Tall and Semidwarf Wheat Response to Dryland Planting Systems<sup>1</sup>

Winter, S. R.; Welch, Alexandra

doi:10.2134/agronj1987.00021962007900040012x

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern of WU left more water for the post-anthesis period, particularly at the 35 kg ha-1 seed rate. Wide-row-(> 25 em) systems have also been shown to be effective in economizing soil WU before the boot stage of wheat in Texas (Winter and Welch, 1987). However, in contrast to the Texas experiments, the 36 em row spacing reduced total growing season WU in our study (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 62%

Water Use by No‐Till Winter Wheat Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing

1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management practices are required in rainfed agriculture of western Canada to reduce early season water evaporation from soil relative to loss by transpiraition. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of two seed rates and two row spacings on the pattern of water use and writer use efficiency (WUE) of no‐till winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Nine field trials were conducted on Udic Haploboroll and Molllic Cryoboralf soils in Saskatchewan from 1987 to 1989. Higher dry matter production and more rapid early season plant ground cover associated with the 9 cm row spacing and 140 kg ha−1 seeding rate, compared to other row spacing‐seeding rate combinations reduced water loss from evaporation and increased the partitioning of evapotranspiration to transpiration during the pre‐anthesis growth period. Pre‐anthesis water use was 11% higher, post‐anthesis wateir use 6% lower, and growing season water use 4% higher for the 140 compared to the 35 kg ha−1 seeding rate, The 140 kg ha−1 seeding rate produced 40% more preanthesis dry matter than the 35 kg ha−1 rate, thus establishing a higher yield potential for the crop. A row spacing of 9 compared to the 36 cm resulted in water use that was 6% higher during the pre‐anthesis, growth period and 3% higher during the entire growing season. The combination of 140 kg ha−1 seeding rate and 9 cm row spacing ultimately produced a 21% higher grain yield and a 9 kg cm‐−1 higher WUE than the combination of 35 kg ha−1 seeding rate and 36 cm row spacing. Grain protein concentration increased from 13.1% with the 35 kg ha−1 seeding rate to 13.9% with the 140 kg ha−1 seeding rate. Grain protein yield increased from 198 to 227 kg ha−1 for the 35 compared to the 140 kg ha−1 seeding rate. The increase in grain protein concentration and yield associated with 140 kg ha−1 seeding rate was related to the pattern of water use by the crop. Even under conditions of high dronght stress, a larger number of more uniformly distributed plants associated with seeding rates higher than 35 kg ha−1 and row spacings narrower than 36 cm resulted in a higher WUE and a water use pattern that produced larger yields and higher grain protein concentration.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 62%

Water Use by No‐Till Winter Wheat Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing

1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The optimum row spacing for wheat can depend on many different factors. Rows wider than 8 inches have been shown to use less moisture in drier years in climates such as west Texas but resulted in lower yields (9). In northern climates where moisture is less of a limiting factor as length of growing season, narrow 3.5‐inch rows in winter wheat in Canada (8) and narrow 6‐inch rows with spring wheat in Montana (2) have resulted in greater yields than wider rows.…”

Section: Previous Work On Wheat Row Widthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Wheat Planted on 15-Inch Row Spacing in Eastern Kansas

Shoup

Adee

2014

Crop Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Producers in eastern Kansas are beginning to use planters with 15‐inch row spacing to plant hard red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) vs. traditional 7‐ to 10‐inch drill equipment. The objectives of this study were to evaluate weed emergence and wheat yield effects when sowing wheat with a 15‐inch row planter vs. 7.5‐inch row drill equipment at a seeding rate of 1.0 and 1.2 million seeds/acre. The experiments were duplicated each year, one with an herbicide application and one without herbicide. Henbit (Lamium amplexicaule L.), Carolina foxtail (Alopecurus carolinianus Walt.), smallflowered bittercress (Cardamine parviflora L.), and common chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Vill.] emergence was greater in the 15‐inch planter rows vs. the 7.5‐inch drill rows. Wheat sown in the 15‐inch planter rows in the herbicide‐treated experiment yielded 17.4 bu/acre less than wheat sown with the 7.5‐inch drill rows. Wheat sown with the 15‐inch planter in the untreated herbicide experiment yielded 15.1 bu/acre less than wheat sown with the 7.5‐inch drill. Yield losses for wheat in 15‐inch planter rows in both experiments are attributed to too wide of a row spacing to maximize yields.

show abstract

“…Grain yield of wheat planted in two or three consecutive equidistant rows followed by a skip row has been similar to (Prasad and Rathi, 1987) or lower than (Prasad et al, 1991) yields of wheat planted in equidistant rows. Dryland wheat grown in Texas with skiprow planting resulted in lower yields than equidistantrow planting (Winter and Welch, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Skip‐Row and Equidistant‐Row Barley with Nitrogen Placement: Yield, Nitrogen Uptake, and Root Density

Sharratt¹,

Cochran²

1993

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small grain management strategies are sought in the subarctic that improve the plant growing environment and maximize production. This study assessed whether seed-row configuration and N fertilizer placement could alter growth and yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in the subarctic. Row spacing and N placement treatments established at Fairbanks, AK, during 1987 through 1989 consisted of equidistant-row planting (0.18-m equidistant seed rows) with N banded between alternate rows or broadcast and incorporated, and skip-row planting (skipping every third row of equidistant rows) with N banded between the two closely spaced rows or broadcast and incorporated. Plant characteristics evaluated included tiller and head density, straw and grain yield, N uptake, leaf area, and root length density. Soil core samples were extracted to approximately 1 m in the mid-interrow position near anthesis to determine root length density by the line intersect method. Tiller density was the primary yield component dif· fering among treatments. Equidistant-row barley had more tillers which resulted in a higher head density, 40% higher leaf area, and higher grain and straw yields than skip-row barley. Rooting in the top 0.1 m of soil was more proliferous where N fertilizer was banded rather than broadcast, but total N uptake was not different among treatments. This study indicated that growth and yield of barley in the suba1·ctic were favored by equidistant-row planting with either banded or broadcast N applications.

show abstract

Tall and Semidwarf Wheat Response to Dryland Planting Systems¹

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Water Use by No‐Till Winter Wheat Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing

Water Use by No‐Till Winter Wheat Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing

Evaluation of Wheat Planted on 15-Inch Row Spacing in Eastern Kansas

Skip‐Row and Equidistant‐Row Barley with Nitrogen Placement: Yield, Nitrogen Uptake, and Root Density

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Tall and Semidwarf Wheat Response to Dryland Planting Systems1

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Water Use by No‐Till Winter Wheat Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing

Water Use by No‐Till Winter Wheat Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing

Evaluation of Wheat Planted on 15-Inch Row Spacing in Eastern Kansas

Skip‐Row and Equidistant‐Row Barley with Nitrogen Placement: Yield, Nitrogen Uptake, and Root Density

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Tall and Semidwarf Wheat Response to Dryland Planting Systems¹