Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T16:58:15.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of seed covering treatments on the emergence and seedling growth of crisp lettuce drilled with an experimental dibber drill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. C. E. Wurr ,
Jane R. Fellows  and
L. P. Bufton
D. C. E. Wurr
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF
L. P. Bufton
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4HS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Pelleted seed of the crisp lettuce variety Pennlake was sown on five occasions with units from either the experimental dibber drill designed by the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering or a Stanhay S870 drill. There were three dibber-drill treatments: seeds left in open holes or covered with peat–vermiculite or perlite. Seedling emergence and growth from each sowing of the four drill treatments were compared under different moisture regimes.

There were large differences between drill treatments in emergence percentage, time to emergence of 50% of the seedlings which emerged (t50) and seedling weight at all sowings but there was a significant effect of drill treatment on the standard deviation of seedling emergence times at only one sowing. Of the dibber-drill treatments, only very occasionally did open holes or perlite cover give significantly better emergence than peat-vermiculite cover, which gave the most consistent results. In general, the dibber drill with peat-vermiculite cover gave significantly faster and higher emergence and heavier seedlings than the Stanhay drill. Differences in percentage seedling emergence tended to be greater under dry conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 535 - 541
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anon. (1984). Drill performance assessments. Speed and distribution evaluated. British Sugar Beet Review 52 (3), 47–49.Google Scholar
Bowers, C. G. & Bowen, H. D. (1975). Drying front sensing and signal evaluation for planters. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 18, 1051–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bufton, L. P. (1984). The mechanisation of seed sowing. 2. Rowcrops. In Aspects of Applied Biology No. 7, Crop establishment: biological requirements and engineering solutions. Chapter 8 (ed. Carr, M. K. V.). London: Pitmans.Google Scholar
Bufton, L. P., Brown, F. R. & Grundon, P. M. (1985). Crop establishment and seed drill design: work during 1983 and 1984 with an experimental dibber drill. Divisional Note DN. National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe.Google Scholar
Cary, J. W. (1967). Punch planting to establish lettuce and carrots under adverse conditions. Agronomy Journal 59, 406–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flake, E. & Brinkman, W. (1979). Untersuchungen zur Sicherung des Feldaufganges von Zuckerriiben. Zuckerindustrie 104, 199–206.Google Scholar
Flake, E. & Brinkman, W. (1980). Untersuchungen zur Sicherung des Feldaufganges von Zuckerrüben unter praxisüblichen Bedingungen. Zuckerindustrie 105, 755–762.Google Scholar
Hayslip, N. C. (1974). A ‘plug-mix’ seeding method for field planting tomatoes and other small-seeded hill crops. Fort Pierce Agricultural Research Center Research Report 1974–3.Google Scholar
Heinemann, W. H., Cary, J. W. & Dilworth, A. E. (1973). Experimental machines for auto-dibble planting. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 16, 656–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jafari, J. V. & Fornstrom, K. J. (1972). A precision punch planter for sugar beet. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 15, 569–571.Google Scholar
Leszczynski, Z. & Lenker, D. H. (1982). Punch planting vegetable seeds. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper 82–1621, St Joseph Michigan.Google Scholar
Royle, S. M. & Hegarty, T. W. (1977). Soil impedance and field emergence in calabrese. Journal of Horticultural Science 52, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabir, M. S. & Zoerb, G. C. (1979). Soil moisture sensing and signal evaluation for planters. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper 79–2106, St Joseph Michigan.Google Scholar
Sperlingsson, C. (1981). The influence of the seed bed soil physical environment on seedling growth and establishment. Proceedings of the 44th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, Brussels, pp. 59–77.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. E., Adrian, P. A. & Conley, W. J. (1979). Punch planting vegetable seeds. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 22, 746–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E. & Fellows, J. R. (1983). The effect of the time of seedling emergence of crisp lettuce on the time of maturity and head weight at maturity. Journal of Horticultural Science 58, 561–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E. & Fellows, J. R. (1985). The influence of sowing depth and seed press wheel weighting on seedling emergence of crisp lettuce. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104, 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E., Fellows, J. R. & Gray, D. (1982). The effect of seed treatment and seed covering medium on the establishment of crisp lettuce. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar