Plant density

Allen, E. J.; Wurr, D. C. E.

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-2340-2_7

Cited by 25 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, closer than optimal plant spacing increases tuber density relative to canopy size, thereby limiting photosynthetic capacity to bulk each tuber (Allen 1978). On the other hand, wider than optimal spacing can lengthen the time it takes to reach full canopy and completely cover the ground, which also reduces carbohydrate production per unit area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Potato Seed Piece Size, Spacing, and Seeding Rate Effects on Yield, Quality and Economic Return

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been observed that potato producers often focus more on the quantity of potato seed pieces being planted per unit area than on seed piece size and placement within the row. This study compared the effects of seed quantity per unit area (Mg ha −1 ) or seed piece size and in-row spacing on potato yield and quality. Hand-cut certified seed of three potato cultivars (Alturas, Russet Norkotah, Ranger Russet) of three size classes (42, 64 or 85 g) were planted at in-row seed piece spacings of 20, 30 or 40 cm. Three of the treatments (42-g seed pieces planted at 20 cm, 64-g seed pieces planted at 30 cm, and 85-g seed pieces planted at 40 cm) resulted in equal weights of seed planted (2.28 Mg ha −1 ). Increasing seed piece size from 42 to 85 g resulted in higher total yield regardless of in-row spacing. U.S. No. 1 yield was increased only at the 40-cm in-row spacing when 42-and 85-g seed pieces were planted. Increasing seed piece spacing from 20 to 40 cm resulted in lower total and U.S. No. 1 yields at all three seed piece size treatments. However, equal seeding rates of 2.28 Mg ha −1 resulted in equal total and U.S. No. 1 yields. Altering seed piece size or in-row spacing had little effect on tuber yields in the 285-397-g size category. A fresh-pack economic gross returns analysis of Russet Norkotah based on tuber size distribution less seed costs resulted in higher gross returns per ha only for 85-g seed pieces planted at 40 cm compared with planting 42-or 64-g seed pieces at a the 40 cm. At an equal seeding rate of 2.28 Mg ha −1 , paired t-tests indicated there were no differences in gross returns per ha. However, the effects of seed piece size and spacing on economic return will depend on cost of seed and the selling price of the harvested potatoes.Resumen Se ha observado que los productores de papa a menudo se enfocan más en la cantidad de piezas de semilla que están siendo plantadas por unidad de área que en el tamaño de la pieza y su colocación en el surco. Este estudio comparó los efectos de la cantidad de semilla por unidad de área (Mg ha −1 ) o el tamaño de la pieza de semilla y el espaciamiento en el surco, sobre el rendimiento y la calidad de la papa. Se plantaron piezas cortadas a mano de semilla certificada de tres variedades (Alturas, Russet Norkotah, Ranger Russet), de tres tamaños (42, 64, 85 g), en espaciamientos en el surco de 20, 30, o 40 cm entre unidades. Tres de los tratamientos (piezas de semilla de 42 g plantadas a 20 cm, piezas de 64 g a 30 cm, y piezas de 85 g a 40 cm), dieron como resultado pesos iguales de semilla plantada (2.28 Mg ha −1 ). El incremento en el tamaño de la pieza de 42 a 85 g resultó en rendimiento total más alto independientemente del espaciamiento dentro del surco. Se aumentó el rendimiento de U.S. No. 1 solo con el espaciamiento a 40 cm cuando se plantaron piezas de semilla de 42 y 85 g. El aumento en el espaciamiento de 20 a 40 cm resultó en más bajo rendimiento total y de U.S. No.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Potato Seed Piece Size, Spacing, and Seeding Rate Effects on Yield, Quality and Economic Return

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anumber of experiments have examined potato ( Solanum tuberosum ) yield response to planting population or in‐row spacing to optimize plant population (Allen and Wurr, 1992; Arsenault et al, 2001; Creamer et al, 1999; DeBuchananne and Lawson, 1991; Love and Thompson‐Johns, 1999; Lynch and Rowberry, 1977; Lynch et al, 2001; O'Brien and Allen, 1992; Rex, 1991; Sekhon and Singh, 1985; Strange and Blackmore, 1990; Wurr et al, 1990, 1992, 1993; Zebarth et al, 2006). Many of these experiments and others have also examined the effect of planting population on tuber size distribution (Allen and Wurr, 1992; DeBuchananne and Lawson, 1991; Love and Thompson‐Johns, 1999; Rex, 1991; Sekhon and Singh, 1985; Strange and Blackmore, 1990; Wurr et al, 1992, 1993; Zebarth et al, 2006). The tuber size distribution is an important determinant of price.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on managing potato in‐row spacing has focused on modeling the response of crop yield and tuber size distribution in response to crop density (Allen and Wurr, 1992; Arsenault et al, 2001; Bleasdale, 1965; Iritani et al, 1983; Knowles and Knowles, 2006; Lynch et al, 2001; Wurr et al, 1990, 1992, 1993). Polynomial regression and square root models related potato yield to crop density.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Polynomial regression and square root models related potato yield to crop density. Allen and Wurr (1992) identified the need for biologically meaningful models to predict crop yield response to crop density. A hyperbolic model derived from the inverse yield law was proposed as a means to predict yield response to competition (Spitters, 1983a,b; Weiner, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding and predicting the response of tuber size distribution to tuber, stem, or crop density has become increasingly important because of its effect on crop price. Average tuber size has been shown to decrease nonlinearly in response to increasing crop density (Allen and Wurr, 1992; DeBuchananne and Lawson, 1991; Iritani et al, 1983; Knowles and Knowles, 2006; Travis, 1987; Wurr et al, 1992, 1993; Zebarth et al, 2006). Similar to crop yield, quadratic and square root models were used to relate average tuber size and crop density in potato (Knowles and Knowles, 2006; Wurr et al, 1992, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the Effect of Density on Potato Yield and Tuber Size Distribution

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potato (Solanum tuberosum) yield has been optimized for in‐row spacings ranging from 15 to 40 cm depending on region, targeted market, variety, and other factors. Production goals require optimizing tuber size to maximize crop value. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of plant, stem, and tuber density on stem and tuber set, potato yield, tuber size distribution, and other quality factors. Research plots were established within a 20‐ha commercial production field, and analysis was done with linear and nonlinear regression. Plant density decreased with increasing in‐row plant spacing. Stem density increased linearly with increasing plant density, but response differed across years. Tuber density increased to a maximum of 190 tubers m−2 in response to plant and stem density, with stem density more accurately predicting tuber set. Yield was related to plant, stem, and tuber density using nonlinear regression, more accurately predicted by stem and tuber density than by plant density. A hyperbolic model was used to predict yield with estimated maximum yield of 86 Mg ha−1 when related to stem density. Average tuber size was related to stem and tuber density using the inverse yield law and estimated maximum average tuber size of >200 g. The distribution for tuber sizes was estimated as a Weibull probability density function that predicted changes in tuber size in response to stem and tuber density. The hyperbolic model accurately predicted tuber density and yield with the added benefit that estimated parameters have biological importance, unlike polynomial or other regression models used to predict crop yield. Modeling tuber size distribution over different stem densities provides a mechanism for future economic analysis to optimize management and conduct sensitivity analysis to determine the most important factors influencing crop value.

show abstract