Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T07:32:59.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in potato agronomy. II. The effects of variety and time of planting on growth, development and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. M. Bremner  and
R. W. Radley
P. M. Bremner
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, eies
R. W. Radley
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, eies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A factori al experiment involving four varieties (Ulster Chieftain, Arran Pilot, Craig's Royal and Ulster Torch) and three times of planting (28 March, 13 April and 2 May) was undertaken with a view to investigating the effects on growth development and yield of these factors. Only a limited amount of data was obtained in respect of Craig's Royal, because of its extreme variability in the first two times of planting. In addition, data in respect of King Edward and Majestic planted on the second date in an adjacent experiment are discussed.

2. In general, yields from Ulster Torch were about twice as great as those from Ulster Chieftain, with the other varieties occupying intermediate positions. The total yield of Ulster Chieftain increased with delay in planting, while in Arran Pilot, Craig's Royal and Ulster Torch, yield was greatest at the intermediate planting date, slightly lower than this at the first, and lowest at the third. Ware yield as a proportion of the total increased with delay in planting.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 1966 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Blackman, G. E., Black, J. N. & Kemp, A. W. (1955). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 19, 527.Google Scholar
Borah, M. N. & Milthorpe, F. L. (1959). Rep. Univ. Nottingham Sch. Agric. 41.Google Scholar
Borah, M. N. & Milthorpe, F. L. (1963). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 5, 53.Google Scholar
Bremner, P. M. & Taha, M. A. (1966). J. Agric. Sci. 66, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, R. (1962). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 399.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. & Black, J. N. (1958). Herb. Abstr. 28, 1.Google Scholar
Dyke, G. V. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 122.Google Scholar
Headford, D. W. R. & Ingersent, E. M. (1961). Rep. Univ. Nottingham Sch. Agric. 37.Google Scholar
Ivins, J. D. & McDermott, N. (1949). Agriculture, Lond., 60, 452.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. E. (1953). Ann. Appl. Biol. 40, 778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1956). In The Growth of Leaves, Proc. 3rd Easter School in Agric. Sci. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar