Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sdd8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T12:51:45.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of plant population and distribution on the yield and quality of swedes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. W. Lang  and
J. C. Holmes
R. W. Lang
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture
J. C. Holmes
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An investigation into the effects of plant population level and irregularity of plant spacing on the yield and quality of swedes is reported.

2. There was no significant evidence that irregular plant spacing, such as might be produced by mechanical singling, gave a lower yield than regular spacing.

3. Total yield of roots was similar for all plant populations tested (range 15,000–50,000) but at low populations both the number and weight of diseased roots was greater than at higher populations.

4. As the population was increased, the drymatter percentage in the roots increased due to the higher proportion of skin on small roots compared with large roots.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , August 1965 , pp. 91 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anon. (1906). J. Bd Agric. 13, 282.Google Scholar
Anon. (1929). W. Scot. Agric. Coll. Guide to Experimental Station and College Farms.Google Scholar
Berry, R. A. (1925). Farm Crops, (ed. Patterson, W. G. R.), pt. 2, p. 119.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. & Nelder, J. A. (1960). Nature, Land., 188, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, P. J. (1952). Comm. Bur. Past. Fid. Crops, Pub. 1, 78Google Scholar
Collins, S. H. (1905). J. Agric. Sci. 1, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. M. (1931). Welsh J. Agric. 7, 319.Google Scholar
Dodsworth, J. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1951). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2, 35.Google Scholar
Engledow, F. L., Maher, C. A., Hunter, Smith J., Rhys, Williams H., Fail, H. & Rayns, F. (1928). J. Agric. Sci. 18, 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, J. & Greig, R. B. (1903). Bull. Aberd. Coll. Agric.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1960). Field Crop Abstr., 13, Review Articles, pt. 1, 159; pt. 2, 247.Google Scholar
Lang, R. W. and Holmes, J. C. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 63, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauder, A. (1926). Scot. J. Agric. 9, 160.Google Scholar
Levy, E. B. (1922). N.Z. J. Agric. 24, 336.Google Scholar
Neil, J. C. (1929). N.Z. J. Agric. 39, 86.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. M. (1960). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Roebuck, J. F. (1959). M.Sc. thesis, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Sansome, F. W. (1926). J. Agric. Sci. 16, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. C. G. (1956). Brit. Sugar Beet Rev. 25, 69.Google Scholar
Whitehead, T. (1935). Welsh J. Agric. 11, 228.Google Scholar
Wood, T. B. & Berry, R. A. (1905). J. Agric. Sci. 1, 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1952). Bull. Min. Agric. no. 48Google Scholar