Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:34:19.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Plant Density, Spatial Arrangement and Time of Harvest on Yield and Root Size in Carrots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. J. Salter ,
I. E. Currah  and
Jane R. Fellows
P. J. Salter
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF
I. E. Currah
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF
Jane R. Fellows
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four experiments were carried out over a 2-year period to investigate the effect of plant density and spatial arrangement and the time of lifting on yield and root size of carrots. Plant arrangement was varied by growing the plants in 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- and 10-row systems in beds with rows 12–5 and 37–5 cm apart. With each row arrangement crops were grown at target densities of 108, 323 and 537 plants/ma. There were three times of harvest. Total root yield was not significantly affected by plant arrangement or, in three out of the four experiments, by plant density but yields progressively increased with later harvests at all density levels. Yields of canning-size roots (20–30 mm diameter) were influenced by plant density and time of harvest and there were highly significant interactions between these variables on canning root yields. Highest absolute yields were obtained from the latest harvests from the medium and high plant density treatments; with the lowest density treatments the highest yields of canners were obtained from the earliest harvests. Mean root weight was significantly affected by plant density and harvest time. Row system effects on mean root weight were shown to be largely accounted for by differences in percentage seedling emergence and hence the plant density obtained under the different row system treatments and a possible reason for this effect is discussed. The relationship between mean root weight and plant density was not affected by the pattern of plant arrangement in these experiments. Total root yields were shown to be related to cumulative potential evapotranspiration from sowing rather than to chronological time. It is concluded that with the range of row systems used in these experiments, row spacing had little effect on root yield but confirmed previous work that plant density and time of harvest were the most important variables controlling mean root size and hence the yield of roots of any particular size grade.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 431 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthey, V. D. (1975). Quality of Horticultural Products. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1963). The bed-system of carrot growing. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Short Term Leaflet No. 27, p. 19.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1966). Plant growth and crop yield. Annals of Applied Biology 57, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1973). Control of size and yield in relation to harvest date of carrot. Acta Horticultures 27, 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussell, W. T. (1973). Effects of plant density and time of harvest on yield of small finger carrots. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 1, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, M. & Wolfe, D. A. (1973). Non-parametric Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE (1946). Tables for the evaluation of daily values of accumulated temperature above and below 42 °F from daily values of maximum and minimum temperature. Leaflet No. 10. London: H. M. S. O.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A., Austin, R. B., Bleasdale, J. K. A. & Salter, P. J. (1960). An approach to the study of yearly and other variation in crop yields. Journal of Horticultural Science 35, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
φYjord, E. (1963). A universal experimental seed drill. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 8, 85–87.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1948). Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 193, 120–145.Google Scholar
Shinozaki, T. & Kira, T. (1956). Intraspecifio competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D 7, 35–72.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. (1972). ‘Mini-carrots’. Scottish Agriculture 51, 308–312.Google Scholar