Let us know what happens!

The problem is that not that many people have that much garden space, though if production is better than if the same space were planted more intensively, people might be interested.

I try to keep in mind two things about spacing vegetables. First is the space the roots need, and that information is given in two wonderful internet files. I often look it up to check on the recommended spacing made by seed packagers and adjust my notes if needed. (They save much of their credibility by including advice to thin until the remaining plants are "about" so and so apart.)

Root Development in Plants

and

Root Development in Field Crops

Both are from a book written by John E. Weaver and published in 1927. Nothing since then equals his comprehensive studies on the development of root systems.

The second thing is of course whether the plant above the earth has enough space, mostly for air movement around the limbs and leaves, to prevent disease and not stunt plant spread.

Does Solomon say WHY he recommends so much space between vining plants? Tomatoes, cucumbers, and pole beans? Given my certainly incomplete understanding of root structures, it might make sense if you didn't grow them vertically, but the roots themselves don't appear to need that much room. The spreading lateral roots of most plants in the top 8" of soil are usually pretty sparse at the farthest reaches and seem to develop in that plane in response to watering or rain. Otherwise the tap/main roots grow primarily downward. Lateral roots usually turn and grown downward after a few inches of "side-reach".

But anyway, what's Solomon's explanation for recommending that much space if the results are better than more intensively-planted vegetables? He certainly may have taken this kind of information into account, but inquiring minds want to know!

If I had a lot of room, I'd try it. It's so warm and humid here during the growing season that foliage diseases can be a big problem. Increased airflow might help. But with that kind of spacing, I'd only have room for two tomato plants, and it'd be a big loss for me if a storm/dog/wayward weedwhacker killed one of them.

Never tried his system, But I came up at a time when water was drawn or hand pumped out of a well. The traditional spacings at that time were much greater than any you see today. I still grow most things in the traditional manner of the 30's. Intensive plantings have to be irrigated and soil fertility has to be high, but water is the critical factor. When one is depending solely on rainfall, spacing becomes paramount.

Anney, his explanation is that the roots need that much space. For most vegetable descriptions he includes an illustration of the root structure (I'll check to see if his differ from those on the links you give). A tomato's roots, he says, will eventually cover four feet of space--more in a place with a longer growing season. When the roots of the different veggies don't compete with each other, they can fully develop, he says.

And I think the wide spacings will help plants deal with humidity and heat. like Fliptx says. Or at least that's what I'm hoping for.

According to Solomon, the yields with these spacings should be 75% to 90% of that of more intensive methods, but the harvest will be over a longer time and (he claims) of better quality. We shall see. It should work out well for me because using the square foot method I was harvesting my tomatoes all at once, even on indeterminates. The vines would make a lot of tomatoes and then stop producing, just like he said. I was blaming it on high temps but I'm guessing root constriction may have been a factor like he says.

Farmerdilla, it's interesting that you say that, because going back to the "old way" is the overriding theme of the book. His basic argument is that the old way of planting makes a lot of sense, especially if you're trying to conserve resources.

My garden is very small, but I'm still going to give it a shot. It'll be worth it if he's right.

But losing a plant when I'll have so few plants is a big risk. I'm going to make my trellises extra sturdy!

Bill

I plant intensively, but I don't water except new seeds that I'm trying to get up. Everything is heavily mulched, but never watered, even when it's been very dry.

I've tried it on a very limited scale, as like most I don't have much space. I have one garden-plot that has no irrigation, and I've always noticed that well-isolated plants do better in general. When I have time to keep it weed-free and dirt-mulched, the difference is unmistakable. Wide rows and dirt mulch is an effective technique for dry-farming

Pnbrown or anyone, stupid question but what do you mean by dirt mulch? Obviously I know what dirt is and what mulch is but how do you mulch with dirt? Meaning you don't mulch at all?

Essentially about 2 inches of loosened soil. Before herbicides, there was not enough material to cover the area needed, so most vegetable crops were cultivated, which served two purposes. 1. weed control 2. Break up capillary action so that the soil around the roots retain moisture. Today mulching on that scale can be done by planting a cover crop, burning it down with a herbicide, and planting through the residual cover crop. ( no till). On a farm scale it requires chemicals and machinery that only became available post WWII.

Hi,

I've got a question re: roots. It's my understanding that with trees, the size of the tree canopy is in a direct relationship to the root spread. I'm wondering if the same is true of veggies. For example.... Personally, I MUCH prefer many different varieties of heavily pruned tomatoes to a few unpruned, heavily bearing tomatoes. (I just like trying out all the different flavors - don't need that many from each plant). So say that instead of a few widely spaced tomatoes each growing quite large and heavily bearing, you had many severely pruned tomatoes that bore less but took up less above ground space. Would you get similar production overall? In other words, say a regular tomato reaches its maximum potential with a root spread of 4'would a heavily pruned tomato (with fewer stems, blossoms, etc.) reach its maximum potential with a smaller root spread?

Anne

Hi,

To clarify a bit..... Is the optimal root zone requirement for a particular variety dependant on that variety and remain a constant, or can pruning affect the optimal root zone requirement?

Anne

I haven't read the book, which sounds interesting. But through trial and error, I have chosen similar wide spacings, and have been very happy with the results.

Two factors sent me down that path initially. Disease was often a problem for me in closely-spaced rows, especially with beans. Then when I began to save heirloom seed, I often had a limited supply initially, and wanted to get the maximum yield out of whatever plants survived.

I observed enormous increases in plant vigor with the wider spacing, and have used the method almost exclusively ever since.

24" spacing for pole beans seems excessive; while they will usually fill in the trellis (depending upon the degree of branching), I found a default spacing of 12" to be optimal. Not all varieties will require the same spacing; some pole beans do well with 6" spacing, while a few very rampant varieties require 15-18". Yardlong beans do their best for me at 15-18". Pole limas need even more, I use 24" spacing for them... and when I grew the large-seeded pole limas (in warmer climes than I have now) I spaced them up to 36" apart.

HOWEVER... this year one of my small-seeded pole limas died, leaving a 4-foot gap between plants. By the time of harvest, the gap was no longer visible, even upon close examination. And a rare bean last year, with only one seed germinating (!!!) covered a 4' X 6' trellis by itself, and produced over 8 ounces of dry seed. Pole beans will take almost as much space as you give them, and a pampered plant can give astronomical yields.

For tomatoes, I use 24-30" spacing each way for determinates, and 36-48" for indeterminates. Eggplant does well for me at 30-36". 24" seems to be optimal for okra where I live now, but in a long-season area (San Diego) I used 36" - and could barely walk between the plants.

I have arrived at default spacings for most vegetables which are generally much greater than seed packet instructions. This will vary with the variety; I observe the initial performance, and make adjustments as appropriate the next time it is grown. As a rule of thumb, the widest spacing that I can use, while still covering the ground or trellis without gaps, seems to be optimal for plant health.

Castorp, my own observations are in agreement with what you stated in your last post. I experimented heavily with various spacings for one of my favorite crops, yardlong beans. At the closer spacings (4-6"), they did not climb as high, and the majority of the yield was close to the ground. At the spacing I use now, the vines are rampant & heavily-branched, and bear continuously.

With pole snap beans, the results were similar. At closer spacings, I would get one very heavy picking, followed by a long period of inactivity. This was even more pronounced in bush beans. At wider spacings, the yield was more continuous, and the pod quality was better.

I do not believe that there is one "perfect" spacing. Differences in climate and fertility will cause variations in optimal spacing; there are even differences between my backyard garden, and the same plant grown in my main plot 6 miles away. Then too, the space between plants is an influence on their behavior, and can be used as a tool to the gardener's advantage.

If you live in a short-season area (or want multiple rotations within the growing season), want heavy one-time crops for canning, or have limited space, then closer spacing might be appropriate. If you want a more prolonged harvest, are trying for "whopper" produce, live in a long-season area, or have problems with foliar diseases, then wider spacings may be preferable.

Aclum, I know a tomato gardener who swears by the method you describe. He stakes them, and prunes them to a single stalk. He uses much closer spacing; I believe less than 24" between plants. For tomatoes specifically, you might get your best answer posting on the Growing Tomatoes forum.

Hi,

Well, I think I answered my own question!

Instead of just looking at the pretty pictures , I finally took the time to actually read some of the info on the root growth link posted by anney

(http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010137veg.roots/010137ch26.html)

Here's the relevant section from the article:
-----------------------------
Studies made on both the trained and the untrained plants show a considerable difference in their respective root systems. With the trained plants, which were pruned to a single stem and tied to stakes, very few roots were found in the centers between the rows, while with the unpruned plants; there were many more roots in the centers, . . . The centers between the rows of trained plants were practically without roots at all depths; while with the untrained plants, in the surface 6 inches of soil there were many roots in the centers between the rows, although these rows were 1 foot farther apart than those of the trained plants. The unpruned plants also had more roots running down into the soil than did the pruned plants. . . . Measurements of the foliage showed that the unpruned plants had about five times as much leaf area per plant as had the pruned plants. The root growth in general was proportional to the foliage growth." 159a
---------------------

So, my conclusion is that if you choose to stake and prune your plants (for whatever reason), the root growth is diminished as compared to unpruned plants, so that you can space them closer than you could unpruned plants without restricting the roots (as they're not going to grow out into the extra space anyway).

Anne

Basically, it creates a dwarf plant. Hardly surprising, I guess.