Initial Plant Size Affects Response to Thinning in Soybean
Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can produce compensatory yield following plant stand reduction, but the effect of plant size within a developmental stage on this ability is unknown. We seeded two cultivars at 15, 30, 45, and 60 plants m−2, and identified large and small plants within each density a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agronomy journal 2015-01, Vol.107 (1), p.158-166 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 166 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 158 |
container_title | Agronomy journal |
container_volume | 107 |
creator | Davis, Vince M. Mellendorf, Nathan E. Villamil, María B. Nafziger, Emerson D. |
description | Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can produce compensatory yield following plant stand reduction, but the effect of plant size within a developmental stage on this ability is unknown. We seeded two cultivars at 15, 30, 45, and 60 plants m−2, and identified large and small plants within each density at V3 (third trifoliate), V6 (sixth trifoliate), R2 (full bloom), and R4 (full pod) developmental stages. Subplots were either thinned to a density of 5.3 plants m−2 or left at intact densities. The ability for large or small plants to produce compensatory growth and yield was evaluated by the differences between subsequent growth and yield produced in thinned vs. intact stands. We found small plants had equivalent harvest index to large plants across all plant densities and developmental stages, suggesting small plants were as efficient as large plants for compensating seed yield relative to biomass when stands were not thinned. However, when stands were thinned, compensatory growth and yield were different between large and small plants. For example, across all plant densities thinned at V3, large and small plants produced 51 and 37 g plant−1, respectively, and compensatory yield contributed 30 and 24 g plant−1, respectively. Thus, small plants produced 80% as much compensatory yield as large plants when thinned at V3. However, by the same comparison, the contribution of small plants declined to 57% when thinning was delayed to R4 development, suggesting small plants lost more compensatory ability over time. We conclude initial soybean plant size impacts compensatory yield plant−1. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2134/agronj13.0599 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1647423952</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3565372421</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3839-9670d7559092e400c68224acd6a48597cd74a57d75459069ea2f36169ef27a313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90E1PAjEQBuDGaCKiR-9NPC_2u1s9bYgghIgBPDd1t4sla4vtEoO_3kX06mnm8LwzyQvANUYDgim7NesY_AbTAeJKnYAeZpRnSDB-CnoIIZJhJcg5uEhpgxDGiuEeuJt41zrTwOfG-BYu3ZeFRV3bsk1wYdM2-GRhG-DqzXnv_Bo6D5dh_2qNvwRntWmSvfqdffAyelgNH7PZfDwZFrOspDlVmRISVZJzhRSxDKFS5IQwU1bCsJwrWVaSGS47wjojlDWkpgJ3S02koZj2wc3x7jaGj51Nrd6EXfTdS40Fk4xQxUmnsqMqY0gp2lpvo3s3ca8x0od69F89-lBP5--P_tM1dv8_1sV4SorxYv40xfQn_Q2Xwmjr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1647423952</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Initial Plant Size Affects Response to Thinning in Soybean</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Davis, Vince M. ; Mellendorf, Nathan E. ; Villamil, María B. ; Nafziger, Emerson D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Davis, Vince M. ; Mellendorf, Nathan E. ; Villamil, María B. ; Nafziger, Emerson D.</creatorcontrib><description>Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can produce compensatory yield following plant stand reduction, but the effect of plant size within a developmental stage on this ability is unknown. We seeded two cultivars at 15, 30, 45, and 60 plants m−2, and identified large and small plants within each density at V3 (third trifoliate), V6 (sixth trifoliate), R2 (full bloom), and R4 (full pod) developmental stages. Subplots were either thinned to a density of 5.3 plants m−2 or left at intact densities. The ability for large or small plants to produce compensatory growth and yield was evaluated by the differences between subsequent growth and yield produced in thinned vs. intact stands. We found small plants had equivalent harvest index to large plants across all plant densities and developmental stages, suggesting small plants were as efficient as large plants for compensating seed yield relative to biomass when stands were not thinned. However, when stands were thinned, compensatory growth and yield were different between large and small plants. For example, across all plant densities thinned at V3, large and small plants produced 51 and 37 g plant−1, respectively, and compensatory yield contributed 30 and 24 g plant−1, respectively. Thus, small plants produced 80% as much compensatory yield as large plants when thinned at V3. However, by the same comparison, the contribution of small plants declined to 57% when thinning was delayed to R4 development, suggesting small plants lost more compensatory ability over time. We conclude initial soybean plant size impacts compensatory yield plant−1.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-1962</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0645</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2134/agronj13.0599</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Madison: The American Society of Agronomy, Inc</publisher><subject>Soybeans</subject><ispartof>Agronomy journal, 2015-01, Vol.107 (1), p.158-166</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Agronomy, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Agronomy Jan/Feb 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3839-9670d7559092e400c68224acd6a48597cd74a57d75459069ea2f36169ef27a313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3839-9670d7559092e400c68224acd6a48597cd74a57d75459069ea2f36169ef27a313</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2134%2Fagronj13.0599$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134%2Fagronj13.0599$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Davis, Vince M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellendorf, Nathan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villamil, María B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nafziger, Emerson D.</creatorcontrib><title>Initial Plant Size Affects Response to Thinning in Soybean</title><title>Agronomy journal</title><description>Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can produce compensatory yield following plant stand reduction, but the effect of plant size within a developmental stage on this ability is unknown. We seeded two cultivars at 15, 30, 45, and 60 plants m−2, and identified large and small plants within each density at V3 (third trifoliate), V6 (sixth trifoliate), R2 (full bloom), and R4 (full pod) developmental stages. Subplots were either thinned to a density of 5.3 plants m−2 or left at intact densities. The ability for large or small plants to produce compensatory growth and yield was evaluated by the differences between subsequent growth and yield produced in thinned vs. intact stands. We found small plants had equivalent harvest index to large plants across all plant densities and developmental stages, suggesting small plants were as efficient as large plants for compensating seed yield relative to biomass when stands were not thinned. However, when stands were thinned, compensatory growth and yield were different between large and small plants. For example, across all plant densities thinned at V3, large and small plants produced 51 and 37 g plant−1, respectively, and compensatory yield contributed 30 and 24 g plant−1, respectively. Thus, small plants produced 80% as much compensatory yield as large plants when thinned at V3. However, by the same comparison, the contribution of small plants declined to 57% when thinning was delayed to R4 development, suggesting small plants lost more compensatory ability over time. We conclude initial soybean plant size impacts compensatory yield plant−1.</description><subject>Soybeans</subject><issn>0002-1962</issn><issn>1435-0645</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp90E1PAjEQBuDGaCKiR-9NPC_2u1s9bYgghIgBPDd1t4sla4vtEoO_3kX06mnm8LwzyQvANUYDgim7NesY_AbTAeJKnYAeZpRnSDB-CnoIIZJhJcg5uEhpgxDGiuEeuJt41zrTwOfG-BYu3ZeFRV3bsk1wYdM2-GRhG-DqzXnv_Bo6D5dh_2qNvwRntWmSvfqdffAyelgNH7PZfDwZFrOspDlVmRISVZJzhRSxDKFS5IQwU1bCsJwrWVaSGS47wjojlDWkpgJ3S02koZj2wc3x7jaGj51Nrd6EXfTdS40Fk4xQxUmnsqMqY0gp2lpvo3s3ca8x0od69F89-lBP5--P_tM1dv8_1sV4SorxYv40xfQn_Q2Xwmjr</recordid><startdate>201501</startdate><enddate>201501</enddate><creator>Davis, Vince M.</creator><creator>Mellendorf, Nathan E.</creator><creator>Villamil, María B.</creator><creator>Nafziger, Emerson D.</creator><general>The American Society of Agronomy, Inc</general><general>American Society of Agronomy</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201501</creationdate><title>Initial Plant Size Affects Response to Thinning in Soybean</title><author>Davis, Vince M. ; Mellendorf, Nathan E. ; Villamil, María B. ; Nafziger, Emerson D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3839-9670d7559092e400c68224acd6a48597cd74a57d75459069ea2f36169ef27a313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Soybeans</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Davis, Vince M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellendorf, Nathan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villamil, María B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nafziger, Emerson D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Davis, Vince M.</au><au>Mellendorf, Nathan E.</au><au>Villamil, María B.</au><au>Nafziger, Emerson D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Initial Plant Size Affects Response to Thinning in Soybean</atitle><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle><date>2015-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>107</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>158</spage><epage>166</epage><pages>158-166</pages><issn>0002-1962</issn><eissn>1435-0645</eissn><abstract>Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can produce compensatory yield following plant stand reduction, but the effect of plant size within a developmental stage on this ability is unknown. We seeded two cultivars at 15, 30, 45, and 60 plants m−2, and identified large and small plants within each density at V3 (third trifoliate), V6 (sixth trifoliate), R2 (full bloom), and R4 (full pod) developmental stages. Subplots were either thinned to a density of 5.3 plants m−2 or left at intact densities. The ability for large or small plants to produce compensatory growth and yield was evaluated by the differences between subsequent growth and yield produced in thinned vs. intact stands. We found small plants had equivalent harvest index to large plants across all plant densities and developmental stages, suggesting small plants were as efficient as large plants for compensating seed yield relative to biomass when stands were not thinned. However, when stands were thinned, compensatory growth and yield were different between large and small plants. For example, across all plant densities thinned at V3, large and small plants produced 51 and 37 g plant−1, respectively, and compensatory yield contributed 30 and 24 g plant−1, respectively. Thus, small plants produced 80% as much compensatory yield as large plants when thinned at V3. However, by the same comparison, the contribution of small plants declined to 57% when thinning was delayed to R4 development, suggesting small plants lost more compensatory ability over time. We conclude initial soybean plant size impacts compensatory yield plant−1.</abstract><cop>Madison</cop><pub>The American Society of Agronomy, Inc</pub><doi>10.2134/agronj13.0599</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-1962 |
ispartof | Agronomy journal, 2015-01, Vol.107 (1), p.158-166 |
issn | 0002-1962 1435-0645 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1647423952 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Soybeans |
title | Initial Plant Size Affects Response to Thinning in Soybean |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T18%3A08%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Initial%20Plant%20Size%20Affects%20Response%20to%20Thinning%20in%20Soybean&rft.jtitle=Agronomy%20journal&rft.au=Davis,%20Vince%20M.&rft.date=2015-01&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=158&rft.epage=166&rft.pages=158-166&rft.issn=0002-1962&rft.eissn=1435-0645&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134/agronj13.0599&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3565372421%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1647423952&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |