Organic Agriculture

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 373–381 | Cite as

Can large seed size compensate for deep seeding in organic barley (Hordeum vulgare) and oat (Avena sativa) production? An assessment of farm-saved seed

  • Katherine A. Stanley
  • Martin H. EntzEmail author


Greater seeding depths are often used in organic production to compensate for drier soil conditions caused by pre-seeding tillage. We hypothesized that reduced crop performance from deeper seeding could be compensated through larger seed. Field experiments were conducted in Carman, Manitoba, Canada, in 2015 and 2016. Barley (Hordeum vulgare) and oat (Avena sativa) seed lots were sieved using standard industry sieves (from 0.08 cm to > 0.32 cm × 1.91 cm in barley seed lots and from 0.08 cm to > 0.28 cm × 1.91 cm for the seed lots of oats) and classified into small, medium, and large seed sizes for each seed lot. The proportion of small, medium, and large seeds varied depending on farmer seed lot. Seed lots were sown at shallow (2.5 cm) and deep (6.4 cm) depths in organic fields. Deeper seeding and use of small seed size resulted in decreased grain yield and increased weed biomass. This trend occurred in both years but was only significant in 2015. No seed size by seeding depth interactions were observed for crop emergence, weed biomass, grain yield, or dockage for oat or barley over the 2-year study. In two instances, crop biomass was greater with larger compared with smaller seed at shallow seeding depths. This research indicated that large seed did not compensate for lower crop productivity and higher weed biomass owing to deep seeding, but that large seed and shallow seeding independently led to more positive outcomes for organic barley and oat production.


Cultural weed control Seed size Seed depth Oat Barley 



The authors would like to thank Keith Bamford for his technical expertise. We thank the reviewers and the Associate Editor for their comments on the manuscript.

Funding information

Funding was provided by the Manitoba Organic Alliance and by the Canada and Manitoba governments through Growing Forward 2, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative.


  1. Benaragama D, Shirtliffe SJ, Johnson EN, Duddu HSN, Syrovy LD (2016) Does yield loss due to weed competition differ between organic and conventional cropping systems? Weed Res 56:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourgeois L, Moes J, Stobbe EH (1996) Impact of threshing on hard red spring wheat seed vigour. Can J Plant Sci 76:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Demirlicakmak A, Kaufmann ML, Johnson LPV (1963) The influence of seed size and seeding rate on yield and yield components of barley. Can J Plant Sci 43:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Entz MH, Guilford R, Gulden R (2001) Crop yield and soil nutrient status on 14 organic farms in the eastern portion of the northern Great Plains. Can J Plant Sci 81:351–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gan Y, Stobbe EH (1995) Effect of variations in seed size and planting depth on emergence, infertile plants, and grain yield of spring wheat. Can J Plant Sci 75:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halde C, Gulden RH, Entz MH (2014) Selecting cover crop mulches for organic rotational no-till systems in Manitoba, Canada. Agron J 106:1193–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halde C, Bamford KC, Entz MH (2015) Crop agronomic performance under a six-year continuous organic no-till system and other tilled and conventionally-managed systems in the northern Great Plains of Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 213:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaufman ML, Guitard AA (1967) The effect of seed size on early plant development in barley. Can J Plant Sci 47:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirby EJM (1993) Effect of sowing depth on seedling emergence, growth and development in barley and wheat. Field Crop Res 35:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lafond GP, Boyetchko SM, Brandt SA, Clayton GW, Entz MH (1996) Influence of changing tillage practices on crop production. Can J Plant Sci 76:641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lieshman MR, Westoby M (1994) Hypothesis on seed size: tests using the semiarid flora of Western New South Wales, Australia. Am Nat 143:890–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lieshman MR, Wright IJ, Moles AT, Westoby M (2000) Evolutionary ecology of seed size. In: Fenner M (ed) Seeds – the ecology of regeneration in plant communities, 2nd edn. CAB Int., New York, pp 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loeppky H, Lafond GP, Fowler DB (1989) Seeding depth in relation to plant development, winter survival, and yield of no-till winter wheat. Agron J 81:125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nelson AG, Froese JC, Entz MH (2010) Organic and conventional field crop soil and land management practices in Canada. Can J Plant Sci 90:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Donovan J, Remy EDS, O’Sullivan P, Dew D, Sharma A (1985) Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 33:498–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Photiades I, Hadjichristodoulou A (1984) Sowing date, sowing depth, seed rate and row spacing of wheat and barley under dryland conditions. Field Crop Res 9:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Podolsky K, Blackshaw RE, Entz MH (2016) A comparison of reduced tillage implements for organic wheat production in Western Canada. Agron J 108:2003–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rasmussen K, Rasmussen J (2000) Barley seed vigour and mechanical weed control. Weed Res 40:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Röös E, Mie A, Wivstad M, Salomon E, Johansson B, Gunnarsson S, Wallenbeck A, Hoffmann R, Nilsson U, Sundberg C, Watson CA (2018) Risks and opportunities of increasing yields in organic farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ross DM, Van Acker RC (2005) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and landscape position on wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in spring wheat. Weed Sci 53:869–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryan MR, Smith RG, Mortensen DA, Teasdale JR, Curran WS, Seidel R, Shumway DL (2009) Weed-crop competition relationships differ between organic and conventional cropping systems. Weed Res 49:572–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS (2013) Base SAS® 9.4 procedures guide: statistical procedures. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  23. Sonntag CW, Rossnagel BG, Baker RJ (1988) Factors affecting performance of different pedigreed seedlots of Harrington barley and Katepwa wheat. Unpublished research report, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada. Retreived Dec. 13, 2018.,%201988.pdf?sequence=1
  24. Stougaard RN, Xue Q (2004) Spring wheat seed size and seeding rate effects on yield loss due to wild oat (Avena fatua) interference. Weed Sci 52:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Willenborg CJ, Rossnagel BG, Shirtliffe SJ (2005) Oat caryopsis size and genotype effects on wild oat-oat competition. Crop Sci 45:1410–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yagmur M, Kaydan D (2009) The effects of different sowing depth on grain yield and some grain yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars under dryland conditions. Afr J Biotechnol 8:196–201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant ScienceUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations