Evaluation of In-Row Plant Spacing and Planting Configuration for Three Irrigated Potato Cultivars

Tarkalson, David D.; King, Bradley A.; Bjorneberg, David L.; Taberna, John P.

doi:10.1007/s12230-010-9185-9

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The canopy cover of Russet Burbank potatoes planted in the 4RC configuration tended to catch up with the bed panting configurations quicker than the other two cultivars. These data may help explain the findings from Tarkalson et al (2011), where Russet Norkotah and Ranger Russet potato production under the bed planting configurations were not significantly different from conventional ridged-row planting but evidence suggested that production of Russet Burbank may be better suited under the 4RC planting configuration.…”

Section: Effect Of Planting Configuration On Par Interceptionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Specifics of this study design are described in Tarkalson et al (2011). In summary, three cultivars were evaluated: Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah, and Ranger Russet.…”

Section: Study 1: Treatments and Study Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to conventional ridged-row planted potatoes, research has shown that potatoes planted in beds have comparable production output (Nelson 1967;Wayman 1969;Thompson et al 1974;Alva et al 2002;Tarkalson et al 2011), greater yields and net return (Prestt and Carr 1984;McKeown 1987;Fisher et al 1993;King et al 2011), increased rate of potato emergence (Prestt and Carr 1984), more uniform water distribution in the root zone (Prestt and Carr 1984;Robinson 1999;Essah and Honeycutt 2004), reduced runoff and erosion (Prestt and Carr 1984;Robinson 1999;Alva et al 2002;Essah and Honeycutt 2004), and greater water use efficiency (Fisher et al 1993;King et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tarkalson et al (2011) conducted a study to evaluate the effect of in-row plant spacing on the production of Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah, and Ranger Russet potatoes planted in four row conventional ridged-row (4RC), five row bed (5RB), and seven row bed (7RB) planting configurations under sprinkler irrigation. The current paper will quantify and compare the intercepted PAR from the planting configurations and plant spacing treatments reported in Tarkalson et al (2011) and from an independent second study and how these are related to measured production variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Planting Configuration and In-Row Plant Spacing on Photosynthetically Active Radiation Interception for Three Irrigated Potato Cultivars

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research studies have evaluated the production of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) grown in conventional and bed planting configurations. However, intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) from these planting configurations has not been quantified. planting (DAP) was increased 35%, 38%, and 32% for the 5RB and 65%, 69%, 23% for the 7RB relative to the 4RC planting configuration for Ranger Russet, Ranger Norkotah, and Russet Burbank, respectively. Cumulative PAR interception for the season was increased 15%, 16%, and 4% for the 5RB and 23%, 23%, 5% for the 7RB relative to the 4RC planting configuration for Ranger Russet, Ranger Norkotah, and Russet Burbank, respectively. The relationship between intercepted PAR and leaf area for Russet Norkotah during the early vegetative and tuber initiation growth stages was significantly different between the three planting configurations, with intercepted PAR at a given leaf area in the order of 7RB>5RB>4RC. For Russet Burbank, the relationship was significantly different for the 5RB and 7RB compared to 4RC planting configuration only, with intercepted PAR at a given leaf area in the order of 7RB05RB>4RC.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Planting Configuration On Par Interceptionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Specifics of this study design are described in Tarkalson et al (2011). In summary, three cultivars were evaluated: Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah, and Ranger Russet.…”

Section: Study 1: Treatments and Study Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Planting Configuration and In-Row Plant Spacing on Photosynthetically Active Radiation Interception for Three Irrigated Potato Cultivars

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only a handful of researchers have examined row width differences in the US (Houghland and Parker 1948;Kunkel 1965;Nelson 1967;Love et al (1995); Mundy et al 1999;Conley et al 2001;King et al 2011;Tarkalson et al 2011). Four papers focused on the effects of conventional row systems vs. bed planting systems (Nelson 1967;Mundy et al 1999;King et al 2011;Tarkalson et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Land Use Efficiency and Grower Revenue by Reducing Potato Row Width

Pavek

Holden

Spear³

et al. 2018

Am. J. Potato Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard row width for potato production in the Columbia Basin of Washington and Oregon is 86 cm (34 in.), but the reasons for this are unclear. The goal of this research was to identify a row width that maximizes potato grower revenue by optimizing land use efficiency. A 2012 pilot study conducted in central WA with four potato varieties (Alturas, Ranger Russet (R.), R. Burbank, and Umatilla R.) and four row width treatments (76, 81, 86, and 91 cm (30, 32, 34, and 36 in.)) indicated that row widths <86 cm had several advantages over those ≥86 cm. The protocol and methods were refined and a larger study conducted between 2013 and 2015. Russet Norkotah, Chieftain, and Teton R. were planted with the four varieties mentioned above into 71, 76, 81, and 86 cm (28, 30, 32, and 34 in.) row-width treatments; in-row seed piece spacing was 25.4 cm (10 in.). When data were averaged across years and varieties, a quadratic regression provided the best fit for total yield and adjusted gross return; the values for each peaked at 79 cm and 80 cm, respectively. Row widths of 76 and 81 cm produced 6 and 7 t ha −1 higher yields, respectively, than the 86 cm industry standard. The 81 cm treatment produced 7.3% higher adjusted gross than the industry standard. Compared to the industry standard, plants from the 71 cm rows performed poorly; this 15 cm (6 in.) reduction in row width caused a 9.3% loss of adjusted gross income. Tuber weight and number per plant and were maximized when rows were ≥81 cm wide. These data suggest that the industry standard row width of 86 cm is an inefficient use of land and that an inter-row spacing of 80-81 cm (31.5-32.0 in.) could improve economic return to Columbia Basin growers by as much as $937 ha −1. ResumenLa amplitud estandar entre surcos para la producción de papas en la rivera del Columbia de Washington y Oregon es de 86 cm (34 pulgadas), pero las razones para esto no están claras. La meta de esta investigación fue de identificar una distancia entre surcos que maximizara la ganancia del productor mediante la optimización del uso eficiente de la tierra. Un estudio piloto en el 2012 conducido en el centro de WA con cuatro variedades de papa (Alturas, Ranger Russet (R.), R. Burbank y Umatilla R.) y cuatro tratamientos de distancia entres surcos (76, 81, 86, y 91 cm (30, 32, 34 y 36 pulgadas) indicó que la distancia entre surcos <86 cm tuvo varias ventajas sobre aquellas de ≥ 86 cm. Se refinaron el protocolo y los métodos y un estudio más grande se condujo entre 2013 y 2015. Se plantaron Russet Norkotah, Chieftain, y Teton R. con las cuatro variedades ya mencionadas arriba, en tratamientos de distancias entre surcos de 71, 76, 81, y 86 cm (28, 30, 32, y 34 pulgadas), y espaciamientos entre las unidades de tubérculo-semilla de siembra de 25.4 cm (10 pulgadas) dentro del surco. Cuando se promediaron los datos entre años y variedades, una regresión cuadrática proporcionó el mejor ajuste para rendimiento total y ajustó la recuperación neta; los valores para cada uno alcanzaron su máximo a ...

show abstract

Differences in soil evaporation between row and interrow positions in furrowed agricultural fields

Al-Oqaili

Good

Frost

et al. 2020

Vadose Zone Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although large‐scale center pivot sprinkler irrigation has replaced surface irrigation in many locations, the agricultural practice of growing crops in furrows remains common. Still, how the presence of elevated soil rows under sprinkler irrigation influences evaporation losses remains unclear, even while quantifying nonproductive water losses becomes increasingly important for informing new water conservation and irrigation strategies. In this study at the Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Hermiston, OR, soil evaporation from the row and interrow positions within potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) fields of contrasting irrigation timing (daytime vs. nighttime) was estimated based on hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios. Samples collected throughout the 2016 growing season were analyzed and used to calculate soil evaporation (E) losses relative to applied irrigation (I). On average, row positions were more enriched in heavy isotopes than interrow positions, indicating that the evaporated fraction of applied irrigation (E/I) depends on the position. Within the day‐irrigated field, the estimated (mean ± standard deviation) E/I ratios determined from both stable isotopes for May, July, and September were 18 ± 8%, 10 ± 3%, and 19 ± 5% for row and 15 ± 6%, 7 ± 2%, and 12 ± 4% for interrow samples. Within the night‐irrigated field during these same months, the E/I ratios were 13 ± 12%, 16 ± 7%, and 13 ± 5% for row and 12 ± 7%, 9 ± 2%, and 6 ± 2% for interrow samples, respectively. For these fields, these results reveal that there is more evaporation from row, as compared with interrow, positions. Therefore, management practices for water conservation should account for larger nonproductive evaporation from within rows in order to minimize evaporative losses.

show abstract

Evaluation of In-Row Plant Spacing and Planting Configuration for Three Irrigated Potato Cultivars

Cited by 17 publications

References 22 publications

Effects of Planting Configuration and In-Row Plant Spacing on Photosynthetically Active Radiation Interception for Three Irrigated Potato Cultivars

Effects of Planting Configuration and In-Row Plant Spacing on Photosynthetically Active Radiation Interception for Three Irrigated Potato Cultivars

Improving Land Use Efficiency and Grower Revenue by Reducing Potato Row Width

Differences in soil evaporation between row and interrow positions in furrowed agricultural fields

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About