Effect of Plant Population and Row Spacing on Evapotranspiration and Water‐Use Efficiency by Soybeans<sup>1</sup>

Timmons, D. R.; Holt, R. F.; Thompson, RL

doi:10.2134/agronj1967.00021962005900030018x

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although these effects of row spacing on soybean yield appear to be contrary to some previously published results (3,6,8,9,10,17), the explanation given above fits the results of the experiments reported by Taylor (16). In years of high rainfall in Iowa, he obtained increased soybean yield from narrow rows, but found no effect of row spacing in years of belownormal precipitation.…”

Section: Soybean Yieldssupporting

confidence: 63%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency¹

Alessi¹,

Power

1982

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data on effects of plant and row spacing on yield of soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] have given conflicting results. Most such experiments were conducted under conditions of little or no water stress. The experiments reported here, conducted under more severe stress conditions, broaden the water‐availability spectrum covered. Each spring, 1976 through 1979, soybeans were seeded on Temvik silt loam (fine‐silty, mixed Typic Haploborolls) at Mandan, N.D., in row widths of 15, 45, and 90 cm, and at within‐row spacings of 11, 15, and 23 cm, which resulted in plant populations of 48,000 to 580,000 plants/ha. Soil water depletion by soybeans was generally confined to the upper 90‐cm soil depth. Average (4‐year) water use was 23.6 cm, and was not significantly affected by plant spacing. In 2 of the 4 years, total water use was greatest and average soybean yields were least Prom the 15‐cm row width. Within‐row spacing affected yields in only 1 of the 4 years. Water‐use efficiency was least for 15‐cm rows in 3 of the 4 years. These data suggest that planting in 15‐cm rows enhances water use prior to flowering. In extreme drought situations, this enhanced earlyseason water use leaves less water available for pod‐fill, and seed yields may be reduced accordingly. Under less severe water stress, however, plant and row spacing has no affect on soybean yield.

show abstract

Section: Soybean Yieldssupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Timmons et al (17) found that greatest soybean yields were obtained with low plant population when planted in narrow rows, but higher planting rates were required for maximum yield in wider rows. Cooper (3) found similar trends at some Illinois locations, but not at others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency¹

Alessi¹,

Power

1982

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Realization of the potential benefits of narrow-row spacings depends upon the adequacy of moisture during the growing season. Narrow rows usually improve water use efficiency when adequate moisture is available (16,21 ). When moisture is severely limiting, this factor rather than efficiency of light interception apparently establi:;hes the yield potential of the crop (20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Soybean Production Systems for Claypan Soils¹

Gebhardt¹,

Minor

1983

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Midwestern USA, early planting, narrow‐row spacing, and good weed control are recommended practices for soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) production. Reduced tillage is being increasingly recommended as a means of reducing fuel use and soil erosion. Little multifactor research has been conducted to define the optimum combination of tillage, planting date, row spacing, and weed control. Two levels of each of these factors were tested in a 24 factorial experiment. Treatment levels for each factor were: planting date (1 May vs. 1 June); row spacing (38 vs. 76 cm); weed control (preemergence herbicides vs preemergence + postemergence herbicides); and seedhed preparation (conventional vs. no‐till). Additional treatment combinations evaluated the effects of mechanical cultivation in wide rows. The study was continued for 5 years on a Mexico silt loam, mainly Udollic and Mollic Ochraqualf soil near Columbia, Mo. Compared to their counterparts, average yield advantages for narrowrow spacing, conventional tillage, June planting, and preemergence + postemergenee weed control were, 5 (not significant), 31, 43, and 51 %, respectively. Lack of yield response of ‘Williams’ soybeans to narrowrow spacing and early planting was attributed to limited rainfall and incomplete weed control. Average weed control was 18, 12, and 31% better with conventional tillage, June planting, and herbicides applied preemergence and postemergence than with their counterparts. Other treatment comparisons showed no difference in soybean yields between bentazon (3‐isopropyl‐1H‐2,1,3‐benzothiadiazin‐4(3H)‐one 2,2‐dioxide) applied postemergence and two timely cultivations. The availability of improved herbicides for selective weed control along with improved planting equipment may lead to an acceptance of continuous no‐tillage for a corn (Zea mays L.)‐soybean rotation. Planting date should be planned so that critical stages of soybean development coincide with periods of probable moisture availability. When mid‐season rainfall is normally deficient, planting soybeans about 1 June may achieve better yields than earlier (1 May) plantings on soils with moisture‐holding characteristics similar to those of the silt loam Udollic and Mollic Ochraqualf soils of central Missouri.

show abstract

“…Timmons et al (1967) found that evapotranspiration differences between row spacings and populations were small and water use efficiency values for each year in the study were within a relatively narrow range. Higher water use efficiencies were obtained for low plant population in narrow rows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Soybean evapotranspiration, leaf water potential and foliage temperature as affected by row spacing and irrigation

Reicosky

Warnes

Evans

1985

Field Crops Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field Crops Res., 10 : 37--48.Information is needed on the effects of soybean row spacing as a management practice for improving water use efficiency. Our objective was to show the effect of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr. cv. 'Evans') row spacing and irrigation on evapotranspiration (ET), leaf water potential (~j~), and foliage temperatures (TF) in western Minnesota.Soybeans were planted in 0.15-and 0.46-m rows with a grain drill, and 0.76-m rows with a row crop planter at an average final population of 571 000 plants per ha on a Sioux sandy loam (Family sandy skeletal mixed, subgroup Udorthentic Haploboroll). Sprinkler irrigation was applied in 25-ram amounts to the irrigated plots when the average matric potential at the 0.3-m depth was-30 kPa.On selected days in the growing season, measurements of ET using a portable chamber, u)sing the pressure chamber, TF using an infrared thermometer, and dry (TA) and wet bulb temperatures using an aspirated psychrometer were made simultaneously on a given treatment. Hourly weather data were collected 2.2 km from the experimental site to characterize the daily climate and evaporative demand. Leaf area index and light interception by the canopy were determined in 7-to 10-day intervals.Early in the season ET on the non-irrigated plots was slightly higher for the 0.15-m row spacing than the 0.46-and 0.76-m row spacing and was related to light interception. Differences in midday ~, due to row spacing were not discernible due to scatter in the data, and only with severe water stress were the ~J~ differences due to irrigation noteworthy. The row spacings effects on the TF-TA differences agreed with the ET trends on the non-irrigated plots. Only the yield differences due to irrigation were significant. For the irrigated treatments, the yields were 3.35, 3.09, 3.07 t/ha for the 0.15-, 0.46-, and 0.76-m row spacings, respectively, while the corresponding yields for the non-irrigated treatments were 2.07, 1.97, 2.24 t/ha.Trade names and company names are included for the benefit of the reader and do not infer any endorsement or preferential treatment of the product listed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the University of Minnesota.0378-4290/85/$03.30

show abstract

Effect of Plant Population and Row Spacing on Evapotranspiration and Water‐Use Efficiency by Soybeans¹

Cited by 16 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency¹

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency¹

Soybean Production Systems for Claypan Soils¹

Soybean evapotranspiration, leaf water potential and foliage temperature as affected by row spacing and irrigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effect of Plant Population and Row Spacing on Evapotranspiration and Water‐Use Efficiency by Soybeans1

Cited by 16 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency1

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency1

Soybean Production Systems for Claypan Soils1

Soybean evapotranspiration, leaf water potential and foliage temperature as affected by row spacing and irrigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effect of Plant Population and Row Spacing on Evapotranspiration and Water‐Use Efficiency by Soybeans¹

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency¹

Effects of Plant and Row Spacing on Dryland Soybean Yield and Water‐Use Efficiency¹

Soybean Production Systems for Claypan Soils¹