before soybean planting.
Soybean was planted using a Model 750 John Deere no-till drill. Planting dates were 25 May 1998, 19 May 1999, and 5 June 2000 at Granton; 22 May 1998, 21 May 1999, and 1 June 2000 at Strathroy; and 18 May 1998, 28 May 1999, and 27 May 2000 at Woodstock. Seeding rates varied for the various row widths in accordance with Ontario recommendations (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2002). The seeding rates for each year of this study were at least 400 000 seeds ha–1 for twin 76-cm and 57- and 38-cm rows and 530 000 seeds ha–1 for 19-cm rows. For single 76-cm rows, difficulty occurred achieving the desired seeding rate in 1998 and the seeding rate was 300 000 seeds ha–1. The drill was updated with a different drive sprocket in 1999 and the target seeding rate of 400 000 seeds ha–1 for single 76-cm rows was achieved in 1999 and 2000. Following corn, soybean rows in the 76-, 57-, and 38-cm rows were positioned 10 to 20 cm beside the old corn rows. The previous corn crop was produced using 76-cm rows and soybean was always planted in the same direction as the old corn rows.
The soybean cultivar at Granton for all years was NKS14-M7 (Syngenta Seeds Canada Inc., Arva, ON). The cultivars at Strathroy were NK19–90 in 1998 and NKS08–80 in 1999 and 2000. The cultivars at Woodstock were OAC Bayfield (SeCan Members, Napean, ON) in 1998 and NKS14-M7 in 1999 and 2000. The maturity grouping was 1.4 for NKS14-M7, 1.9 for NK19–90, 0.8 for NKS08–80, and 0.6 for OAC Bayfield. All cultivars were indeterminate and classified as medium to medium tall with good to excellent resistance to lodging. The plant types were described as either thin line (OAC Bayfield), slender bush (NKS08–80 and NKS19–90), or medium bush (NKS14-M7). The cultivar NKS14-M7 is Roundup Ready. Each cultivar is rated as having good to excellent tolerance to sclerotinia (white mold) and phytophthora root rot (Syngenta cultivars contain the Rps1c gene, which provides resistance to most Phytophthora races prevalent in Ontario).
Weed control at Granton was achieved using exclusively glyphosate at 1.3 kg a.i. ha–1 applied at the two to three trifoliate leaf stage. At Strathroy, imazethapyr (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) was applied preemergence at 75 g a.i. ha–1. At Woodstock, metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] and linuron [N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea] were applied preemergence at 2.4 and 1.2 kg a.i. ha–1, respectively. When necessary, a postemergence application of bentazon [3-(1-methylethyl)-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide] at 0.7 kg a.i. ha–1 was also applied at Strathroy and Woodstock.
Measurements
In-row soil penetration resistance and dry bulk density were measured for all tillage systems only where single 76-cm rows were planted. The penetration resistance and dry bulk density measurements were conducted 4 to 6 wk following soybean planting and after at least one significant consolidating rainfall event had occurred at each site following planting.
Soil penetration resistance in the surface 36 cm was measured every 1.5 cm (from a minimum of five in-row positions per plot) using a Rimik recording penetrometer (Rimik Pty Ltd., Toowoomba, Australia). On the same day that penetration resistance measurements were conducted, volumetric soil moisture was also determined for five in-row positions per plot in the surface 15 cm using time domain reflectrometry (Topp et al., 1980).
Dry bulk density was determined at depths of 5 to 10 and 15 to 20 cm for three in-row positions per plot. The bulk density samples were collected using 5-cm-diam. by 5-cm-high Al cores. Bulk density data for Granton in 1998 is not available because of a weighing error.
Soybean plant population was measured 
4 to 6 wk after planting (late June) by counting the number of plants from two adjacent rows for a length of 1 m, three times per plot. Early season growth was assessed by measuring soybean aboveground biomass 7 to 8 wk after planting (mid-July). Biomass was estimated by harvesting all soybean plants from two adjacent single 76-cm, twin 76-cm, and 57- and 38-cm rows or four adjacent 19-cm rows for a total harvest area of 2.3 m2; the plants were dried in forced-air ovens at 70°C for at least 3 d and the dry mass was recorded, expressed on an area basis. Seed yields were determined by harvesting the entire 18-m length of two 76-cm (singles and twins) and 57-cm rows, three 38-cm rows, and six 19-cm rows using a Wintersteiger Nurserymaster Elite (Wintersteiger Inc., Salt Lake City, UT). The harvest area for seed yield was at least 20 m2. Seed moisture was determined using a DICKEY-John GAC II moisture meter (DICKEY-John, Auburn, IL) and yield expressed at a seed water content of 130 g kg–1.
Statistical Analysis
Data was initially analyzed for each site using an analysis of variance appropriate for a randomized complete block design using the Mixed Procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 1999). The various tillage system x row width treatment combinations were considered to be fixed effects and blocks were considered to be random effects. Soil bulk density and penetration resistance data were analyzed across depths using a split-plot model, which considered depth as a whole-plot factor and a fixed effect. Data were included in pooled analysis across sites only if residual variances obtained from the individual site analyses were similar according to a Bartlett's test of homogeneity of variance. For pooled analysis of variance, sites (i.e., location-years) were considered to be random effects. Residuals for all analyses of variance were evaluated for normality based on the Shapiro–Wilk test in the Proc Univariate procedure of SAS and Studentized residuals were calculated to detect outliers. Unless otherwise indicated, the Type I error for all statistical tests was P = 0.05.
The effect of conventional row spacing (i.e., 76, 57, 38, and 19 cm) was characterized for the no-till and fall moldboard tillage systems using the appropriate linear and quadratic contrasts. Otherwise, tillage–row spacing differences were identified using a t-test, provided that the tillage-row spacing F-test was significant at P = 0.05. When the F-test was significant at P = 0.05, the LSD value at P = 0.05 was included in data tables.
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
In-Row Soil Properties
The zone-tilled strips at most experimental sites were slightly ridged (5–8 cm) at the time of soybean planting and soybean was never planted into zone-tilled strips that settled to form a depression.
In-row bulk density increased with depth, with density in the 15- to 20-cm layer across all sites averaging 0.09 g cm–3 higher than in the 5- to 10-cm layer (Table 2). Depth x tillage system interactions were not significant, so presentation and discussion of bulk density data is based on the main effects of tillage system and depth.
|
Tillage effects on in-row soil penetration resistance in the surface 36 cm, illustrated in Fig. 1 for Granton in 1999, were representative of the relative effects that tillage had on in-row soil resistance observed at the other eight location-years. In-row soil penetration resistance, averaged according to the previous year's crop, are presented in Table 3 for three depths (6, 12, and 24 cm), which represent midpoint depths for the various tillage systems evaluated in this study. Specifically, 6 cm is the midpoint between depth of planting and spring coulter tillage; 12 cm is the midpoint between the depths of spring coulter tillage and either fall moldboard plowing or fall zone tillage; 24 cm is the midpoint between the depths of deep fall zone tillage and either fall moldboard plowing or fall zone tillage.
|
|
In-row volumetric soil moisture in the surface 15 cm when soil penetration resistance was measured was higher in no-till systems than fall tillage systems at five out of nine sites (data not shown). When differences occurred, in-row volumetric soil moisture in the surface 15 cm for no-till was 0.02 to 0.04 m3 m–3 higher than for the various fall tillage systems. Covariate analysis conducted for each site indicated that in-row soil moisture never explained significant (P = 0.05) variability in soil penetration resistance observed in the surface 15 cm. This suggests that, when differences in soil penetration resistance occurred among tillage systems, the effect was predominantly due to soil loosening associated with tillage rather than to differences in soil moisture.
The bulk density and penetration resistance measurements were taken in early July, indicating that the fall zone tillage systems evaluated are capable of creating an in-row rooting environment with lower density and penetration resistance up to the depth of tillage than no-till well into the growing season.
Early Season Soybean Establishment and Growth
Early season plant population at each site was lowest for single 76-cm rows, intermediate for twin rows and 57- and 38-cm rows, and highest for 19-cm rows (data not shown). The magnitude of population differences among row width treatments was generally consistent with the differences in intended seeding rate associated with the various row-width treatments. Within each of the various row-width treatments, tillage had minimal effects on early season plant population.
Mid-July soybean biomass within each tillage system usually increased as row width decreased (Table 4). Similarly, twin-row soybean tended to have higher mid-July biomass than single 76-cm rows. Individual plant mass, calculated by dividing soybean biomass by population, did not differ among the single 76-cm, twin 76-cm, and 57- and 38-cm row widths within a given tillage system (data not shown), indicating that row-width effects on biomass were mainly due to population differences associated with the various row widths. For 19-cm rows, calculated individual plant biomass was 75% of the biomass in the wider row widths, an effect that probably was due to greater competition among plants because of a substantially higher plant population when planted in 19-cm rows.
|
No-till soybean following grain corn had reduced early season biomass compared with the fall moldboard system. This effect occurred for all row widths, with no-till biomass about 65 to 75% of the biomass under the fall moldboard system (Table 4). These results are consistent with reports that no-till soybean planted following corn is often shorter 1 to 2 mo after planting (Lueschen et al., 1992; West et al., 1996) and has slower canopy development rates, resulting in delayed complete canopy closure (Philbrook et al., 1991) compared with fall moldboard systems. Soybean biomass in the fall zone-till systems, averaged across single and twin 76-cm row widths, was 0.28 to 0.32 Mg ha–1 (23–25%) less than under the fall moldboard system and was similar to the no-till system. Tillage did not affect midseason plant populations (data not shown), which indicates that higher mid-July biomass under the fall moldboard system following grain corn was primarily due to faster early season plant growth.
Tillage did not affect mid-July biomass following silage corn or soybean.
Soybean Yield
Soybean yield with no-till and fall moldboard systems usually increased as row width decreased following each previous year's crop (Table 5); however, there were some differences in the size and type of yield response to row width associated with tillage and previous crop. No-till soybean yields generally were maximized by planting 38-cm rows, with yield increase associated with decreasing row width from 76 to 38 cm of 0.77 Mg ha–1 (23%) after silage corn, 0.25 Mg ha–1 (9%) following grain corn, and 0.31 Mg ha–1 (12%) following soybean. With the fall moldboard system, soybean yields tended to increase linearly as row width decreased from 76 to 19 cm following both grain corn and soybean. The size of yield increase was 0.19 Mg ha–1 (6%) following grain corn and 0.40 Mg ha–1 (15%) following soybean. The yield increase associated with narrowing row width following silage corn was not significant primarily because of the relatively high yield (4.22 Mg ha–1) obtained in the 76-cm row width under the fall moldboard system. Except for the fall moldboard system following silage corn, the yield response to narrowing row width in this study is more or less consistent with the 10 to 20% response reported in other studies conducted in northern production areas (Ablett et al., 1984, 1991; Lueschen et al., 1992).
|
No-till yields with twin rows were essentially the same as those produced with narrower row widths (38 or 19 cm; Table 5). The same effect did not occur under the moldboard system following soybean, where yield with 19-cm rows was 0.34 Mg ha–1 (12%) higher than with twin rows. Following grain corn and silage corn under the fall moldboard system, twin rows produced yields similar to those obtained with 38- or 19-cm rows.
No-till yields with the 76-cm single rows were statistically lower than those in the fall moldboard system following grain corn at Granton. This trend was observed also for other row spacings (Table 5). Averaged across years, fall moldboard yields were greater than no-till by 0.23 Mg ha–1 (7%) with 38- and 19-cm rows and 0.33 Mg ha–1 (12%) with 76-cm rows. The magnitude of yield differences between no-till and fall moldboard systems varied across years. For example, yields averaged across 19- and 38-cm row widths under the fall moldboard system were greater than with no-till for 2 of the 3 yr, with actual yield increases over no-till of 0.23 Mg ha–1 (8%) in 1998 and 0.40 Mg ha–1 (16%) in 2000. Field crop budgets for Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2006) indicate that production costs for conventional tillage systems are $36.87 (Canadian) ha–1 more than for no-till systems. Using a relatively low assumed soybean price of $225 (Canadian) Mg–1, conventional tillage systems have to produce yields that are 0.16 Mg ha–1 higher than no-till to maintain equivalent profitability. The yield advantage associated with fall moldboard systems over no-till following corn exceeded 0.16 Mg ha–1 in this study, suggesting that even when relatively low soybean price assumptions are used, fall moldboard systems are more profitable than no-till. The no-till yield response following corn observed in this study is consistent with other research in northern production regions where no-till soybean yields following grain corn averaged across years are lower than for fall moldboard systems, with significant year-to-year variation in response (Guy and Oplinger, 1989; Lueschen et al., 1992; Meese et al., 1991; Philbrook et al., 1991).
No-till yields were 0.94 Mg ha–1 (29%) lower than fall moldboard following silage corn in single 76-cm rows (Table 5). Yield differences among tillage systems following silage corn were relatively small for 57-, 38-, and 19-cm rows and were not significant. Significant yield differences between no-till and fall moldboard systems did not occur for any row width following soybean.
The depth of fall zone tillage did not affect soybean yield when planted in either single 76-cm rows or twin rows (Table 5). Deep fall zone tillage did effectively reduce in-row penetration resistance at all sites to 30 cm (Fig. 1, Table 3). The inability of the deep fall zone-till system to produce yields that exceeded those under either the fall zone-till or fall moldboard systems indicates that soybean productivity on the soils used in this study will probably not be significantly increased by loosening soil deeper than 15 cm.
Twin-row soybean yields under fall zone-till and spring coulter-till systems were not different from those obtained under the no-till system planted in either twin rows or narrower row widths (38 or 19 cm; Table 5). Even following grain corn, where no-till soybean yields often were less than in the fall moldboard system, fall zone-till or spring coulter tillage did not produce yields greater than no-till planted either in twin rows or narrower row widths.
The soybean yields clearly indicate, at least for the soils and environmental conditions associated with this study, that shallow spring coulter tillage or fall zone tillage to either 15 or 30 cm will not increase yields above those that can be obtained with no-till in narrower row widths. This study does indicate that, for soybean production systems that traditionally would necessitate the need for wide-row soybean planting patterns (e.g., zone tillage or nutrient banding), soybean should be planted in twin rows to minimize the loss of yield potential associated with wide-row production.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Fall zone tillage usually had in-row bulk density and soil penetration resistance in the surface 15 cm that were similar to fall moldboard plowing and less than no-till; however, fall zone-till yields generally did not differ from those obtained under the no-till system, even in environments where no-till yields were less than those obtained under the fall moldboard system. Although in this study there were no yield differences between fall zone-till and no-till systems, fall zone-till systems may increase soybean yields by means other than through the soil loosening (i.e., tillage) effects that were examined. In northern production regions, early May planting has been associated with higher yields (Lueschen et al., 1992). Fall zone tillage may increase soybean yield potential by increasing the likelihood of having warmer and drier early spring seedbed conditions than no-till (Opoku et al., 1997). Twin rows did occasionally increase fall zone-till yields, but yields never exceeded those obtained with no-till planted in either twin rows or 38- or 19-cm rows.
Deep fall zone tillage effectively reduced in-row penetration resistances to 30 cm, with actual observed penetration resistances from 15 to 30 cm averaging 0.9 MPa (50%) less than those observed with the no-till system; however, this degree of deep loosening did not produce yields greater than those obtained with fall moldboard plowing or fall zone tillage to 15 cm. This indicates that deep tillage of Ontario's medium- and fine-textured soils (with no apparent compaction problem) cannot be expected to increase soybean yields on a consistent basis.
Evaluation or use of soybean production systems that necessitate the use of wide rows (e.g., zone tillage or nutrient banding) should consider using a twin-row planting configuration to minimize the loss of yield potential associated with wide-row soybean production.
|
NOTES |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPNOTESABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Crop Science | Vadose Zone Journal | |||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | ||||
| Journal of Plant Registrations | Journal of Environmental Quality |
The Plant Genome | |||
, at Granton (1999–2000), Strathroy (1998–2000), and Woodstock (1998–2000), ON.