SOYBEAN INOCULATION TRIAL Bob Henson

Similar documents
soils. Proper disease identification is crucial to developing management strategies.

At harvest the following data was collected using the methodology described:

Effect of Planting Date and Maturity Group on Soybean Yield in the Texas South Plains in 2001

COMPARISON OF SEEDING RATES AND COATING ON SEEDLING COUNT, ROOT LENGTH, ROOT WEIGHT AND SHOOT WEIGHT OF CRIMSON CLOVER

Influence of Cultivar and Planting Date on Strawberry Growth and Development in the Low Desert

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR(S) AND THEIR AGENCY:

Plant Population Effects on the Performance of Natto Soybean Varieties 2008 Hans Kandel, Greg Endres, Blaine Schatz, Burton Johnson, and DK Lee

Final Report to Delaware Soybean Board January 11, Delaware Soybean Board

Effect of Planting Date and Maturity Group on Soybean Yield in the Texas High Plains in 2000

2012 NEW YORK STATE SOYBEAN VARIETY YIELD TESTS. William J. Cox, Phil Atkins, and Mike Davis Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences

THE 2017 OHIO SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIALS

THE 2017 OHIO SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIALS

Sunflower Research Trials. Dr. Heather Darby Rosalie Madden, Amanda Gervais, and Erica Cummings UVM Extension

WINE GRAPE TRIAL REPORT

PROCESSING TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY

Sunflower Research Trials. Dr. Heather Darby Rosalie Madden, Amanda Gervais, and Erica Cummings UVM Extension

2011 NEW YORK STATE SOYBEAN VARIETY YIELD TESTS. William J. Cox and Phil Atkins Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences

Effect of paraquat and diquat applied preharvest on canola yield and seed quality

2009 Barley and Oat Trials. Dr. Heather Darby Erica Cummings, Rosalie Madden, and Amanda Gervais

2016 Corn Silage Field Crop Trials Results

Evaluation of Organic Cucumber, and Summer and Winter Squash Varieties for Certified Organic Production Neely- Kinyon Trial, 2005

2014 Evaluation of Sweet Corn Varieties, Jay, Florida

Results and Discussion Eastern-type cantaloupe

2013 NEW YORK STATE SOYBEAN VARIETY YIELD TESTS. William J. Cox, Phil Atkins, and Mike Davis Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences

2010 Winter Canola Variety Trial

Effect of paraquat and diquat applied preharvest on canola yield and seed quality

Midwest Cantaloupe Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2015

Evaluation of desiccants to facilitate straight combining canola. Brian Jenks North Dakota State University

PERFORMANCE OF SUPERSWEET CORN AND SWEET CORN VARIETIES FOLLOWING SEVERE HAIL

1

Optimum Plant Population Density for Chickpea In a Semiarid Environment

Making Better Decisions

Klamath Experiment Station

Effect of Storage Period and Ga3 Soaking of Bulbs on Growth, Flowering and Flower Yield of Tuberose (Polianthes Tuberosa L.) Cv.

1. Title: Identification of High Yielding, Root Rot Tolerant Sweet Corn Hybrids

Research - Strawberry Nutrition

Edamame Variety Trial Phone: Fax: Materials and Methods

J. Environ. Sci. & Natural Resources, 9(1): , 2016 ISSN

Title: Evaluation of Apogee for Control of Runner Growth in Annual Plasticulture Strawberries

Tea Research Foundation Central Africa

Western Regional Dry Pea, Lentil and Chickpea Trials

Western Regional Dry Pea, Lentil and Chickpea Trials

2011 Soybean Performance Results for Full-Season & Double-Crop Conventional and LibertyLink Production Systems in Arkansas (Two-Year Averages)

Evaluation of 17 Specialty Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Study of Forage Productivity and Chemical Composition of Winter Vetch (Vicia villosa R.) under Optimization of the Factors of Sowing Time and Rate

Research Progress towards Mechanical Harvest of New Mexico Pod-type Green Chile

2008 PACIFIC NORTHWEST WINTER CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS. Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Pendleton, OR

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Sugar-enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2004

Recalibration for Sunflower

THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HAIL ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF PUMPKINS AND TWO SQUASH VARIETIES

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Sugar-enhanced and Synergistic Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2014

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Ames Plantation, Charles A. Mullins, Marshall Smith, and A. Brent Smith. Interpretative Summary

2014 PACIFIC NORTHWEST WINTER CANOLA VAREITY TRIAL REPORT. Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Pendleton, OR

Performance of Fresh Market Snap Bean Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

Performance of SE Sweet Corn Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, A. Brent Smith and Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

YIELD POTENTIAL OF NOVEL SEMI-DWARF GRAIN AMARANTHS TESTED FOR TENNESSEE GROWING CONDITIONS

Carol A. Miles, Ph. D., Agricultural Systems Specialist 1919 NE 78 th Street Vancouver, Washington 98665

What Do you Get When You Mix Pumpkins, Cowpeas, Buckwheat and Mycorrhiza? Steven Kirk Field Supervisor

SCREENING OF BARLEY CULTIVARS FOR POTENTIAL ETHANOL PRODUCTION IN MARYLAND FINAL GRANT REPORT

2011 BARLEY VARIETY TRIALS MATERIALS AND METHODS

2014 Agrium AT Fertilizer Trial Glen R. Obear and Bill Kreuser, Ph.D University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Objectives

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Influence of Valor Timing and Rate on Dry Bean Injury at Scottsbluff, Nebraska during the 2009 Growing Season. Robert Wilson

Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2008

Sugar-enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2009

HARD RED SPRING WHEAT

Evaluation of FŪSN ( ) on Umatilla Potato Production

Pepper Research for Adaptation to the Delmarva Region 2017

2013 Safflower Irrigation Research Results

PACIFIC NORTHWEST WINTER CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL. Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Pendleton, OR ABSTRACT

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

NIMITZ NEMATICIDE FIELD TRIALS

PACIFIC NORTHWEST WINTER CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL. Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Pendleton, OR ABSTRACT

Volunteer buckwheat control in irrigated spring wheat year two. Mark Thorne, Henry Wetzel, Drew Lyon, Tim Waters

Sclerotinia head rot: Improving the methods used to screen sunflowers for resistance and prospects for using fungicides for management

Evaluation of 16 Phytophthora capsici-tolerant Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

WALNUT HEDGEROW PRUNING AND TRAINING TRIAL 2010

2016 Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluations

LOWER HILLS OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

EVALUATION OF FOURTEEN TOMATO CULTIVARS IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN Ron Goldy & Virginia Wendzel Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center

Objective: To examine Romaine lettuce varieties for resistance to yellow spot disorder

Report of Progress 945

SUNFLOWER HYBRIDS ADAPTED TO THE FINNISH GROWING CONDITIONS

PACIFIC NORTHWEST WINTER CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL. Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Pendleton, OR ABSTRACT

2006 Strawberry Variety Research Fresno County

GRAIN SORGHUM. Tifton, Georgia: Early-Planted Grain Sorghum Hybrid Performance, 2012 Nonirrigated. 2-Year Average Yield

Angel Rebollar-Alvitar and Michael A. Ellis The Ohio State University/OARDC Department of Plant Pathology 1680 Madison Avenue Wooster, OH 44691

Red Clover Varieties for North-Central Florida

Sunflower and Canola Production Issues Hans Kandel, NDSU Extension Agronomist

Banat s Journal of Biotechnology

Effect of intercropping on plant and soil of jackfruit grown in New Alluvial soil of West Bengal

Identifying Soybean Growth Stages

2012 Spring Barley Variety Trial

Aug (Dry Bean 2012 PRE) ARM Site Description Page 1 of 9 USDA - ARS. Broad Axe Trial on Pinto Bean General Trial Information

Tolerance of Arbequina Olives (Olea europaea Arbequina) to Mission Herbicide.

agronomy 2018 South Dakota Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trials

WATERMELON AND CANTALOUPE VARIETY TRIALS, PO Box 8112, GSU Statesboro, GA

Transcription:

SOYBEAN INOCULATION TRIAL Bob Henson A field experiment was conducted at the North Dakota State University Carrington Research Extension Center to evaluate the response of soybean to commercial and experimental inoculants and to compare this response to varying levels of soil nitrogen (N). The trial was sown to Roundup Ready soybean cultivar RG200RR (Maturity Group 0.0) on 29 May at the rate of 200,000 live seeds / acre in 7 rows. A soil sample the previous fall tested 37 lbs. NO 3 - -N / acre, with adequate phosphorus. In addition to an absolute control (no inoculum, no N fertilizer), N fertilizer treatments were included to study total N levels (soil test + fertilizer) of 50, 75, and 150 lbs. N / acre without inoculation. Additional inoculant treatments of interest were also included. Plots measured 10 x 25 and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Weeds were controlled with herbicides and hand weeding. No other pesticides were applied. Although soybean had been grown previously in nearby fields, the plot area did not have a known history of soybean, as evidenced by the sparse nodulation in the control treatment (Table 1). Visual nodulation scores indicated that 20 of the 38 inoculation treatments were significantly better than the control. No statistically significant differences among treatments were detected in days to physiological maturity, height, or lodging (Table 2). Despite the lack of significant differences in grain yield, all inoculation and N fertilizer treatments resulted in numerically higher yields, with some yield increases greater than 30 percent (Table 3). Starter levels of N fertilizer (50 and 75 lbs. total N / acre) numerically increased yield over the control, but only 150 lbs. N / acre approached the yield of the best inoculant treatments. Future research will include starter N in combination with inoculation. Seed oil concentration tended to decrease with increased yield, while highly significant positive correlations existed among seed N concentration, grain yield, and grain N yield (Tables 3 and 4). The positive yield response to all inoculation / N fertilizer treatments and the positive correlation between grain yield and seed N concentration are indications that N was a limiting factor to soybean production at this site. Averaged across all treatments within a category, all inoculant formulations numerically improved nodulation, grain yield, seed protein concentration, and grain N yield over the uninoculated (including the N fertilizer) treatments (Table 5). Grain yield and quality characteristics were similar among inoculant formulations, but visual nodulation scores tended to be better with seed-applied inoculants than with granular products applied infurrow. Future trials will include a combination of seed-applied and granular inoculants.

Table 1. Soybean inoculation treatment effects on plant development, Treatment Formulation Manufacturer Nodulation (1-9) 1 Control x x 6.8 N Fertilizer (to 50 lbs total N / acre) x x 7.5 N Fertilizer (to 75 lbs total N / acre) x x 8.1 N Fertilizer (to 150 lbs total N / acre) x x 8.4 HiStick 2 Peat Becker Underwood 5.0 HiStick Exp A Peat Becker Underwood 5.8 HiStick 2 + ExpB Peat Becker Underwood 5.1 HiStick 2 + ExpC Peat Becker Underwood 3.6 MicroFix Peat Becker Underwood 5.6 SoySterile Peat Becker Underwood 4.8 HiStick N/T Peat Becker Underwood 5.5 HiStick L N/T Liquid Becker Underwood 4.8 HiStick L N/T + ExpD Liquid Becker Underwood 4.8 HiStick L N/T + ExpE Liquid Becker Underwood 4.4 HiStick L N/T + Exp A Phosphate Solubilizer Liquid Becker Underwood 4.9 HiStick L N/T + Exp B Phosphate Solubilizer Liquid Becker Underwood 5.0 HiStick L N/T + Exp B1 Phosphate Solubilizer Liquid Becker Underwood 5.1 HiStick L Liquid Becker Underwood 4.9 BU Exp H Liquid Becker Underwood 4.8 Nod + Liquid Becker Underwood 5.5 BU Exp J Liquid Becker Underwood 4.5 Exp Nod + Concentrate Liquid Becker Underwood 4.7 Nod + Extender Pre-inoculation Becker Underwood 5.5 Nodulator Granular Becker Underwood 6.5 Nodulator Exp A Granular Becker Underwood 6.5 NodulatorExp B Granular Becker Underwood 6.3 RhizoFlo Exp A Granular Becker Underwood 5.8 RhizoFlo Granular Becker Underwood 7.0 RhizoFlo Exp B Granular Becker Underwood 5.9 CellTech SCI PreInoc Pre-inoculation Nitragin 6.3 Soil Implant Granular Becker Underwood 5.5 NRow Granular INTX Microbials 6.3 NTake Liquid INTX Microbials 5.7 ProLiquid Liquid Advance Inoculant 5.5 TagTeam Peat Philom Bios 5.3 CellTech SCI Liquid Nitragin 5.1 CellTech SCI Exp1 (Optimize) Liquid Nitragin 4.2 CellTech SCI Exp2 Liquid Nitragin 4.5 NitraStik-S Peat Nitragin 5.9 ApronMaxx x x 6.9 CellTech SCI + ApronMaxx Liquid Nitragin 4.8 RizoLiq + ApronMaxx Liquid Rizobacter Argentina 4.7 RizoLiq + ApronMaxx 20May Pre-inoculation Rizobacter Argentina 5.0 Mean 5.6 C.V. (%) 17.0 LSD (0.05) 1.33 LSD (0.01) 1.75 1 1 = profuse, 9 = no nodules

Table 2. Soybean inoculation treatment effects on yield parameters, Physiological Plant Treatment Maturity Height Lodging DAP 1 (cm) (1-9) 2 Control 110 74 1.0 N Fertilizer (to 50 lbs total N / acre) 111 77 1.5 N Fertilizer (to 75 lbs total N / acre) 112 82 1.3 N Fertilizer (to 150 lbs total N / acre) 110 86 1.3 HiStick 2 109 74 1.3 HiStick Exp A 110 76 1.3 HiStick 2 + ExpB 109 75 1.0 HiStick 2 + ExpC 109 78 1.5 MicroFix 108 79 1.0 SoySterile 108 78 1.0 HiStick N/T 108 74 1.0 HiStick L N/T 107 72 1.0 HiStick L N/T + ExpD 108 75 1.0 HiStick L N/T + ExpE 109 69 1.0 HiStick L N/T + Exp A Phosphate Solubilizer 108 77 1.0 HiStick L N/T + Exp B Phosphate Solubilizer 108 77 1.0 HiStick L N/T + Exp B1 Phosphate Solubilizer 107 79 1.0 HiStick L 111 81 1.3 BU Exp H 109 76 1.3 Nod + 109 71 1.0 BU Exp J 110 75 1.5 Exp Nod + Concentrate 111 74 1.0 Nod + Extender 110 78 1.5 Nodulator 111 78 1.0 Nodulator Exp A 111 76 1.0 NodulatorExp B 111 75 1.0 RhizoFlo Exp A 110 72 1.0 RhizoFlo 110 71 1.0 RhizoFlo Exp B 110 77 1.0 CellTech SCI PreInoc 109 74 1.3 Soil Implant 110 75 1.5 NRow 109 71 1.0 NTake 108 73 1.0 ProLiquid 112 72 1.3 TagTeam 111 71 1.5 CellTech SCI 110 73 1.0 CellTech SCI Exp1 (Optimize) 110 70 1.3 CellTech SCI Exp2 109 72 1.0 NitraStik-S 108 80 1.0 ApronMaxx 110 70 1.0 CellTech SCI + ApronMaxx 110 69 1.0 RizoLiq + ApronMaxx 109 77 1.0 RizoLiq + ApronMaxx 20May 109 64 1.0 Mean 109 75 1.1 C.V. (%) 2.3 10.9 26.9 LSD (0.05) NS NS NS LSD (0.01) NS NS NS 1 days after planting 2 1 = erect, 9 = prostrate

Table 3. Soybean inoculation treatment effects on yield parameters, Grain Test Seed Seed Seed Grain Treatment Yield Weight Weight Oil 1 Protein 1 N Yield (bushel/acre) (lb/bu) (g/250) (%) (%) (lb/acre) Control 30.5 58.3 30.3 19.3 31.5 576 N Fertilizer (to 50 lbs total N / acre) 36.1 58.2 30.5 19.3 31.7 686 N Fertilizer (to 75 lbs total N / acre) 35.8 58.0 30.6 19.5 31.1 668 N Fertilizer (to 150 lbs total N / acre) 40.6 58.1 32.1 18.9 33.2 807 HiStick 2 40.2 58.3 33.5 18.2 35.6 858 HiStick Exp A 40.0 58.2 33.8 18.4 35.6 854 HiStick 2 + ExpB 36.7 58.3 33.8 18.3 35.5 782 HiStick 2 + ExpC 41.4 58.4 34.4 18.2 35.9 890 MicroFix 36.7 58.4 33.0 18.2 35.8 789 SoySterile 34.9 58.2 31.4 18.7 34.2 714 HiStick N/T 36.9 58.2 33.7 18.6 35.2 778 HiStick L N/T 40.9 58.3 33.0 18.4 35.3 866 HiStick L N/T + ExpD 40.7 58.2 32.7 18.3 35.5 865 HiStick L N/T + ExpE 40.5 58.4 33.0 18.3 35.5 862 HiStick L N/T + Exp A Phosphate Solubilizer 38.7 58.3 33.1 18.5 35.7 829 HiStick L N/T + Exp B Phosphate Solubilizer 38.5 58.2 32.2 18.5 34.8 803 HiStick L N/T + Exp B1 Phosphate Solubilizer 37.0 58.3 33.2 18.4 35.4 785 HiStick L 41.7 58.2 34.2 18.2 36.3 906 BU Exp H 41.3 58.2 33.2 18.0 36.5 904 Nod + 41.4 58.1 34.0 18.4 35.4 880 BU Exp J 37.4 58.2 33.5 18.2 36.1 808 Exp Nod + Concentrate 41.6 58.0 34.7 18.3 36.0 899 Nod + Extender 40.5 58.4 32.8 18.2 35.6 866 Nodulator 40.1 58.1 31.7 18.8 33.8 812 Nodulator Exp A 39.8 58.1 32.7 18.8 33.8 809 NodulatorExp B 41.1 58.0 32.6 18.4 34.9 860 RhizoFlo Exp A 36.0 58.3 32.6 18.6 34.4 742 RhizoFlo 40.5 58.3 32.3 18.5 35.4 858 RhizoFlo Exp B 38.0 58.5 32.9 18.2 35.9 819 CellTech SCI PreInoc 39.3 58.3 32.7 18.1 36.2 855 Soil Implant 40.3 58.0 34.2 18.1 36.4 879 NRow 39.8 58.3 32.8 18.0 36.0 859 NTake 39.1 58.1 32.7 18.5 34.9 820 ProLiquid 37.8 58.1 33.7 18.1 35.8 812 TagTeam 38.9 58.0 32.2 18.5 34.8 813 CellTech SCI 39.8 58.4 33.5 18.0 36.4 870 CellTech SCI Exp1 (Optimize) 40.6 58.1 33.7 18.1 36.4 887 CellTech SCI Exp2 34.3 58.1 33.2 18.0 36.6 751 NitraStik-S 35.5 58.2 32.3 18.6 34.5 735 ApronMaxx 30.1 58.0 29.7 19.5 31.3 566 CellTech SCI + ApronMaxx 38.2 58.1 34.7 18.2 36.2 829 RizoLiq + ApronMaxx 39.8 58.3 32.2 18.4 35.2 841 RizoLiq + ApronMaxx 20May 36.2 58.0 32.1 19.0 33.5 728 Mean 38.4 58.2 32.8 18.5 35.0 807 C.V. (%) 12.3 0.5 3.8 1.5 2.3 12.4 LSD (0.05) NS NS 1.52 0.4 1.2 141 LSD (0.01) NS NS 2.01 0.5 1.5 187

Table 4. Correlation coefficients among parameters in the soybean inoculation trial, Physiological Plant Grain Test Seed Seed Seed Grain Parameter Nodulation Maturity Height Lodging Yield Weight Weight Oil Protein N Yield Nodulation 1 0.1870 0.1763 0.0798-0.0575-0.1730-0.3431 0.4302-0.5169-0.1980 P-value 0.0165 0.0239 0.3096 0.4671 0.0277 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0115 Phys. Maturity 0.18697 1.0000-0.0788 0.2281 0.0332-0.2728 0.2722-0.1448 0.0170 0.0335 P-value 0.0165 0.3162 0.0033 0.6747 0.0004 0.0005 0.0661 0.8299 0.6726 Height 0.17633-0.0788 1.0000 0.2786 0.3520 0.0639-0.0901 0.0960-0.0609 0.2874 P-value 0.0239 0.3162 0.0003 <0.0001 0.4193 0.2542 0.2241 0.4412 0.0002 Lodging 0.07982 0.2281 0.2786 1.0000 0.1864-0.0661 0.1405-0.1330 0.1209 0.2043 P-value 0.3096 0.0033 0.0003 0.0176 0.4030 0.0746 0.0916 0.1254 0.0091 Grain Yield -0.05753 0.0332 0.3520 0.1864 1.0000-0.1260 0.2879-0.1961 0.3025 0.9647 P-value 0.4671 0.6747 <0.0001 0.0176 0.1103 0.0002 0.0124 <0.0001 <0.0001 Test Weight -0.17297-0.2728 0.0639-0.0661-0.1260 1.0000 0.0383-0.2329 0.2138-0.0551 P-value 0.0277 0.0004 0.4193 0.4030 0.1103 0.6287 0.0029 0.0063 0.4866 Seed Weight -0.34311 0.2722-0.0901 0.1405 0.2879 0.0383 1.0000-0.7177 0.7363 0.4547 P-value <0.0001 0.0005 0.2542 0.0746 0.0002 0.6287 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Seed Oil 0.43018-0.1448 0.0960-0.1330-0.1961-0.2329-0.7177 1.0000-0.9415-0.4291 P-value <0.0001 0.0661 0.2241 0.0916 0.0124 0.0029 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Seed Protein -0.51688 0.0170-0.0609 0.1209 0.3025 0.2138 0.7363-0.9415 1.0000 0.5384 P-value <0.0001 0.8299 0.4412 0.1254 <0.0001 0.0063 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Grain N Yield -0.19801 0.0335 0.2874 0.2043 0.9647-0.0551 0.4547-0.4291 0.5384 1.0000 P-value 0.0115 0.6726 0.0002 0.0091 <0.0001 0.4866 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Table 5. Effect of inoculant formulation on soybean performance, Physiological Plant Grain Test Seed Seed Seed Grain Formulation n 1 Nodulation Maturity Height Lodging Yield Weight Weight Oil 5 Protein 5 N Yield (1-9) 2 (DAP) 3 (cm) (1-9) 4 (bushel/acre) (lb/bu) (g/250) (%) (%) (lb/acre) Granular 31 6.2 110 74.4 1.1 39.4 58.2 32.7 18.5 35.0 828 Liquid 67 4.9 109 73.9 1.1 39.3 58.2 33.4 18.3 35.8 844 Peat 35 5.2 109 76.1 1.2 38.0 58.3 33.2 18.4 35.2 804 Preinoculated 11 5.6 109 72.6 1.3 38.9 58.3 32.6 18.4 35.3 824 Uninoculated 20 7.5 110 77.7 1.2 34.6 58.1 30.6 19.3 31.7 662 1 number of observations in a mean; 2 1 = profuse, 9 = no nodules; 3 days after planting 4 1 = erect, 9 = prostrate; 5 13% moisture