1960; Walton, 1975; Carr et al., 1998; Chapko et al., 1991). Robinson (1960) reported that pea improved oat (Avena Intercropping barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) with Austrian winter sativa L.) forage yield. In a 2-yr pea-barley and pea-oat pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir) may increase the use efficienintercropping study, Carr et al. (1998) found that total cies of growth resources and reduce fertilizer N requirements. The forage yield was unaffected by intercropping when the objectives of this study were to determine (i) row configuration and (ii) fertilizer N effects on yield, protein content, and the land equiva-cereal crop was sown at a rate equal to or greater than lent ratio (LER) of barley-pea intercropping systems. A 3-yr barleythe sole crop seeding rate. However, less forage was pea intercropping study was conducted at the Western and Central produced when the cereal component was sown at half Agricultural Research Centers (WARC and CARC) of Montana State the sole crop seeding rate. They also found that the University from 2000 to 2002 with three row configurations (4 rows intercropping forage yield was unaffected by the pea barley ϫ 4 rows pea, 2 rows barley ϫ 2 rows pea, and barley-pea mixed seeding rate. In other studies, forage and grain yield of within rows) and three N application treatments (0, 67, and 134 kg legumes were suppressed by cereal components (Ofori N ha Ϫ1 ). Barley biomass production increased 41% at WARC and and Stern, 1987; Hauggaard-Nielsen and Jensen, 2001; CARC, whereas pea biomass production decreased 34% at WARC Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2001). Seeding rates for comand 46% at CARC with the row configuration changing from the 4 ϫ 4 ponent crops in cereal-pea mixtures are commonly less to the mixed configuration. The LER ranged from 1.05 to 1.24 on a biomass basis and from 1.05 to 1.26 on a protein basis, indicating a than when either the cereal crop or pea is sown alone production advantage of intercropping. Barley is a more competitive (Carter and Larson, 1964; Droushiotis, 1989). component than pea. Separated row arrangements are advantageous The efficiency of an intercropping system can be evalwhere the desired outcome is a greater pea component in the harvested uated by the land equivalent ratio (LER), defined as forage, but the mixed arrangement has a greater total biomass yield the total area required under sole cropping to produce and LER. Fertilizer N increased total biomass yield and protein level the equivalent yields obtained under intercropping (De in barley-pea intercrops, but high N rates could decrease the LER Wit and Van Den Bergh, 1965; Willey, 1979; Mohta and and result in toxic levels of nitrate in the forage. De, 1980). It is expressed as:

Row spacing, plant density, and N application timing can be manipulated to optimize plant growth and spatial distribution, therefore maximizing sunlight, nutrients, soil water use effi ciency and grain yield. A 2-yr fi eld study to evaluate the eff ects of four seeding rates (108, 215, 323, and 430 seeds m -2 ), two row spacings (15 and 30 cm), and three N treatments (FA1, 100% at seeding; FA2, 50% at seeding and 50% at tiller formation; and FA3, 50% at seeding and 50% at shoot elongation) on grain yield of McNeal hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was conducted in central Montana. Spring wheat accumulated greater biomass at a faster rate under the 15-cm row spacing than the 30-cm row spacing. Grain yield was 410 and 412 kg ha -1 greater at 15-cm than at 30-cm row spacings in 2004 and 2005, and the yield increase was primarily attributed to 44 and 40 more spikes m -2 at 15-cm than at 30-cm row spacing in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Grain yield was not signifi cantly aff ected by the N treatments, thus all N should be applied at seeding. Th e optimum seeding rate was 215 seeds m -2 . Tillers at higher seeding rates had larger phyllochrons and greater mortalities. Low protein content was found in FA3 and high seeding rate treatments in 2005. Narrow row spacing is recommended for high spring wheat yield in the northern Great Plains. Th is yield increase cannot be achieved by increasing seeding rate at wide row spacing.

No abstract

No abstract

Sprinkler irrigation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) has recently been considered to reduce water use and increase grower flexibility in U.S. production areas where flood irrigation is predominant. Tests were conducted for 2 yr on a Sharkey clay (Vertic Haplaquept) to evaluate selected rice cultivars under sprinkler vs. flood irrigation. Irrigation methods were main plots and three cultivars in 1983 and six cultivars in 1984 were subplots. Sub-subplots in 1984 were single or split application of 101 kg N ha-•. Sprinkler irrigation consisted of three weekly applications of 0.038 m water each in 1983 and a similar scheduling to maintain soil moisture tension above -30 kPa in 1984.In 1983, sprinkler irrigation increased sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solanr") incidence and decreased grain yield (4448 kg ha-• vs. 7139 kg ha-' under flood irrigation), dry matter production, harvest index, and florets per panicle compared to flood irrigation. In 1984, despite chemical control of sheath blight, yields averaged 5901 kg ha -• under sprinkler irrigation vs. 7846 kg ha -• under flood irrigation. Nitrogen timing did not significantly affect yields, but a weak N timing X irrigation method interaction (p=0.061) denoted that split Napplications may benefit yields under sprinkler irrigation. Multiple regression indicated fewer florets per panicle was the primary source of yield loss with sprinkler irrigation. Sprinkler irrigation of rice might decrease water use but it lowers yields and increases need for fungicides compared with flood irrigation.