SOYBEAN RESEARCH

Recommendations

Info

and finally harvest index as compared to the other soybean cultivars. Response of ridge width to cropping systems: Intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, biological, straw and seed yields per ha were affected significantly by ridge width x cropping systems in the combined data across 2013 and 2014 seasons, meanwhile, corn grain yield per ha was not affected (Tables 1, 2 and 3). Solid culture of soybean that grown in 70 cm ridge width increased significantly intercepted light intensity within soybean canopy, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, biological, straw and seed yields per ha compared to the others. These results could be due to the narrowest (60 cm) or the widest ridge width (80 cm), which interacted negatively with intercropping system to decrease light penetration within soybean canopy and reflected on dry matter accumulation in the legume component and finally pod and seed yields per plant. Also, growing soybean with corn on the narrowest ridge (60 cm) increased shade intensity (Table 1), which may be increased the probability of foliar disease problems compared to the other treatments as a result of comparatively cooler environment and conservation of moisture for longer period in intercropped soybean. These data indicated that there was effect (P≤0.05) of ridge width x cropping systems on intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant 24 height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, biological, straw and seed yields per ha except corn grain yield per ha. Response of ridge width to soybean cultivars: Intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha were affected significantly by ridge width x soybean cultivars in the combined data across 2013 and 2014 seasons, meanwhile, soybean biological and corn grain yields per ha were not affected (Tables 1, 2 and 3). Decreasing ridge width from 80 to 70 cm interacted positively with soybean cv. Giza 35 and led to the greatest seed yield per ha. These results could be attributed to soybean cv. Giza 35 grows well with 70 cm ridge width than the others. These data showed that each of these two factors act dependently on intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha except soybean biological and corn grain yields per ha. These results are in accordance with those reported by Ablett et al. (1991) who concluded that a significant cultivar x row width interaction for yield occurred with soybean cvs. Maple Arrow and Harcor showing the greatest seed yield response. Response of cropping systems to soybean cultivars: Intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height,
number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha were affected significantly by cropping systems x soybean cultivars in the combined data across 2013 and 2014 seasons, meanwhile, soybean biological and corn grain yields per ha were not affected (Tables 1, 2 and 3). Obviously, solid culture of soybean could be interacted positively with soybean cv. Giza 35 to achieve the highest intercepted light intensity within soybean canopy, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha compared to the others. These data indicated that there was effect (P≤0.05) of cropping systems x soybean cultivars on intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha except soybean biological and corn grain yields per ha. These results are in accordance with those obtained by Metwally et al. (2009) and Abdel-Galil et al (2014a) who found that solid culture of soybean cv. Giza 22 had the highest soybean seed yield and its attributes compared to the other treatments. Response of ridge width to cropping systems and soybean cultivars: Intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 – seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha were affected significantly by ridge width x cropping systems x soybean cultivars in the combined data across 2013 and 2014 seasons, meanwhile, soybean biological and corn grain yields per ha were not affected (Tables 1, 2 and 3). Clearly, solid culture of soybean cv. Giza 35 could be integrated with 70 cm ridge width recorded the highest values of intercepted light intensity within soybean canopy, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha compared to the others. These data reveal that there was effect (P≤0.05) of ridge width x cropping systems x soybean cultivars on intercepted light intensity within soybean plants, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod and seed yields per plant, 100 seed weight, harvest index, straw and seed yields per ha except soybean biological and corn grain yields per ha. Competitive relationships Land equivalent ratio (LER): Intercropping soybean with corn increased LER as compared to solid cultures of both crops in the combined data across 2013 and 2014 seasons (Fig. 2). It ranged from 1.43 (by intercropping soybean cv. Giza 21 with corn that grown in 60 cm ridge width) to 1.66 (by intercropping soybean cv. Giza 35 with corn that grown in 70 cm ridge width). The results showed that corn was superior in the intercrop system where relative yield increased; meanwhile, soybean was inferior companion crop where the relative yield was decreased in the combined analysis. 25
Page 1 and 2: ISSN 0973-1830 Volume 14, Number 2
Page 3 and 4: SOYBEAN RESEARCH ISSN 0973-1830 Vol
Page 5 and 6: Soybean Research 14(2): 01-13 (2016
Page 7 and 8: Table 1. Nutrient composition (valu
Page 9 and 10: 100-green seed weight (49.9 g) and
Page 11 and 12: Training was provided through NGO p
Page 13 and 14: estimated using combined analysis.
Page 15 and 16: AGS 447 and AGS 457 in a taste surv
Page 17 and 18: Takahashi Y and Ohyama T. 2011. Pro
Page 19 and 20: eached to about 81,4435 ha in 2013
Page 21 and 22: 2. Soybean seeds were sown in both
Page 23 and 24: Table 1. Effect of ridge width, cro
Page 25 and 26: Table 3. Effect of ridge width, cro
Page 27: and seed yields per ha were affecte
Page 31 and 32: cv. Giza 35 to increase dry matter
Page 33 and 34: increased total and net returns com
Page 35 and 36: Metwally A A. 1999. Intensive coppi
Page 37 and 38: (Salvagiotti et al., 2009). Biologi
Page 39 and 40: Table 1. Effect of land configurati
Page 41 and 42: increasing levels of nitrogen and t
Page 45 and 46: conditions (Ruiz-Lozano et al., 200
Page 47 and 48: of 34 0 C and relative humidity 80
Page 49 and 50: Nodule N (%) Grain yield g/plant) N
Page 51 and 52: 140 120 100 Nodules/plant Nodule dr
Page 53 and 54: of AMF, which necessitates experime
Page 55 and 56: Biermann B and Linderman R G. 1981.
Page 57 and 58: Tabatabai M A and J M Bremner. 1969
Page 59 and 60: N:P 2O 5:K per ha (Patil and Purani
Page 61 and 62: available nitrogen content was reco
Page 63 and 64: lowest value in control (Table 2).
Page 65 and 66: the crop. These results corroborate
Page 69 and 70: the use of a variety by any person
Page 71 and 72: objection is received, the variety
Page 73 and 74: Table 1 contd. S. No. Name of varie
Page 75 and 76: Table 2. DUS Characteristics of pro
Page 77 and 78: Table 2. Contd S. No. Varieties DUS
Page 79 and 80:
and are easily available. The varie
Page 81 and 82:
Soybean Research 14(2): 77-83 (2016
Page 83 and 84:
Table 2. Estimates of variability p
Page 85 and 86:
Table 4. Phenotypic path coefficien
Page 87 and 88:
Shivakumar M, Basavaraja G T, Salim
Page 89 and 90:
available phosphorus (24.89 and 23.
Page 91 and 92:
attributes may be the result of red
Page 93 and 94:
Soybean Research 14(2): 89-96 (2016
Page 95 and 96:
productivity. This will help increa
Page 97 and 98:
Growth rate The analysis on growth
Page 99 and 100:
Table 5. Estimates of variability i
Page 101 and 102:
Society for Soybean Research and De
Page 103 and 104:
MS must be original and contribute
Page 105 and 106:
Short research notes They should no
show all

SOYBEAN RESEARCH

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?