Sowing / transplanting at low density
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
| Estelle Meslin | INRA | estelle.meslin@rennes.inra.fr | Rennes (35) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bertrand Omon | Chamber of Agriculture of Eure | bertrand.omon(at)agri-eure.com | Evreux (27) |
| Arnaud Butier | INRA | arnaud.butier(at)grignon.inra.fr | Grignon (78) |
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
Spam prevention: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
Presentation of the technique
Characterization of the technique
Sowing (or transplanting) at moderate seeding density helps limit the risks of lodging and pathogen development, as well as the early demand for nitrogen. The goal is to limit spring biomass, and the density reduction should be greater the earlier the sowing and the higher the probability of strong biomass. The seeding density is determined in interaction with the sowing date (although generally denser, late sowings reduce disease risk), the pedo-climatic context, species, variety, fertilization, etc. This is why it is difficult to give a general recommendation on the percentage reduction compared to the usual reference.
Example of implementation: For example, reduce winter soft wheat seeding density by 20 to 30% compared to the "reasoned" density (cf. Agro-transfert document and low input technical itineraries for wheat in the references of the sheet).
Implementation period On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Sometimes difficult to generalize
This technique is suitable for winter cereals, rapeseed, as well as spring barley and flax for lodging. For rapeseed, low-density sowing also allows better use of its ability to occupy space by branching, resulting in stronger and (often) more productive plants (depending on soil types and element availability). The technique of sowing or planting at low density is less suitable for field vegetable crops because seeding density is determined according to tool dimensions and allows managing the size of harvested vegetables. To be adapted according to crop and variety.
All soil types: Easily generalizable
To be adapted according to soil type, expected emergence quality, etc.
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
It is all the more recommended to rely on this lever when located in a climatic zone more favorable to diseases and lodging: relatively mild and humid winters of the Atlantic coast, Picardy. In case of very wet periods, a low density may not limit disease risk and on the contrary, reduce the crop's compensation capacity.
Regulation
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Increasing
phytosanitary emissions: DECREASE
Effect on water quality: Increasing
pesticides: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Variable
fossil energy consumption: VARIABLE
Other: No effect (neutral)
This technique helps limit the use of fungicides and growth regulators, provided that the use of herbicides does not increase (see Agronomic criteria). In this case, there is also a reduction in the number of fungicide and growth regulator treatments.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: Variable
For rapeseed, it seems that low-density sowings are more favorable to yield.
Production quality: Increasing
Protein content is improved in wheat.
Other agronomic criteria: Increasing
Weed control: link=|alt=red face size 10
Low density reduces the crop's ability (with identical variety) to effectively compete with weeds, which also produce more seeds. This observation requires taking measures for weed management.
Pest control: link=|alt=yellow face size 10
It seems that some insects may be favored by sparse sowings: bruchids, weevils, flea beetles. This remains to be confirmed.
"Economic" criteria
Operational costs: Variable
There is a limitation of seed quantity used and fungicide/growth regulator use, provided herbicide use is not increased.
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
There is a limitation of treatment time, provided herbicide use is not increased.
4. Organisms favored or disadvantaged
Favored Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pea anthracnose | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Faba bean anthracnose | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Botrytis cinerea | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) | On winter and spring peas |
| Botrytis fabae | LOW | pathogen (bioagressor) | On rapeseed |
| Fusarium head blight | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Pea grease | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Oat helminthosporiosis | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Barley helminthosporiosis | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Fusiform helminthosporiosis | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Pea tip yellowing | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Microdochium on leaves | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Mosaic enation | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Powdery mildew of cereals | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| Pea powdery mildew | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Phoma of crucifers | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Phoma of sunflower | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Phomopsis of soybean | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Phomopsis of sunflower | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Take-all | LOW | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| Rhynchosporium | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Brown rust | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Faba bean rust | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Pea rust | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| Sclerotinia | LOW | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| Septoria leaf blotch | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| Septoria tritici blotch | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) |
Favored Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. To learn more
- Seeding and planting density
- -French Association for Plant Protection, coordination: Jean-Louis Bernard, provisional document
AFPP, Technical brochure, 2011
- Faba bean in organic farming
ITAB, Arvalis, UNIP, Technical brochure, 2009
- Proteaginous pea in organic farming
- -Biarnes V. (UNIP); Carrouée B. (UNIP); Bouttet D. (Arvalis-UNIP); Chaillet I. (Arvalis UNIP); Fontaine L. (ITAB); Collin F. (FNAMS); Prieur L. (CREAB Auch); Salitot G. (CA Oise)
ITAB, Arvalis, UNIP, Technical brochure, 2009
- Growth regulators for winter cereals. First estimate lodging risk
- -Bonin L.; Citron G.; Prévot J.P. (Arvalis)
Perspectives Agricoles n°320, February 2006, Press article, 2006
- Terres Inovia
- -Terres inovia, Website
Related pages soybean (sclerotinia), sunflower (sclerotinia, phomopsis), pea (anthracnose), rapeseed (lodging in autumn)
- Towards integrated cropping systems. 6 years of successful input reduction in Picardy, based on agronomy
- -Mischeler P. et al. (Agro-transfert)
Agro-Transfert Resources and Territories, pages 20 to 23, Technical brochure, 2010
6. Keywords
Bioagressor control method: Cultural control
Mode of action: Mitigation
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Redesign
Annexes
S'applique aux cultures suivantes
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
- Pea anthracnose
- Faba bean anthracnose
- Botrytis cinerea
- Botrytis fabae
- Fusarium head blight
- Pea grease
- Oat helminthosporiosis
- Barley helminthosporiosis
- Fusiform helminthosporiosis
- Pea tip yellowing
- Microdochium on leaves
- Mosaic enation
- Powdery mildew of cereals
- Pea powdery mildew
- Phoma of crucifers
- Phoma of sunflower
- Phomopsis of soybean
- Phomopsis of sunflower
- Take-all
- Rhynchosporium
- Brown rust
- Faba bean rust
- Pea rust
- Sclerotinia
- Septoria leaf blotch
- Septoria tritici blotch
