| Introduction | Experimental procedure | Results | Emergence | Yield | Discussion and conclusions | Acknowledgements
Abstract
Research on the agronomics of varied row spacing has shown mixed results. The Agricultural Technology Centre conducted a row spacing study from 1998 to 2000. An increase in row spacing resulted in a decrease in yield. The decrease in yield was attributed to the narrow seed bed utilization of the disk opener. Very little research has been conducted on the effect of row widths on crop yields. Research into the interaction of row width and spacing is required for producers to optimize yields.
A study was started to determine the optimum row width and spacing for seeding barley, canola and wheat. Major variables in the study were row width, row spacing and the proportion of nitrogen placed with the seed and banded between rows. The row spacings were 8, 10 and 12 in (203, 254 and 305 mm). The row widths were 1, 3 and 5 in (25, 75 and 125 mm). The nitrogen placements were 100% with seed, 50% with seed/50% midrow banded and 100% midrow banded. Plant counts and crop yields were measured.
Row spacing affected crop yield. An increase in row spacing resulted in a decrease in crop yield. Row width affected crop yield. The use of the 3 and 5 in (75 and 125 mm) row widths resulted in higher crop yield than the 1 in (25 mm) row width at 7 of the 11 crop site years. Nitrogen placement affected crop yield. Placing 100% of the nitrogen with the seed resulted in significantly lower crop yield at 5 of 6 crop site years.
Introduction
Research on the agronomics of varied row spacing has shown mixed results. The Agricultural Technology Centre conducted a row spacing study from 1998 to 2000. An increase in row spacing resulted in a decrease in yield. The decrease in yield was attributed to the narrow seed bed utilization of the disk opener. Very little research has been conducted on the effect of row widths on crop yields. Research into the interaction of row width and spacing is required for producers to optimize yields. Information from the study will assist producers when acquiring or modifying seeding equipment.
Experimental Procedure
The study will determine the optimum row width, row spacing and nitrogen placement for seeding barley, canola and wheat. Six sites were seeded in 2000 and 2001. Table 1 summarizes the study sites and operations. All sites were direct seeded and sprayed with glyphosate prior to seeding.
Table 1. Summary of project sites and operations
Site | Year | Soil
Type | Crop | Variety | Seeding
Depth | Post Emergent
Chemical | Plant Count
Date | Harvest
Date |
| High River | 2000 | Loam | Barley | AC Harper | 15 May | Prevail | 23 June | 11 Sep |
| Edmonton | 2000 | Loam | Barley | AC Harper | 17 May | Refine Extra | 13 June | 17 Oct |
| Lethbridge | 2001 | Clay Loam | Wheat | AC Barrie | 14 May | Refine & Lontrel | 22June | 11 Sep |
| High River | 2001 | Loam | Barley | AC Lacombe | 8 May | Refine & Lontrel | 13 June | 10 Sep |
| Standard | 2001 | Clay | Wheat | AC Barrie | 9 May | Refine Extra | 14 June | 28 Aug |
| Provast | 2001 | Loam | Canola | Hyola 401 | 10 May | Muster & Lontrel | 15 June | 29 Aug |
.
The study was divided into three parts. Table 2 summarizes the levels of the treatments used in the study. Part 1 was used in 2000. Parts 1 and 2 were used at all sites in 2001. Part 3 was used only at the Standard site in 2001. Part 2 did not include nitrogen placement as a treatment but did include seed rate. All the nitrogen was mid row banded in Part 2. Part 3 did not include the nitrogen placement treatment because the land was banded with nitrogen in the fall of 2000.
Table 2. Level of treatments used in the study
The seed rate used for wheat and barley was 95 lb/ac (106 kg/ha). The seed rate used for canola was 6 lb/ac (7 kg/ha). The high seed rates used in Part 2 and 3 of the study were 140 lb/ac (157 kg/ha) for barley and wheat, and 9 lb/ac (10 kg/ha) for canola. Phosphate (P2O5) in the form of 11-31-0-20, was placed with the seed at a rate of 30 lb/ac (34 kg/ha) . Nitrogen (N) in the form of Urea (46-0-0) was applied at a rate of 70 lb/ac (78 kg/ha) in 2000 and 80 lb/ac (90 kg/ha) in 2001. Table 3 outlines the constants used in the study. The seed was placed with Flexi-coil Stealth Single-shoot Spread tips and the fertilizer was placed with Morris Banding Coulters (Figures 1 through 6) at all crop sites except in Part 2 at the Standard 2001 site. The HarvesTechnologies Granular Side Banding and 4 in Paired Row Opener (Figures 5 and 6) were used at the Standard 2001 site in Part 2.
Figure 1. Morris Banding Coulter
Figure 2. Flexi-coil Narrow Knife Opener
Figure 3. Flexi-coil 3 in Spread Tip
Figure 4. Flexi-coil 5 in Spread Tip
Figure 5. HarvesTechnologies Granular Side Banding Opener
Figure 6. HarvesTechnologies 4 in Paired Row Opener
Plot yields were obtained with a self-propelled plot harvester. One plant count was taken for each row of every plot. Head counts and head lengths were measured in 2000.
The study used a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Plots were 8 x 30 ft (2.43 x 15.24 m). A 40 ft (12.2 m) strip was used between the ends of replication blocks. Border effects were controlled through winter crops on the sides of each plot.
Table 3. Constants used in the study.
| Travel Speed | 4 mph (6.4 km/h) |
| Tractor | 85 hp (63 kW) tractor |
| Seeder | AgTech plot seeder |
| Phosphate (P2O2) rate | 30 lb/ac (34 kg/ha) in the form of 10-31-0-20 |
| Seed Opener | Flexi-coil Stealth single-shoot spread tips |
| Fertilizer Opener | Morris banding coulter |
Results
Growing conditions were dry at all sites in 2001 and at High River in 2000. Growing conditions at the Edmonton site in 2000 were cool and wet. Crop yields were severely depressed at the Standard site due to dry conditions. This resulted in a very low number of crop yield differences due to treatments at the Standard site. The HarvesTechnologies openers were used in Part 2 at the Standard site to observe their effectiveness in clay soils. All the openers worked well at the Standard site due to optimum soil moisture at seeding time.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results. A Duncan’s multiple range test was used to separate means that were significantly different. Table 4 outlines the treatments and the statistical significant differences with emergence and yield for the three parts of the study.
Table 4. Statistical significant differences in the study
Part 1
.
Part 2
Part 3
Site | Crop | Year | Measurement | Row Spacing | Row Width | Seed Rate |
| Standard | Wheat | 2001 | Emergencwe | Significant | Highly Significant | Highly Significant |
| Standard | Wheat | 2001 | Yield |  | | |
.
Emergence
Part 1
Crop mean plant counts in Part 1 for row spacing, row width and nitrogen placement are presented in Figure 7, 8 and 9. Treatments with the same letter do not have significantly different means. At the High River 2000 and Standard 2001 sites all three row spacings resulted in significantly different emergence with the 8 in (20 cm) the highest and the 12 in (30 cm) the lowest. At the Edmonton 2000 site using the 8 and 10 in (20 and 25 cm) row spacings resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 12 in (30 cm) row spacing.
Figure 7. Effect of row spacing on crop emergence in Part 1
Figure 8. Effect of row width on crop emergence in Part 1
Figure 9. Effect of nitrogen placement on crop emergence in Part 1
At the Standard 2001 and Provost 2001 sites all three row widths resulted in significantly different emergence. At the Standard 2001 site the 3 in (76 mm) was highest and the 1 in (25 mm) lowest. At the Provost 2001 site the 5 in (127 mm) was highest and the 1 in (25 mm) lowest. At the High River 2000 site using the 3 in (76 mm) row width resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 1 and 5 in (25 and 127 mm) row widths. At the Lethbridge 2001 and High River 2001 sites using the 3 and 5 in (76 and 127 mm) row spacings resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 1 in (25 mm) row widths.
At the Lethbridge 2001, High River 2001 and Standard 2001 sites all three nitrogen placements resulted in significantly different means with the 100% midrow the highest and the 100% with seed the lowest. At the Edmonton 2000 site using the 50/50 and 100% midrow nitrogen placements resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 100% with seed nitrogen placement. At the Provost 2001 site using the 100% midrow nitrogen placement resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 100% with seed and 50/50 nitrogen placements.
The analysis of variance for the plant count data for Part 1 resulted in eight first order interactions. Figure 10 shows the effect of row width and nitrogen placement on crop emergence at the Edmonton 2000, Lethbridge 2001, High River 2001 and Standard 2001 sites. Figure 11 shows the effect of row spacing and nitrogen placement on crop emergence at the Lethbridge 2001, High River 2001, Standard 2001 and Provost 2001 sites. The trend was for higher emergence when placing 100% of the nitrogen in the midrow band or when using wider row widths or wider row spacings with the other nitrogen placement systems.
Figure 10. Effect of row width and nitrogen placement on crop emergence in Part 1
Figure 11. Effect of row spacing and nitrogen placement on crop emergence in Part 1
Part 2
Crop mean plant counts in Part 2 for row spacing, row width and seed rate are presented in Figure 12, 13 and 14. At the Standard 2001 site all three row spacings resulted in significantly different emergence with the 8 in (20 cm) the highest and the 12 in (30 cm) the lowest. At the Provost 2001 site using the 8 in (20 cm) row spacing resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 10 and 12 in (25 and 30 cm) row spacings.
Figure 12. Effect of row spacing on crop emergence in Part 2
Figure 13. Effect of row width on crop emergence in Part 2
Figure 14. Effect of seed rate on crop emergence in Part 2
Use of the 3 in (75 mm) row width resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 1 in (25 mm) row width at three of the four sites in Part 2 of the study. There was no significant difference at the Provost 2001 site with canola.
Use of the high seed rate resulted in higher emergence than the low seed rate at three of the four sites in Part 2 of the study. There was no significant difference at the Provost 2001 site with canola.
The analysis of variance for the plant count data for Part 2 resulted in a first order interaction. Figure 15 shows the effect of row width and spacing on wheat emergence at the Lethbridge 2001 site. Use of the 1 in (25 mm) row width and 10 in (20 cm) row spacing resulted in significantly lower emergence than the other combination of row widths and spacings.
Figure 15. Effect of row width and spacing on wheat emergence at the Lethbridge 2001 site in Part 2
Part 3
Crop mean plant counts in Part 3 for row spacing, row width and seed rate are presented in Figure 16. Use of the 8 in (20 cm) row spacing resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 12 in (30 cm) row spacing. Use of the 1 and 3 in (25 and 75 mm) row widths resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 5 in (125 mm) row width. Use of the high seed rate resulted in significantly higher emergence than the low seed rate.
Figure 16. Effect of row spacing, row width and seed rate on crop emergence in Part 3
Yield
Part 1
Crop mean yields in Part 1 for row spacing, row width and nitrogen placement are presented in Figures 17, 18 and 19. At the High River 2000 site all three row spacings resulted in significantly different yield with the 8 in (20 cm) row spacing the highest and the 12 in (30 cm) row spacing the lowest. At the Edmonton 2000 and High River 2001 sites use of the 8 in (20 cm) row spacing resulted in significantly higher yield than the 10 and 12 in (25 and 30 cm) row spacings. At the Lethbridge 2001 and Provost 2001 sites use of the 8 and 10 in (20 and 25 cm) row spacings resulted in significantly higher yield than the 12 in (30 cm) row spacing.
Figure 17. :Effect of row spacing on crop yield in Part 1
Figure 18. Effect of row width on crop yield in Part 1
Figure 19. Effect of nitrogen placement on crop yield in Part 1
At the Edmonton 2000, Lethbridge 2001, High River 2001 and Provost 2001 sites use of the 3 and 5 in (75 and 125 mm) row widths resulted in significantly higher crop yield than the 1 in (25 mm) row width.
At the High River 2000, Edmonton 2000, Lethbridge 2001 and Provost 2001 sites use of the 100% midrow and 50/50 nitrogen placements resulted in significantly higher yield than the 100% with seed nitrogen placement. At the High River 2001 site all three nitrogen placements resulted in significantly different yields with the 100% midrow the highest and the 100% with seed the lowest.
The analysis of variance for the yield data for Part 1 resulted in six first order interactions. Figure 20 shows the effect of row width and nitrogen placement on crop yield at the High River 2000 and 2001 sites. The trend was for lower yields with narrow row widths and 100% with seed nitrogen placements.
Figure 20. Effect of row width and nitrogen placement on crop yield in Part 1
Figure 21 shows the effect of row spacing and nitrogen placement on crop yield at the Lethbridge 2001 and Provost 2001 sites. The trend was for lower yields with wide row spacings and 100% with seed nitrogen place-ments.
Figure 21. Effect of row spacing and nitrogen placement on crop yield in Part 1
Figure 22 shows the effect of row width and spacing on crop yield at the Lethbridge 2001 and Standard 2001 sites. The trend was for lower yields with narrow row widths and wider row spacings.
Figure 22. Effect of row width and spacing on crop yield in Part 1
Head counts and head lengths were measured in 2000. Figures 23 to 25 show the effect of row spacing, row width and nitrogen placement on the estimated crop yield based on plant head counts. At the High River 2000 site all three row spacings resulted in significantly different yields with the 8 in (20 cm) the highest and the 12 in (20 cm) the lowest. At the Edmonton 2000 site use of the 8 in (20 cm) row spacing resulted in significantly higher yield than the 10 and 12 in (25 and 30 cm) row spacings.
Figure 23. Effect of row spacing on crop yield based on plant head counts
Figure 24. Effect of row width on crop yield based on plant head counts
Figure 25. Effect of nitrogen placement on crop yield based on plant head counts
At both 2000 sites the use of the 3 and 5 in (75 and 125 mm) row widths resulted in significantly higher estimated crop yield than the 1 in (25 mm) row width. The use of the 100% midrow nitrogen placement resulted in significantly higher estimated crop yield than the 50/50 and 100% with seed nitrogen placements at the High River 2000 site. At the Edmonton 2000 site the use of the100% midrow and 50/50 nitrogen placements resulted in significantly higher estimated crop yield than the 100% with seed nitrogen placement.
The analysis of variance for the estimated crop yield data resulted in a first order interaction. Figure 26 shows the effect of row width and nitrogen placement on crop yield at the High River 2000 site. The trend was for lower estimated crop yields with a narrow row width and 100% with seed nitrogen placement.
Figure 26. Effect of the row width and nitrogen placement on crop yield based on plant head counts at High River 2000
Part 2
Crop mean yields in Part 2 for row spacing, row width and seed rate are presented in Figures 27, 28 and 29. At the High River 2001 site use of the 8 in (20 cm) row spacing resulted in significantly higher yield than the 12 in (30 cm) row spacing. At the Standard 2001 site use of the 8 and 10 in (20 and 25 cm) row spacings resulted in significantly higher yield than the 12 in (30 cm) row spacing. At the High River 2001 site, use of the 3 in (75 mm) row width resulted in significantly higher yield than the 1 in (25 mm) row width.
Figure 27. Effect of row spacing on crop yield in Part 2
Figure 28. Effect of row width on crop yield in Part 2
Figure 29. Effect of seed rate on crop yield in Part 2
Crop mean yields in Part 3 for row spacing, row width and seed rate are presented in Figure 30. There were no significant differences between the variables.
Figure 30. Effect of row spacing, row width and nitrogen placement on crop yield in Part 3
Discussion and Conclusions
Row spacing affected the crop emergence. An increase in row spacing resulted in a decrease of crop emergence. Differences were significant at 6 of 11 crop site years.
Row width affected the crop emergence. The use of the 3 in (75 mm) row width resulted in higher emergence than the 1 in (25 mm) row width at 10 of the 11 crop site years. At 8 of the crop site years, the differences were significant. The use of the 3 in (75 mm) row width resulted in higher emergence than the 5 in (125 mm) row width at 6 of the 7 crop site years. At 3 of the crop site years, the differences were significant. At the one canola site, the use of the 5 in (125 mm) row width resulted in significantly higher emergence than the 3 in (75 mm) row width.
Nitrogen placement affected the crop emergence. Placing 100% of the nitrogen in the midrow band resulted in higher emergence than placing 100% of the nitrogen with the seed or the 50/50 split. At 5 of the 6 crop site years, the differences were significant. Placing 50% of the nitrogen with the seed and 50% in the midrow band resulted in higher emergence than placing 100% of the nitrogen with the seed. At 4 of the 6 crop site years, the differences were significant.
Seed rate affected crop emergence. Using the high seed rate resulted in higher emergence than the low seed rate. The differences were significant at 4 of the 5 crop site years.
Row spacing affected crop yield. An increase in row spacing resulted in a decrease in crop yield. Differences were significant at 7 of 11 crop site years.
Row width affected crop yield. The use of the 3 and 5 in (75 and 125 mm) row widths resulted in higher crop yield than the 1 in (25 mm) row width at 7 of the 11 crop site years. Differences were significant at 5 of the crop site years.
Nitrogen placement affected crop yield. Placing 100% of the nitrogen with the seed resulted in significantly lower crop yield at 5 of 6 crop site years.
Seed rate did not affect crop yield.
The yield results support the concept of Seed Bed Utilization (SBU). The more seed bed utilized, the greater the yield potential of the crop. The study should be continued to verify results found in the first two years. Seed rate showed no effect on crop yield and should be eliminated from the study.
Acknowledgements
The following staff of the Agricultural Technology Centre completed the project:
Nathan Eshpeter
Blaine Metzger
Lawrence Papworth
George Ragan
Craig Rehaume
Jim Vanee
The Agricultural Technology Centre would like to express appreciation to the following people, groups and compa-nies for their assistance in completing the project:
Jim Broatch, Murray Green and Ross McKenzie of AAFRD
Crowfoot Creek Watershed Group
Gateway Research Organization
Agriculture Service Board of the M.D. of Provost #52
Flexi-coil
HarvesTechnologies
Farmer cooperators:
Leigh and Murray Christensen
Fraser Family
Haarwest Farms
Richard Henderson
Dale McKenzie
Fred Randle |