HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gay, S. Articles by Reicosky, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Gay, S. Articles by Reicosky, D. A. Agricola Articles by Gay, S. Articles by Reicosky, D. A.

Physiological Aspects of Yield Improvement in Soybeans¹

An understanding of the physiological changes that have occurred in cultivar development in the past would be helpful in the continued production of high yielding cultivars of the various crop species. Field experiments using conventional cultural practices with supplemental irrigation were conducted in 1976 to determine the physiological basis for yield differences between old, low yielding soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars (Lincoln' and ‘orman’) and new high yielding cultivars (‘Williams’ and ‘Essex’). Mechanical support was used to prevent lodging for comparison to control plots with no mechanical support. There was no lodging in Lincoln and Williams (Maturity Group III); whereas, in maturity group V, Dorman lodged significantly more than Essex in the control plots. However, there was no relationship between lodging and yield. Williams produced 34% more yield than Lincoln, primarily because of larger seed. Essex produced 88% more yield than Dorman, primarily because of more seed per unit area.

Yield differences were not correlated with total shoot weights or CO₂ uptake rates of a single leaf during vegetative or early reproductive growth. Rates of acetylene reduction were similar for Williams and Lincoln, but Essex had a higher rate than Dorman. The yield advantage of Williams resulted partially from a longer filling period (12%), which was associated with higher CO₂ uptake and acetylene reduction rates late in the filling period. Essex and Dorman produced similar total shoot weights late in the filling period, so the yield advantage for Essex resulted from partitioning more photosynthate to the seed. The data suggest that yield improvement in the future may be possible by lengthening the filling period. It may not be possible to increase seed yields by increasing the partitioning of photosynthate to the seed if the partitioning in current cultivars is approaching the maximum.

Key Words: legumes • grasses • plant competition • phytotoxicity • root exudates • allelopathy • pasture management

² Former graduate research assistant (current address is Dep. of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843), professor, assistant professor, Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546.

Received for publication April 20, 1979.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. B. Egli Comparison of Corn and Soybean Yields in the United States: Historical Trends and Future Prospects Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(Supplement_3): S-79 - S-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. V. Kumudini, P. K. Pallikonda, and C. Steele Photoperiod and E-genes Influence the Duration of the Reproductive Phase in Soybean Crop Sci., July 30, 2007; 47(4): 1510 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pedersen and J. G. Lauer Response of Soybean Yield Components to Management System and Planting Date Agron. J., September 1, 2004; 96(5): 1372 - 1381. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. J. Boote, J. W. Jones, W. D. Batchelor, E. D. Nafziger, and O. Myers Genetic Coefficients in the CROPGRO-Soybean Model: Links to Field Performance and Genomics Agron. J., January 1, 2003; 95(1): 32 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Kumudini, D. J. Hume, and G. Chu Genetic Improvement in Short Season Soybeans: I. Dry Matter Accumulation, Partitioning, and Leaf Area Duration Crop Sci., March 1, 2001; 41(2): 391 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D.F. Curtis, J.W. Tanner, B.M. Luzzi, and D.J. Hume Agronomic and Phenological Differences of Soybean Isolines Differing in Maturity and Growth Habit Crop Sci., November 1, 2000; 40(6): 1624 - 1629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Morrison, H. D. Voldeng, and E. R. Cober Agronomic Changes from 58 Years of Genetic Improvement of Short-Season Soybean Cultivars in Canada Agron. J., July 1, 2000; 92(4): 780 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text]