Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean (Glycine Max L. Merrill)

Jialei Xiao, uijiang Wang, Ming Zhao, Jing Yin, Wei Li, Yingdong Bi, Wan Li, Yongcai Lai, Xiatian Shu, Yang Zhao

Agricultural University of Shenyang, Shenyang, China.
College of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China..
Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Harbin, China.
Institute of Crop Science of Agricultural Sciences of China, Beijing, China.

DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2013.46148                

Abstract

Heilongjiang Province is the main soybean-producing area in china. In this study, we analyzed the canopy structure, dynamic characteristics of light radiation and yield of Hefeng50 (the main variety of soybean in Heilongjiang Province) under six different cultivation patterns (ORP, TPCR, ORCP, BRHD, SRHD and FPHD). The results showed that SRHD and BRHD at different growth period (blossom period R1, podding R3 and grain filing period R5) produced an even distribution of the population leaf area, suitable mean foliage inclination angle (MFIA), low transparency coefficients for defuse penetration (TCDP) and transparency coefficients for radiation penetration (TCRP), high leaf area index (LAI), extinction light coefficient (K value), fraction of radiation intercepted (FRI) and light energy utilization rate. Grain number, dry matter weight per plant, and yield of SRHD and BRHD were significantly higher than those of other cultivation patterns. The yield of SRHD, BRHD, ORCP, FPHD and TPCR was increased by 136%, 112%, 79%, 50.1% and 14.7%, respectively, compared to that of ORP. These results suggest that SRHD and BRHD are the optimal cultivation pattern for the improvement of soybean yield in phaeozem region of northeastern China.

Keywords

Cultivation Methods; Light Enrichment; Soybean Canopy; Yield Components; Population Canopy

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Q. N. Alvaro, P. Eligio and O. Morandi, “Post-Flowering Leaflet Removals Increase Pod Initiation in Soybean Canopies,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 120, No. 3, 2011, pp. 151-160.
[2]	A. Biabani, M. Hashemi and S. J. Herbert, “Agronomic Performance of Two Intercropped Soybean Cultivars,” International Journal of Plant Production, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, pp. 215-222.
[3]	N. Asanome and T. Ikeda, “Effect of Branch Directions Arrangement on Soybean Yield and Yield Components,” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Vol. 181, No. 2, 1998, pp. 95-102. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.1998.tb00404.x
[4]	R. A. Ball, L. C. Purcell and E. D. Vories, “Optimizing Soybean Plant Population for a Short-Season Production System in the Southern USA,” Crop Science, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2000, pp. 757-764. doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.403757x
[5]	R. C. David and A. Alain, “Vanasse Production of Soybean Associated with Different Hybrid Poplar Clones in a Tree-Based Intercropping System in Southwestern Quebec, Canada,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol. 131, No. 1-2, 2009, pp. 51-60. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.011
[6]	B. C. Emine, “Changes in Leaf Area Index, Light Interception, Quality and Dry Matter Yield of an Abandoned Rangeland as Affected by the Different Levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization,” Turkish Journal of Field Crops, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 117-120.
[7]	Y. Gan, I. Stulen and H. V. Keulen, “Physiological Response of Soybean Genotypes to Plant Density,” Field Crop Research, Vol. 74, No. 2-3, 2002, pp. 231-241. doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00212-X
[8]	G. R. Haddadchi and Z. Gerivani, “Effects of Phenolic Extracts of Canola (Brassica napuse L.) on Germination and Physiological Responses of Soybean (Glycin max L.) Seedlings,” International Journal of Plant Production, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp. 63-74.
[9]	T. Hirose, “Development of the Monsi-Saeki Theory on Canopy Structure and Function,” Annals of Botany, Vol. 95, No. 3, 2005, pp. 483-494. doi:10.1093/aob/mci047
[10]	L. F. Huang, J. H. Zheng and W. H. Zhang, “Diurnal Variations in Gas Exchange, Chlorophyll Fluorescence Quenching and Light Allocation in Soybean Leaves: The Cause for Midday Depression in CO2 Assimilation,” Scientia Horticulturae, Vol. 110, No. 2, 2006, pp. 214-218. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2006.07.001
[11]	E. James and S. Board, “Soybean Cultivar Differences on Light Interception and Leaf Area Index during Seed Filling,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, 2004, pp. 305-310. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.0305
[12]	W. Jeremy, W. M. David and J. S. Thomas, “Variability of Light Interception and Radiation Use Efficiency in Maize and Soybean,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 121, No. 1, 2011, pp. 147-152. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2010.12.007
[13]	J. Jin and X. B. Liu, “A Comparative Study on Physiological Characteristics during Reproductive Growth Stage in Different Yielding Types and Maturities of Soybean,” Acta Agronomica Sinica, Vol. 30, No. 12, 2004, pp. 1225-1231. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[14]	B. Liu, Y. Li, X. B. Liu and C. Wang, “Lower Total Soluble Sugars in Vegetative Parts of Soybean Plants Are Responsible for Reduced Pod Number under Shading Conditions,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 5, No. 13, 2011, pp. 1852-1857.
[15]	B. Liu, X. B. Liu and W. Cheng, “Responses of Soybean Yield and Yield Components to Light Enrichment and Planting Density,” International Journal of Plant Production, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1735-1742.
[16]	X. B. Liu, S. J. Herbert and A. M. Hashemi, “Soybean (Glycine max) Seed Growth Characteristics in Response to Light Enrichment and Shading,” Plant, Soil and Environment, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2006, pp. 178-185.
[17]	X. B. Liu, S. J. Herbert and Q. Y. Zhang, “Yield-Density Relation of Glyphosate-Resistant Soya Beans and Their Responses to Light Enrichment in North-Eastern USA,” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Vol. 193, No. 1, 2007, pp. 55-62. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00241.x
[18]	R. S. Loomis and W. A. Williams, “Productivity and the Morphology of Crop Stands: Patterns with Leaves,” American Society of Agronomy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1969, pp. 27-47.
[19]	P. S. Shawn, N. D. Dylan and L. K. Eric, “Leaf Optical Properties Reflect Variation in Photosynthetic Metabolism and Its Sensitivity to Temperature,” Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2012, pp. 489-502. doi:10.1093/jxb/err294
[20]	G. A. Maddonni, M. E. Otegui and A. G. Cirilo, “Plant Population Density, Row Spacing and Hybrid Effects on Maize Canopy Architecture and Light Attenuation,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 71, No. 3, 2001, pp. 183-193. doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00158-7
[21]	T. Mevlüt, A. Sebahattin and Y. Osman, “Effect of Seeding Rate on the Forage Yields and Quality in Pea Cultivars of Differing Leaf Types,” Turkish Journal of Field Crops, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 137-141.
[22]	S. B. Peng, G. S. Khush and P. Virk, “Progress in Ideotype Breeding to Increase Rice Yield Potential,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 108, No. 1, 2008, pp. 32-38. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2008.04.001
[23]	D. G. Reta-Sanchez and J. L. Fowler, “Canopy Light Environment and Yield of Narrow-Row Cotton as Affected by Canopy Architecture,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 94, No. 6, 2002, pp. 1317-1322. doi:10.2134/agronj2002.1317
[24]	T. Rüveyde, “The Effects of Varying Row Spacing and Phosphorus Doses on the Yield and Quality of Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.),” Turkish Journal of Field Crops, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 142-148.
[25]	Z.Svecnjak, B. Varga and J. Butorac, “Yield Components of Apical and Subapical Ear Contributing to the Grain Yield Responses of Prolific Maize at High and Low Plant Populations,” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Vol. 192, No. 1, 2006, pp. 37-42. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00188.x