Yield response to plant density, row spacing and raised beds in low latitude spring wheat with ample soil resources: An update

Fischer, Ronald P.; Ramos, Oscar Humberto Moreno; Monasterio, I. Ortiz; Sayre, Ken D.

doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2018.12.011

Cited by 98 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the results shown in this paper apply strictly to winter wheat, we also performed a literature review including spring wheat papers, which resulted in similar findings (i.e., yield plateau at 153 and 269 plants m -2 for HY and LY, n = 35 manuscripts; data not shown). Likewise, a recent study from Fischer et al (2019) discussed the remarkable insensitivity of spring wheat yield response to PD in low latitude with ample resources. Thus, while these results might mostly apply to winter cereals (i.e., wheat, triticale), there is also some evidence that these results might also apply to spring wheat in certain growing conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, we note that spring wheat grown in high latitudes or under lower resource availability, where the crop cycle and tillering potential might be limited by the number of accumulated thermal units, might warrant greater PD (Mehring, 2016). The work by Fischer et al (2019) also portrayed the lack of data on PD below 100 plants m -2 . From our review, only three studies presented minimum plant densities below 100 plants m -2 (McLeod et al, 1992;McLeod et al, 1996;Beres et al, 2016) and the AOPD for the high-yielding environment was attained with 141 plants m -2 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From our review, only three studies presented minimum plant densities below 100 plants m -2 (McLeod et al, 1992;McLeod et al, 1996;Beres et al, 2016) and the AOPD for the high-yielding environment was attained with 141 plants m -2 . The review from Fischer et al (2019) highlighted a study from UK recorded by Whaley et al (2000) that presented a maximum yield around 9.5 Mg ha -1 with an optimum of 100 plant m -2 when sowing at the optimal date. Likewise, Lollato et al (2019) showed that yield contest winter wheat fields (e.g., high input and high yielding fields) were still able to attain their potential (c.a., 7.5 Mg ha -1 ) when sown at~100 seeds m -2 (which would result in <100 plants m -2 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Below-optimum seeding rates may reduce resource use efficiency, yield, and final profit (Whaley et al, 2000), depending on the level of resource availability Fischer et al, 2019). Meanwhile, above-optimum seeding rates increase cost of production and might potentially decrease yield by increasing disease pressure, insects, and lodging (Lloveras et al, 2004;Laghari et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, defining the agronomic optimum plant density (AOPD), which is the minimum number of plants per unit area required to maximize yield, is crucial for future improvements in wheat yield. Nonetheless, one of the main challenges of determining the AOPD is that diverse yield to PD relationships have been reported in the scientific literature for wheat, which range from linear, quadratic, quadratic-plateau, and lack of response (Whaley et al, 2000;Lloveras et al, 2004;Fischer et al, 2019). Thus, it is necessary to understand yield to PD response models via synthesizing studies published in the scientific literature and analyzing a comprehensive field research data set.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Winter Wheat Yield Response to Plant Density as a Function of Yield Environment and Tillering Potential: A Review and Field Studies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain yield response to plant density is inconsistent, and the mechanisms driving this response are unclear. A better understanding of the factors governing this relationship could improve plant density recommendations according to specific environmental and genetics characteristics. Therefore, the aims of this paper were to: i) execute a synthesis-analysis of existing literature related to yield-plant density relationship to provide an indication of the need for different agronomic optimum plant density (AOPD) in different yield environments (YEs), and ii) explore a data set of field research studies conducted in Kansas (USA) on yield response to plant density to determine the AOPD at different YEs, evaluate the effect of tillering potential (TP) on the AOPD, and explain changes in AOPD via variations in wheat yield components. Major findings of this study are: i) the synthesis-analysis portrayed new insights of differences in AOPD at varying YEs, reducing the AOPD as the attainable yield increases (with AOPD moving from 397 pl m -2 for the low YE to 191 pl m -2 for the high YE); ii) the field dataset confirmed the trend observed in the synthesis-analysis but expanded on the physiological mechanisms underpinning the yield response to plant density for wheat, mainly highlighting the following points: a) high TP reduces the AOPD mainly in high and low YEs, b) at canopy-scale, both final number of heads and kernels per square meter were the main factors improving yield response to plant density under high TP, c) under varying YEs, at per-plant-scale, a compensation between heads per plant and kernels per head was the main factor contributing to yield with different TP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Winter Wheat Yield Response to Plant Density as a Function of Yield Environment and Tillering Potential: A Review and Field Studies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The optimal plant density of maize for dairy cow forage production

Han

Liu

et al. 2020

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whole maize (Zea mays L.) plant (WMP) silage is an important feed for dairy cows. In northern China, yields and feed quality are adjusted by modifying the planting density. This paper is the result of a 2-yr field study aimed at determining the effects of plant density on maize silage yield and quality. Five planting densities (52,500, 60,000, 67,500, 75,000, and 82,500 plants ha −1 ) were used. The results showed that plant height and leaf area increased, while stem diameter, chlorophyll, and leaf area per plant decreased with increasing plant density. Both the biomass yield, expressed as the dry matter (DM) per ha, and the utilizable energy yield improved when the density was increased from 67,500 to 75,000 plants ha −1 , but increasing the density further reduced these values. The highest observed DM were 17,734 kg ha −1 and 17,055 kg ha −1 , and total net energy for lactation (NE L ) were 104.1 GJ ha −1 and 97.0 GJ ha −1 in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Feeding quality generally decreased with increasing plant density. The plant density which obtained the highest biomass yield was not the same as the plant density for optimizing feeding production. Compared with the highest predicted DM yields, the highest predicted total NE L yields increased the grading index by 4-9%, which indicated an improvement in forage quality. Total NE L yield is more efficient for the purpose of evaluating the productivity of WMP forage than biomass yield.

show abstract

Feasibility of a wider row spacing and recommended nitrogen in no‐till wheat

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The optimal row spacing aims to maximize profitability by balancing the reduction in production costs from a wider row spacing against a potential decline in yield and increased weed pressure. A wider row spacing should increase area seeded per day, improve residue flow around seeder openers and the success of seeding between stubble rows. This study investigated the feasibility of a wider row spacing by studying the effects of row spacing (25, 30, 35, 40 cm) and N fertilizer rates (20, 40, 80, 120, 160 kg N ha −1) on development, yield, and quality of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The study was a two factorial in randomized complete block design. The experiment was conducted at Indian Head, SK, from 2013 to 2016. Row spacing affected plant, head, and seed density; however, the effects were generally inconsistent. One exception was biomass, which decreased as the row spacing increased in 3 of the 4 yr. Grain yield declined in 1 of the 4 yr, with the largest portion of the decrease occurring as the row spacing increased from 30 to 40 cm. As expected, increasing N rates produced greater grain yield, biomass, and grain protein. In conclusion, this study found that in most years the row spacing can be widened past 30 cm without a negative impact on grain yield in a no-till cropping system. However, to determine the probability of a grain yield decrease as row spacing is increased, a larger study over a wider geographic region is needed. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Yield response to plant density, row spacing and raised beds in low latitude spring wheat with ample soil resources: An update

Cited by 98 publications

References 27 publications

Winter Wheat Yield Response to Plant Density as a Function of Yield Environment and Tillering Potential: A Review and Field Studies

Winter Wheat Yield Response to Plant Density as a Function of Yield Environment and Tillering Potential: A Review and Field Studies

The optimal plant density of maize for dairy cow forage production

Feasibility of a wider row spacing and recommended nitrogen in no‐till wheat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About