Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T21:18:20.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in soil cultivation: VII. The effect of cultivation on crop yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. W. Russell  and
B. A. Keen
E. W. Russell
Affiliation:
Soil Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
B. A. Keen
Affiliation:
Soil Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Wheat, barley or mangolds gave nearly the same yield if grown on seed beds prepared by ploughing and harrowing, by using the grubber or cultivator and harrowing and by using the Rototiller, provided that the cultivators were used for one year only. If used for several years in succession deterioration of yield sometimes sets in, possibly due to the increased weediness of the non-ploughed plots.

2. There was no advantage in ploughing deeper than 4 in. but it is advantageous to use the grubber of Rototiller deeper.

3. The effect of cross-ploughing, subsoiling or heavy rolling the seed bed for spring-sown crops was without effect on the yield.

4. Spring rolling and harrowing improved the yield of winter wheat but had little effect on the yield of straw. Rolling alone may have produced a slightly increased yield of grain but it improved the straw yield while harrowing depressed the straw yield.

5. There was strong evidence that intensive hoeing of sugar-beet or kale is detrimental. Two to three hoeings appear to be ample.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1938 , pp. 212 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

Culpin, C. (1937). Proc. 2nd Conf. Mech. Fmg, Oxford, p. 35.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1931–2). J.S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 28, 284; 29, 56.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1932). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 29, 57.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1934). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 33, 75.Google Scholar
Davies, C. & Smyth-Homewood, G. B. (1936 a). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 38, 25.Google Scholar
Davies, C. & Smyth-Homewood, G. B. (1936 b). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 38, 141.Google Scholar
Davies, C. & Smyth-Homewood, G. B. (1937). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 39, 48.Google Scholar
Gade, C. (1929). Landw. Jb. 70, 89.Google Scholar
Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1936). J. agric. Sci. 26, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1937). J. agric. Sci. 27, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, B. A. (1933). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 1, 97.Google Scholar
Keen, B. A. et al. (1930). J. agric. Sci. 20, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitzsch, W. von (1935). Zuckerrübenbau. Heft 5.Google Scholar
Nitzsch, W. von (1936). Schr. Reichskurat. Tech. Landw. Heft 70.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. G. (1935). J. Fmrs Cl., Lond., p. 81.Google Scholar
Tamm, E. (1928). Pflanzenbau, 4, Heft 2.Google Scholar