Agronomy Journal Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Right arrow Help viewing high resolution images
Right arrow Return to article
Click on image to view larger version.


Figure 5


Fig. 5. Effect and interaction of residue management (RM) and trinexapac-ethyl (TE) treatment on harvest index in first year (2001), second year (2002), third year (2003), and fourth year (2004). RM treatments: burn, flail. TE treatment legend: CK = check; EF = average of two early fall rates; LF = average of two late fall rates; ES = early spring; LS = late spring. Vertical bars represent LSDs (p = 0.05) in years where significant differences were found. LSD TE is for comparison between TE treatments averaged across RM in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, LSD 1 is for comparison of TE treatment at the same level of RM within each year. LSD 2 is for comparison of RM at the same or different level of TE treatment within each year. T bars represent one SEM for each treatment combination.





Right arrow Return to article


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