High Density and Uniform Plant Distribution Improve Soybean Yield by Regulating Population Uniformity and Canopy Light Interception
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Sampling and Measurements
2.3.1. Dry Matter Accumulation
2.3.2. Photosynthetic Rate (Pn)
2.3.3. Light Interception
2.3.4. Plant Height and Branch
2.3.5. Yield and Yield Components
2.3.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Effect of Plant Distribution on Yield and Yield Components of Soybean under Different Planting Densities
3.2. The ANOVA of Phenotypic Index of Soybean under Different Planting Densities
3.3. Effects of Plant Distribution on Plant Productivity of Soybean under Different Planting Densities
3.4. Effect of Plant Distribution on Soybean Plant Height under Different Planting Densities
3.5. Branch Number
3.6. Effect of Plant Distribution on Dry Matter Accumulation in Soybean under Different Planting Densities
3.7. Effect of Plant Distribution on Canopy Light Interception Rate of Soybean under Different Planting Densities
3.8. Effect of Plant Distribution on the Photosynthetic Rate of Soybean under Different Planting Densities
3.9. Correlation Analysis
4. Discussion
4.1. Increasing Planting Density Is Beneficial to Seed Yield Increase
4.2. Uniform Plant Distribution Can Increase Seed Yield
4.3. Adequate Dry Matter Accumulation Increases Soybean Yield
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CV | coefficient of variation |
Hp | high planting density |
Np | normal planting density |
Nu | non-uniform plant distribution |
PAR | photosynthetically active radiation |
Pn | photosynthetic rate |
U | uniform plant distribution |
References
- Song, W.; Yang, R.; Wu, T.; Wu, C.; Sun, S.; Zhang, S.; Jun, B.; Tian, S.; Liu, X.; Han, T. Analyzing the effects of climate factors on soybean protein, oil contents and compositions by extensive and high-density. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 4121–4130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mauser, W.; Klepper, G.; Zabel, F.; Delzeit, R.; Hank, T.; Putzenlechner, B.; Calzadilla, A. Global biomass production potentials exceed expected future demand without the need for cropland expansion. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shen, J.; Gao, Q. Risks and countermeasures of soybean import in China under the new situation. China Econ. Trade Herald. 2020, 17–20. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Data. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/china/news/detail-events/en/c/1191739/ (accessed on 20 April 2019).
- Boerma, H.R. Comparison of past and recently developed soybean cultivars in maturity groups VI VII and VIII. Crops Sci. 1979, 19, 611–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gay, S.; Egli, D.B.; Reicosky, D.A. Physiological aspects of yield improvement in soybeans. Agron. J. 1980, 72, 387–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, T.; Sun, S.; Wang, C.; Lu, W.; Sun, B.; Song, X.; Han, X.; Guo, T.; Man, W.; Cheng, Y.; et al. Characterizing changes from a century of genetic improvement of soybean cultivars in Northeast China. Crops Sci. 2015, 55, 2056–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Wu, T.; Sun, S.; Xu, R.; Ren, J.; Wu, C.; Jiang, B.; Hou, W.; Han, T. Seventy-five years of improvement of yield and agronomic traits of soybean cultivars released in the Yellow-Huai-Hai River Valley. Crops Sci. 2016, 56, 2354–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.; Li, R.; Song, W.; Wu, T.; Sun, S.; Hu, S.; Han, T.; Wu, C. Responses of branch number and yield component of soybean cultivars tested in different planting densities. Agriculture 2021, 11, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Can, Y.; Stulen, I.; Van Keulen, H.; Kuiper, P.J.C. Physiological response of soybean genotypes to plant density. Field Crops Res. 2002, 74, 231–241. [Google Scholar]
- Purcell, L.C.; Ball, R.A.; Reaper, J.D.; Vories, E.D. Radiation use efficiency and biomass production in soybean at different plant population densities. Crops Sci. 2002, 42, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H. The new soybean record yield of 10414 kg ha-1-Meet Kip Cullers, the high yield record holder. Soybean Sci. Technol. 2010, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Zu, Y. Soybean yield of 6803 kg ha−1 in Xinxiang set a national high yield record. Farmer’s Daily. 2020. Available online: https://szb.farmer.com.cn/2020/20201027/20201027_007/20201027_007_1.htm (accessed on 27 October 2020).
- Suhre, J.J.; Weidenbenner, N.H.; Rowntree, S.C.; Wilson, E.W.; Naeve, S.L.; Conley, S.P.; Casteel, S.; Diers, B.; Esker, P.; Specht, J.; et al. Soybean yield partitioning changes revealed by genetic gain and seeding rate interactions. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 1631–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ciampitti, I.A.; Vyn, T.J. Physiological perspectives of changes over time in maize yield dependency on nitrogen uptake and associated nitrogen efficiencies: A review. Field Crops Res. 2012, 133, 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.; Gao, Y.; Tian, B.; Ren, J.; Meng, Q.; Wang, P. Effects of EDAH, a novel plant growth regulator, on mechanicalstrength, stalk vascular bundles and grain yield of summer maize at high densities. Field Crops Res. 2017, 200, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benjamin, L.R. Variation in time of seedling emergence within populations: A feature that determines individual growth and development. Adv. Agron. 1990, 44, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, W.; Tollenaar, M.; Stewart, G.; Deen, W. Impact of planter type, planting speed, and tillage on stand uniformity and yield of corn. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1668–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmore, R.; Abendroth, L. What’s the yield effect of uneven corn heights? Int. Crops Manag. 2006, 496, 169–171. [Google Scholar]
- Mahdi, A.K.; Hanna, M. Field soil variability and its impact on crop stand uniformity. Int. Crops Manag. 2006, 496, 183–184. [Google Scholar]
- Vega, C.R.C.; Andrade, F.H.; Sadras, V.O. Reproductive partitioning and seed set efficiency in soybean sunflower and maize. Field Crops Res. 2001, 72, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vega, C.R.C.; Sadras, V.O. Size-dependent growth and the development of inequality in maize sunflower and soybean. Ann. Bot. 2003, 91, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Matsuo, N.; Yamada, T.; Takada, Y.; Fukami, K.; Hajika, M. Effect of plant density on growth and yield of new soybean genotypes grown under early planting condition in southwestern Japan. Plant Prod. Sci. 2018, 21, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tourino, M.C.C.; Rezende, P.M.; Salvador, N. Row spacing, plant density and intrarow plant spacing uniformity effect on soybean yield and agronomics characteristics. Pesq. Agrop. Bras. 2002, 37, 1071–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rossini, M.; Maddonni, G.; Otegui, M. Inter-plant variability in maize crops grown under contrasting N × stand density combinations: Links between development, growth and kernel set. Field Crops Res. 2012, 133, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Huang, S.; Gao, R.C.; Liu, W.G.; Yong, T.W.; Wang, X.C.; Wu, X.L.; Yang, W.Y. Growth of soybean seedlings in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red: Far-red ratio. Field Crops Res. 2014, 155, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, S.H. Uniformity of plant spacing effect on soybean population parameters. Crops Sci. 1991, 31, 1049–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrade, F.H.; Abbate, P.E. Response of maize and soybean to variability in stand uniformity. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 1263–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masino, A.; Rugeroni, P.; Borrás, L.; Rotundo, J. Spatial and temporal plant-to-plant variability effects on soybean yield. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 98, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fehr, W.R.; Caviness, C.E.; Burmood, D.T.; Pennington, J.S. Stage of development descriptions for soybean. Crops Sci. 1971, 11, 929–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.L.; Huang, S.B.; Tian, B.J.; Ren, J.H.; Meng, Q.F.; Wang, P. Manipulating planting density and nitrogen fertilizer application to improve yield and reduce environmental impact in Chinese maize production. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, T.; Reeg, P.; Kyveryga, P. Increasing profitability in soybean production by optimizing planting rates. In Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA, 3 December 2014; pp. 59–63. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, N.M.; Larson, J.A.; Lambert, D.M.; Roberts, R.K.; Mengistu, A.; Bellaloui, N.; Walker, E.R. Mid-south soybean yield and net return as affected by plant population and row spacing. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 979–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corassa, G.; Amado, T.; Strieder, M.; Schwalbert, R.; Pires, J.; Carter, P.; Ciampitti, I. Optimum soybean seeding rates by yield environment in southern Brazil. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 2430–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.; Wiatrak, P. Seeding rate effects on soybean height yield and economic return. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 1301–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Y.; Liu, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, S. Planting density and sowing proportions of maize–soybean intercrops affected competitive interactions and water-use efficiencies on the Loess Plateau, China. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 72, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prusiński, J.; Nowicki, R. Effect of planting density and row spacing on the yielding of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Plant Soil. Environ. 2020, 66, 616–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.D.; Egli, D.B.; TeKrony, D.M. Soybean response to plant population at early and late planting dates in the Mid-South. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 971–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaspar, A.P.; Conley, S.P. Responses of canopy reflectance, light interception, and soybean seed yield to replanting suboptimal stands. Crops Sci. 2015, 55, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carciochi, W.; Schwalbert, R.; Andrade, F.; Corassa, G.; Carter, P.; Gaspar, A.; Schmidt, J.; Ciampitti, I. Soybean seed yield response to plant density by yield environment in North America. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 1923–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Luca, M.J.; Nogueira, M.A.; Hungria, M. Feasibility of lowering soybean planting density without compromising nitrogen fixation and yield. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 2118–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agudamu, T.Y.; Shiraiwa, T. Branch development responses to planting density and yield stability in soybean cultivars. Plant Prod. Sci. 2016, 19, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.; Schroth, G.; Mandarino, J. Effect of nitrogen, row spacing, and plant density on yield, yield components, and plant physiology in soybean–wheat intercropping. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 2162–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assefa, Y.; Vara Prasad, P.V.; Carter, P.; Hinds, M.; Bhalla, G.; Schon, R.; Jeschke, M.; Paszkiewicz, S.; Ciampitti, I.A. Yield responses to planting density for US modern corn hybrids: A synthesis-analysis. Crops Sci. 2016, 56, 2802–2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, L.; Xie, R.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z. Effects of nitrogen and plant density on competition between two maize hybrids released in different eras. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 2670–2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norsworthy, J.; Shipe, E. Effect of row spacing and soybean genotype on mainstem and branch yield. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulter, J.A.; Sheaffer, C.C.; Haar, M.J.; Wyse, D.L.; Orf, J.H. Soybean cultivar response to planting date and seeding rate under organic management. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 1223–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Su, C.; Yun, J.; Jiang, Q.; Wang, L.; Wang, Y.; Cao, D.; Zhao, F.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, M.; et al. Genetic improvement of the shoot architecture and yield in soya bean plants via the manipulation of GmmiR156b. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ittersum, M.K.; Cassman, K. Yield gap analysis-Rationale, methods and applications-Introduction to the Special Issue. Field Crops Res. 2013, 143, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tollenaar, M.; Deen, W.; Echarte, L.; Liu, W. Effect of crowding stress on dry matter accumulation and harvest index in maize. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 930–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, G.; Hou, P.; Xie, R.; Ming, B.; Wang, K.; Xu, W.; Liu, W.; Yang, Y.; Li, S. Canopy characteristics of high-yield maize with yield potential of 22.5 Mg ha−1. Field Crops Res. 2017, 213, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Rahman, T.; Song, C.; Yang, F.; Su, B.; Cui, L.; Bu, W.; Yang, W. Relationships among light distribution, radiation use efficiency and land equivalent ratio in maize-soybean strip intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2018, 224, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossini, M.; Maddonni, G.; Otegui, M. Inter-plant competition for resources in maize crops grown under contrasting nitrogen supply and density: Variability in plant and ear growth. Field Crops Res. 2011, 121, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sources of Variances | Effective Plant | Seed No. per Area | Hundred-Seed Weight | Yield | |||||||||
(104 p ha−1) | (/m−2) | (g) | (kg ha−1) | ||||||||||
Year | 2018 | 21.68 | 2666.7 | 15.78 | 4081.1 | ||||||||
2019 | 21.57 | 3121.7 | 16.49 | 4192.5 | |||||||||
Planting density | Np | 17.53 | 2581.2 | 16.37 | 3713.1 | ||||||||
Hp | 25.71 | 3207.5 | 15.89 | 4560.4 | |||||||||
Plant distribution | Non-uniform | 20.91 | 2747.0 | 16.14 | 3948.8 | ||||||||
Uniform | 22.33 | 3042.5 | 16.12 | 4324.6 | |||||||||
Analysis of variance | |||||||||||||
Sources of Variances | Effective Plant | Seed No. per | Hundred-Seed | Yield | |||||||||
MS | df | F | MS | df | F | MS | df | F | MS | df | F | ||
Year | 0.094 | 1 | 1.476 NS | 1,656,204.39 | 1 | 254.414 *** | 4.013 | 1 | 359.921 *** | 99,404.63 | 1 | 6.291 NS | |
Residual error I | 0.064 | 3 | 6509.87 | 3 | 0.011 | 3 | 15,802.03 | 3 | |||||
Planting density | 534.645 | 1 | 6569.017 *** | 3,135,103.43 | 1 | 339.914 *** | 1.900 | 1 | 194.534 *** | 5,743,874.16 | 1 | 412.809 *** | |
Residual error II | 0.081 | 6 | 9223.24 | 6 | 0.010 | 6 | 13,914.12 | 6 | |||||
Plant distribution | 16.245 | 1 | 264.624 *** | 702,836.44 | 1 | 349.496 *** | 0.001 | 1 | 0.028 NS | 1,131,006.09 | 1 | 135.933 *** | |
Residual error III | 0.061 | 12 | 2011.00 | 12 | 0.049 | 12 | 8320.30 | 12 | |||||
Year × Planting density | 0.014 | 1 | 0.071 NS | 374,230.85 | 1 | 40.575 *** | 0.378 | 1 | 38.698 *** | 644,642.02 | 1 | 46.330 *** | |
Year × Plant distribution | 0.014 | 1 | 0.226 NS | 4620.58 | 1 | 2.978 NS | 0.086 | 1 | 1.732 NS | 833.14 | 1 | 0.100 NS | |
Planting density × Plant distribution | 3.125 | 1 | 50.905 *** | 16,895.38 | 1 | 8.402 * | 0.004 | 1 | 0.083 NS | 25,509.29 | 1 | 3.066 NS | |
Year × Planting density × Plant distribution | 0.067 | 1 | 1.095 NS | 24.08 | 1 | 0.012 NS | 0.048 | 1 | 0.969 NS | 68.24 | 1 | 0.008 NS |
Sources of Variances | Plant Height | Branch Number | Dry Matter Accumulation | Canopy Light Interception Rate | Photosynthetic Rate | Seed Weight per Plant | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MS | df | F | MS | df | F | MS | df | F | MS | df | F | MS | df | F | MS | df | F | |
Year | 165.763 | 1 | 0.289 NS | 2.836 | 1 | 1.002 NS | 45,607.235 | 1 | 0.244 NS | - | - | - | 75.543 | 1 | 1.725 NS | 47.263 | 1 | 0.546 NS |
Residual error I | 573.221 | 53 | 2.831 | 53 | 187,093.817 | 3 | - | - | - | 43.783 | 53 | 86.543 | 44 | |||||
Planting density | 179,414.108 | 1 | 75.253 *** | 7.002 | 1 | 1.282 NS | 5,852,634.147 | 1 | 386.414 *** | 8.703 | 1 | 363.984 *** | 265.158 | 1 | 1.318 NS | 221.527 | 1 | 1.397 NS |
Residual error II | 2384.144 | 106 | 5.463 | 106 | 15,146.033 | 6 | 0.006 | 3 | 201.193 | 106 | 158.502 | 88 | ||||||
Plant distribution | 3693.690 | 1 | 19.495 *** | 3.891 | 1 | 2.315 * | 15,485,470.042 | 1 | 303.928 *** | 1.337 | 1 | 130.381 *** | 1354.156 | 1 | 79.786 *** | 528.529 | 1 | 17.713 *** |
Residual error III | 189.465 | 212 | 1.681 | 212 | 50,951.110 | 12 | 0.010 | 6 | 16.972 | 212 | 29.838 | 176 | ||||||
Year × Planting density | 2548.196 | 1 | 1.068 NS | 0.669 | 1 | 0.123 NS | 468,985.567 | 1 | 30.964 ** | - | - | - | 35.851 | 1 | 0.178 NS | 3.136 | 1 | 0.020 NS |
Year × Plant distribution | 134.000 | 1 | 0.707 NS | 0.188 | 1 | 0.112 NS | 1,209,921.322 | 1 | 23.746 ** | - | - | - | 14.246 | 1 | 0.839 NS | 42.573 | 1 | 1.427 NS |
Planting density × Plant distribution | 524.482 | 1 | 2.768 NS | 0.113 | 1 | 0.068 NS | 124,266.055 | 1 | 2.439 NS | 0.439 | 1 | 42.804 *** | 2.217 | 1 | 0.131 * | 11.607 | 1 | 0.389 NS |
Year × Planting density × Plant distribution | 146.767 | 1 | 0.775 NS | 0.021 | 1 | 0.012 NS | 411,254.445 | 1 | 8.072 * | - | - | - | 0.008 | 1 | 0.001 NS | 6.572 | 1 | 0.220 NS |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, C.; Li, R.; Song, W.; Wu, T.; Sun, S.; Han, T.; Wu, C. High Density and Uniform Plant Distribution Improve Soybean Yield by Regulating Population Uniformity and Canopy Light Interception. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1880. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091880
Xu C, Li R, Song W, Wu T, Sun S, Han T, Wu C. High Density and Uniform Plant Distribution Improve Soybean Yield by Regulating Population Uniformity and Canopy Light Interception. Agronomy. 2021; 11(9):1880. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091880
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Cailong, Ruidong Li, Wenwen Song, Tingting Wu, Shi Sun, Tianfu Han, and Cunxiang Wu. 2021. "High Density and Uniform Plant Distribution Improve Soybean Yield by Regulating Population Uniformity and Canopy Light Interception" Agronomy 11, no. 9: 1880. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091880
APA StyleXu, C., Li, R., Song, W., Wu, T., Sun, S., Han, T., & Wu, C. (2021). High Density and Uniform Plant Distribution Improve Soybean Yield by Regulating Population Uniformity and Canopy Light Interception. Agronomy, 11(9), 1880. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091880