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

This Article Abstract 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 (41) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Specht, J.E. Articles by Kumudini, S.V. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Specht, J.E. Articles by Kumudini, S.V. Agricola Articles by Specht, J.E. Articles by Kumudini, S.V.

Soybean Yield Potential—A Genetic and Physiological Perspective

^a Dep. of Plant Agriculture, Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2W1

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 U.S. soybean yields from 1928 to 1998. Trend line parameters derived from the linear and exponential regression analyses are displayed in the legend box (Y = yield, T = year)

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Panel A: Soybean yields from 1972 to 1997 in the irrigated and rainfed production systems in Nebraska, plus U.S. yields. Panel B: A comparison of irrigated corn and soybean yields in Nebraska from 1972 to 1997. All trend lines in these two graphs were derived from linear regression analyses as displayed in the legend boxes (Y = yield, T = year)

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Comparative dry matter accumulation in two old (pre-1976) and two new (post-1976) soybean cultivars, when averaged over the 1996 and 1997 growing seasons. Senesced leaves were not included in the calculation of dry matter. The bars represent 95% confidence limits

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Comparative hundred-seed weight in two old and two new soybean cultivars when grown in two successive seasons with either a normal pod load or with 50% of the nodes depodded. The error bar represents two standard errors of a difference between the two treatment means (partial depodding and normal pod load)

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Comparative root N content in two old and two new soybean cultivars, averaged over two successive seasons, for a normal pod load treatment and a treatment which depodded 50% of the nodes. The error bar represents two standard errors of a difference beween the two treatment means

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Soil N uptake, fixed N2 accumulation and total N content of six soybean cultivars released over a 36-yr period. The regression equations displayed in the figure were computed using a two-digit format of the year of release (i.e., X ranged from 57 to 93)

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Effect of three plant densities on the yields of two pre-1976, two post-1976, and two recent cultivar releases. The data were averaged over the 1995 and 1997 seasons

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8 Yields reported by the top two winners in national (U.S.) or state (IA, KS, & MO) soybean yield competitions, and by researchers R. Flannery and R. Cooper on the basis of their yield-maximization research. Yields are plotted versus year of occurrence. For comparative purposes, the state yield averages for Nebraska's irrigated and rainfed soybean production are shown at the bottom of the chart, as is the U.S. soybean yield average

View larger version (37K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9 Projection of soybean yield for the next millennium, based on exponential, linear, or logistic (yield maximum) models that were fitted to observed U.S. yield data from 1924 to 1998 (cf. Fig. 1). Values for the parameters of each model are given in the legend boxes (Y = yield, T = year, Tm = year corresponding to the sigmoid inflection point)