Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:20:31.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of row orientation, date and latitude on light absorption by row crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. J. W. Mutsaers
H. J. W. Mutsaers
Affiliation:
Department of Tropical Crops, Agricultural University, P.O. Box 341, Wageningen, Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A model study of light absorption by rectangular hedgerows with different row orientations was made.

The effect of row orientation on daily light absorption is greatest around 25° latitude. North–south orientation gives highest absorption for most of the year near the equator. At higher latitudes, up to 55°, absorption is highest with N–S orientation during the summer months and with E–W orientations for the rest of the year, but the magnitude of the difference between orientations decreases with increasing latitude. From 65° upwards, E–W orientation gives highest absorption all the year round, but the difference among orientations is minor. The effect of orientation will be smaller as cloudiness is greater.

The results of this study are wholly consistent with yield differences due to different orientations, reported in the literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , October 1980 , pp. 381 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Allen, L. (1974). Model of light penetration into a wide–row crop. Agronomy Journal 66, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. N. & Meyer, R. E. (1966). Influence of stand geometry on light interception and net photosynthesis in cotton. Crop Science 6, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, C. T. (1965). Photosynthesis of leaf canopies. Agricultural Research Reports no. 663, 57 pp. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crop and pasture plants. Advances in Agronomy 15, 1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungan, G. H., Sisodia, U. S. & Singh, G. D. (1955). The benefit of sowing maize for fodder in north and south lines. Allahabad Farmer 29, 8–13. (Cited in Field Crop Abstracts (1956) 9, 396.)Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. H. A. (1960). A comparison of two planting systems in orchards as regards the amount of radiation intercepted by the trees. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 8, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudriaan, J. (1977). Crop micrometeorology: a simulation study. Simulation Monographs, 249 pp. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Hesketh, J. D. & Baker, D. N. (1967). Light and carbon assimilation by plant communities. Crop Science 7, 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. E. & Palmer, J. W. (1972). Interception of light by model hedgerow orchards in relation to latitude, time of year and hedgerow configuration and orientation. Journal of Applied Ecology 9, 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendleton, J. W. & Duncan, G. H. (1958). Effect of row direction on spring oat yields. Agronomy Journal 50, 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabbinge, R. (1976). Biological control of fruit-tree red spider mite. Simulation Monographs, 234 pp. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. G. (1975). Effect of row direction on sunflowers. Agronomy Journal 67, 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibles, R. M. & Weber, C. R. (1966). Interception of solar radiation and dry matter production by various soybean planting patterns. Crop Science 6, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar