Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:54:18.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of row width and planting density on growth and yield of two maincrop potato varieties. 1. Plant morphology and dry-matter accumulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

O. P. Ifenkwe  and
E. J. Allen
O. P. Ifenkwe
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture (Crop Production), U.C.W., Aberystwyth
E. J. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture (Crop Production), U.C.W., Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Data are reported from three experiments from 1972 to 1974 in which the effects of two row widths (66 and 132 cm) and five planting densities on the growth of two maincrop potato varieties (Désirée and Maris Piper) were studied. The results were consistent over the 3 years and showed that the effects of widening the row width were to reduce the number of axillary branches and their leaves per plant, in Maris Piper L (leaf area index), and early in the season in both varieties dry weights of leaf, stem and underground parts per plant. Row width had no effect on tuber dry weight for most of the season but at the end of sampling, tuber dry weights were greater from 132cm than from 66 cm rows. Increasing planting density reduced number of axillary branches and their leaves per plant, dry weight of leaf, stem, underground parts and tubers per plant, but increased stem length and tuber dry weight per unit area.

Leaf growth of all treatments was rapid during May and high planting densities reached an Lof 3 before the end of this month. L was increased by increased planting density throughout growth, but the lower densities were able to maintain an L of 2–3 formuch of the season. The rapid early increase in L was not associated with any prematuredecline and high rates of tuber dry-matter accumulation were achieved and maintained throughout the season. It is suggested that as the pattern of leaf growth in this environment is coincident with changing light receipts, the environment is almost ideal for the growth of maincrop potatoes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 91 , Issue 2 , October 1978 , pp. 265 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

REFERENCES

Allen, E. J. (1972). The effect of row width on the yield of three potato varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, E. J. (1977). Effects of date of planting on growth and yield of contrasting potato varieties in Pembrokeshire. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, E. J. & Wurr, D. C. E. (1973). A comparison of two methods of recording stem densities in the potato crop. Potato Research 16, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, P. M. & Taha, M. A. (1966). Studies in potato agronomy. 1. The effect of variety, seed size and spacing on growth, development and yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 66, 241—252.Google Scholar
Ifenkwe, O. P. (1975). Effects of row width and plant density on growth and development of two maincrop potato varieties. Ph.D. thesis, U.C.W., Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Ifenkwe, O. P. & Allen, E. J. (1978). Effects of row width and planting density on growth and yield of two maincrop potato varieties. 2. Number of tubers, total and graded yields and their relationships with above-ground stem densities. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivins, J. D. & Bremner, P. M. (1965). Growth, development and yield in the potato. Outlook on Agriculture 4, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, R. H. (1972). Comparison of 30 in. and 36 in. rows for maincrop potatoes. Part II. Soil factors, work-rates and mechanical damage. Experimental Husbandry 21, 85–92.Google Scholar
Jarvis, R. H. & Shotton, F. E. (1972). Comparison of 30 in. and 36 in. rows for maincrop potatoes. Part I. Effects on yield. Experimental Husbandry 21, 78–84.Google Scholar
North, J. J. & Proctor, J. M. (1972). Row widths for King Edward potatoes. Experimental Husbandry 22, 99–103.Google Scholar
Sale, P. J. M. (1973a). Productivity of vegetable crops in a region of high solar input. I. Growth and development of the potato (Solanum luberosum L). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 733–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sale, P. J. M. (1973b). Productivity of vegetable crops in a region of high solar input. II. Yields and efficiencies of water use and energy. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 751–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Wxlcockson, S. J. (1978). Chapter 17 in The Potato Crop; the Scientific Basis for Improvement. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Younger, A. (1972). Potato agronomy in a changing industry. Outlook on Agriculture 7, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, B. (1962). Some faotors affecting stolon and tuber formation in the potato plant. European Potato Journal 5, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Watson, M. A. (1953). Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops. III. Effect of infection with beet yellows and mosaic viruses on the growth and yield of the sugar beet root crop. Annals of Applied Biology 40, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E. & Allen, E. J. (1974). Some effects o planting density and variety on the relationship between tuber size and tuber dry-matter percentage in potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar