
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Yunusa, IAM 
A1  - Belford, RK 
A1  - Tennant, D 
A1  - Sedgley, RH 
T1  - Row spacing fails to modify soil evaporation and grain yield in spring wheat in a dry Mediterranean environment
JF  - Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
JO  - Aust. J.  Agric. Res.
Y1  - 1993
VL  - 44
IS  - 4
SP  - 661
EP  - 676
KW  - row spacing;spring wheat;soil evaporation;transpiration;ground cover;water use efficiency;planting density;terminal drought;soil type
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9930661 
N2  - The loss of moisture by evaporation from soil under crop canopies (Esc) has been recognized as a major cause of poor water use efficiency (WUE), and hence poor grain yield, in crops grown in environments with limited rainfall. Agronomic approaches to restrain Esc aim to reduce the transmission of solar radiation to the soil beneath the crop by improving ground cover by the crop canopy. However, the sparse canopies produced in these environments have a limited effect on evaporation during the energy dependent first stage (Es1); much of the evaporation is independent of energy at the soilsurface (Es2), and therefore less sensitive to the influence of the crop canopy. Manipulating plant arrangement, primarily by changing row spacing, may provide a simple approach for improving ground cover and restraining E,, without changing GAI, and thus improving WUE and grain yield. To explore the potential benefit of variable row spacing on Esc and grain yield in the dry (300 mm) Mediterranean environment of the eastern wheatbelt of Western Australia, spring wheat was grown in 0.09, 0.18, 0.27 and 0.36 m row spacings on coarse textured and fine textured soil types at Merredin in 1989. Esc was determined with an empirical model and measured with microlysimeters. Row spacing had no significant effect on the development of green area index (GAI), dry matter (DM) accumulation and evapotranspiration (ET) throughout the season. However, in mid-season, the proportion of ground covered by the canopy was higher and transmission of solar radiation was reduced in the 0.09 m row spacing compared with the 0.36 m row spacing. These effects did not restrain E,,, which was similar in all treatments. Esc was not restrained even when the plant density was doubled in the 0.09 m row spacing treatment. Esc during the season averaged 88 mm across all row spacings on both soils; this accounted for 56% and 48% of the mean seasonal ET on the coarse textured and fine textured soils respectively. Consequently, neither water use efficiency nor grain yield were affected by variation in row spacing; water use efficiency averaged 25 kg DM ha-1 mm-1 on both soil types. For dry Mediterranean environments of Western Australia, it was concluded on the basis of these results, and yield data from other row spacing trials in the same districts, that there are no significant yield benefits to be obtained by reducing the row spacing from the current spacing of 0.18 m. 
ER  -

