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

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Singer, J. W. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Singer, J. W. Agricola Articles by Singer, J. W. Related Collections Zeoponics Plant and Environment Interactions

CROP ECOLOGY, PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT

Soybean Light Interception and Yield Response to Row Spacing and Biomass Removal

Dep. of Plant Science, Cook College, Rutgers Univ., 59 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520

Corresponding author (singer{at}aesop.rutgers.edu)

Biomass removal effects on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] light interception and yield under different row spacings have not been documented. Objectives for this study were to evaluate biomass removal, light interception, seed yield, and yield components of soybean under seven clipping treatments. Treatments in this study were clipping at V5, R1, R4, V5 + R1, V5 + R4, R1 + R4, and V5 + R1 + R4, and a control in 18- or 20-cm and 76-cm rows. In 1998, a dry year, biomass removal exhibited a negative linear relationship with seed yield in narrow rows (r² = 0.62). A row spacing–clipping interaction was observed. In wide rows, clipping at V5 or R1 produced a compensatory response by increasing yield 12 and 5%, respectively. Generally, soybean in 76-cm rows maintained seed yield by adjusting the number of pods or seed weight, except when clipping occurred at V5 + R4 or at three growth stages. In 1999, under severe moisture stress, row spacing influenced seed yield. Averaged across clipping treatments, narrow rows yielded 16% more (301 vs. 254 g m^-2) than wide rows. Generally, soybean yield declined as clipping timing was delayed and as clipping frequency increased in narrow rows, except when clipping occurred at V5 + R1. Clipping at V5 and V5 + R1 did not affect yield in wide rows. All other clipping treatments suffered yield reductions ranging from 20 to 58%. A quadratic relationship (R² = 0.83) was observed between biomass removal and seed yield.

Abbreviations: DAP, days after planting • HI, harvest index • LAI, leaf area index • PAR, photosynthetically active radiation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. W. Meek and J. W. Singer ESTIMATION OF DURATION INDICES FOR REPEATED TENSIOMETER READINGS Agron. J., November 1, 2004; 96(6): 1787 - 1790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Singer and D. W. Meek Repeated Biomass Removal Affects Soybean Resource Utilization and Yield Agron. J., September 1, 2004; 96(5): 1382 - 1389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Singer, R. W. Malone, D. W. Meek, and D. Drake PREDICTING YIELD LOSS IN INDETERMINATE SOYBEAN FROM POD DENSITY USING SIMULATED DAMAGE STUDIES Agron. J., March 1, 2004; 96(2): 584 - 589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]