FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2105843843> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2105843843 abstract "Damage from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has become a common complaint of soybean (Glycine max) producers in many areas of the Southeast. Both shortand long-term, single-field and community-wide solutions to this problem are needed. This paper describes a multi-agency, multi-state effort, involving agronomists, wildlife biologists, producers, and other landowners, to assess soybean losses from deer and to evaluate potential solutions. One phase of this work, which is supported by soybean producer checkoff funds, involves evaluating agronomic practices for reducing crop losses. These include drilled (rather than wide-row) plantings and use of insect-resistant or dense-pubescent cultivars (varieties) which may deter browsing, especially where deer pressure is light to moderate. Evaluations of these practices, in comparison with conventional ones, are being conducted in producer’s fields in SC, NC, and VA. The other phase of this work is a cooperative project involving Clemson University, the SC Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, soybean producers and’ other landowners in a 7500-acre tract in Hampton and Jasper Cos., SC. The deer population in this tract will be monitored and reduced over a 3-year period, and the resulting effects on soybean crop losses and herd quality will be assessed. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 6:152-155.1995. Damage to soybean by white-tailed deer has been reported in the southeastern USA for a number of years (Flyger and Thoerig 1962, DeCalesta and Schwendeman 1978, Moore and Folk 1978, Garrison and Lewis 1987), and crop depredation problems have increased nationwide as deer populations have increased (Conover and Decker 1991). Suggested methods to alleviate deer damage, including fencing, repellents, lights, and noisemakers, are costly and often unreliable (Flyger and Thoerig 1962, Moore and Folk 1978, Hygnstrom and Craven 1988). Both short-term solutions that producers can use to reduce deer damage on a single-field or farm basis, as well as reduction of the deer population through herd management techniques, are needed for the coexistence of two resources (deer and soybeans) in areas of the Southeast experiencing extreme deer pressure. This paper outlines an approach to investigate both agronomic practices (single-field solutions) and population reduction (a community-wide approach) for reducing deer damage to soybeans. Investigations of agronomic practices for reducing deer damage are being conducted in several southeastern states. The United Soybean Board (through the American Soybean Association) and state boards in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia have allocated producer check-off funds to support our efforts. One objective of this work is to evaluate various soybean cultivars (varieties) and breeding lines for deer preference. Preliminary data indicates that certain insectresistant cultivars may be less preferred by deer than are conventional (insect-susceptible) cultivars. For example, in 1991, deer damage measurements were taken four times during the first 40 days after soybean planting in a producer’s field in Colleton Co., SC. Measurements were taken for four soybean cultivars: Lamar and Crockett, both of which show resistance to foliar-feeding insects (Hartwig et al., 1990, Bowers, 1990, Rowan et al. 1991), and the insectsusceptible (conventional) cultivars Leflore and Perrin. Previous studies at other locations had indicated that 16% or fewer plants were damaged in fields with histories of deer depredation (DeCalesta and Schwendeman 1978, Garrison and Lewis 1987). At our location, however, much larger percentages (37 to 94%) of plants were damaged by deer during the observation period (Table 1). The insect-resistant cultivars Lamar and Crockett sustained less deer damage than the susceptible cultivars leflore and Perrin at the first two observation dates. However, the percentage of damaged Lamar plants increased substantially after 11 July, with 75% of plants damaged by the end of that month. The percentage of damaged plants was lower for Crockett than for the two susceptible cultivars throughout the observation period. Yield estimates were also higher for Crockett (1882 kg/ha; 28 bu/ac) than for Perrin (605 kg/ha; 9 bu/ac) or Leflore (1008 kg/ha; 15 bu/ac). Lamar and Leflore yields were estimated to be identical. Table 1. Deer damage to four soybean cultivars at four observation dates in 1991. The plants were growing in a small field in a heavily wooded location in Colleton Co., SC. Cultivar 3 July 7 July 22 July 29 July ----------------------------------% of plants damaged (SE) ----------------------------------Leflore 71 (9) 82 (7) 86 (5) 87 (5) Lamar 53 (13) 53 (13) 74 (7) 75 (6) Perrin 65 (14) 79 (7) 87 (3) 94 (3) Crockett 37 (15) 41 (17) 53 (15) 56 (12) In 1992; various soybean genotypes (cultivars and lines) were grown inside and outside an electric fence at three locations in Virginia. Yield reductions due to deer (yield decrease outside fence as a percentage of yield inside fence) were low at two locations, but at West Point, VA, yield was reduced 43% when averaged over genotypes (Table 2). The genotypes evaluated included the insect-resistant cultivar Lamar (27% yield reduction) and the insect-resistant line N8050385 which showed no yield reduction. In addition, two isolines differing only in pubescence sustained different levels of deer damage; yield was reduced 47% for the glabrous isoline D88-5328, as compared with 23% for the pubescent isoline D88-5272. Yield reduction was less for later-maturing insectresistant lines (20% reduction) than for early-maturing ones (67%). We are continuing to evaluate a number of insect-resistant soybean cultivars and lines at field locations in the three states. In Virginia, screening efforts include soybean genotypes with various pubescence types (sparse, normal, and dense pubescence), genotypes with both insect-resistance and densepubescence, and blends of insect-resistant and -susceptible cultivars. Field studies on the influence of drilling (as opposed to conventional wide row spacings) on deer damage are also being conducted as part of this project. This work has been prompted by producer reports that deer seem to prefer the wider spaced rows, perhaps because the threat of danger is easier to recognize than in close rows. We also think that closely-spaced plantings can recover better from moderate browsing than can conventional plantings. This is because of the ability of the soybean plant to compensate (through branching) for additional space such as that left by an adjacent plant which was damaged. In a related effort, a study is underway at Clemson University’s Simpson Research and Education Center near Pendleton, SC, to evaluate soybean growth and yield under various clipping treatments designed to simulate moderate to extreme deer damage. The clipping treatments consist of removal of one-fourth to one-third of the main-stem of all plants in a 4-row plot. The treatments are performed at 4 times during the season (3 times during vegetative growth plus one treatment after pod formation), with 16 treatments representing all combinations of clipping and treatment date. Evaluation of plan! development and plot yield under these treatments All provide information which is needed by agronomists and wildlife biologists who must assess the potential of a crop to recover from damage, especially when it has been repeatedly browsed. Table 2. Yield reduction from deer feeding for IQ soybean genotypes at West Point, VA, in 1992. Genotype Outside Electric Fence Inside Electric Fence Yield Reduction ------------------------kg/ha------------------------Essex 921 2970 69 Camp 1284 2446 48 Hutcheson 1700 3158 46 Centennial 1626 2063 21 Lamar 1915 2641 27 D88-5328 833 1566 47 D88-5272 2157 2789 23 MBB80-147-1 1962 2399 18 MBB83-365 363 1989 82 N80-50385 1747 1660 (5)" @default.
• W2105843843 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2105843843 creator A5010208733 @default.
• W2105843843 creator A5032789498 @default.
• W2105843843 creator A5038351592 @default.
• W2105843843 creator A5043220076 @default.
• W2105843843 creator A5085601160 @default.
• W2105843843 creator A5089183719 @default.
• W2105843843 date "1993-01-01" @default.
• W2105843843 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2105843843 title "ASSESSING AND REDUCING SOYBEAN CROP LOSSES FROM DEER: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY, MULTI-AGENCY EFFORT" @default.
• W2105843843 cites W2066887387 @default.
• W2105843843 cites W2071808372 @default.
• W2105843843 cites W219060 @default.
• W2105843843 cites W2336962274 @default.
• W2105843843 cites W3025065284 @default.
• W2105843843 cites W3197764749 @default.
• W2105843843 hasPublicationYear "1993" @default.
• W2105843843 type Work @default.
• W2105843843 sameAs 2105843843 @default.
• W2105843843 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2105843843 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2105843843 hasAuthorship W2105843843A5010208733 @default.
• W2105843843 hasAuthorship W2105843843A5032789498 @default.
• W2105843843 hasAuthorship W2105843843A5038351592 @default.
• W2105843843 hasAuthorship W2105843843A5043220076 @default.
• W2105843843 hasAuthorship W2105843843A5085601160 @default.
• W2105843843 hasAuthorship W2105843843A5089183719 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C108170787 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C137580998 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C37621935 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C54286561 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C6557445 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConcept C88463610 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C108170787 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C127413603 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C137580998 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C144024400 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C144133560 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C36289849 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C37621935 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C39432304 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C54286561 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C6557445 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C86803240 @default.
• W2105843843 hasConceptScore W2105843843C88463610 @default.
• W2105843843 hasLocation W21058438431 @default.
• W2105843843 hasOpenAccess W2105843843 @default.
• W2105843843 hasPrimaryLocation W21058438431 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W1757693490 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W179614185 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W1963837895 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2012263181 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2131281194 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2152309041 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2165201472 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2185938454 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2233290392 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W3153463259 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W336333112 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W404655848 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W51112948 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W582814843 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W608824078 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W763343344 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W833825097 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W97748849 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2183889146 @default.
• W2105843843 hasRelatedWork W2184373065 @default.
• W2105843843 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2105843843 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2105843843 magId "2105843843" @default.
• W2105843843 workType "article" @default.