Flood Duration Effects on Soybean Growth and Yield

Abstract

Flooding is often a problem in areas of the southern USA with high rainfall and impermeable soils. A field study was conducted on two poorly drained, slowly permeable soils, a Sharkey clay (veryfine, montmorillonitic, nonacid, thermic Vertic Haplaquept) and a Crowley silt loam (fine, montmorillonitic, thermic Typic Albaqualf), to determine the influence of prolonged flooding on the growth and seed yield of eight determinate soybean [Glycine max. (L.) Merr.] cultivars. Soybean was continuously flooded 3 cm above the soil surface at either the V4 or R2 growth stage for 2, 4, 7, or 14 d. Soil water pressures were monitored at four depths in the Sharkey profile. Flood duration effects on the soybean plant were manifested in yellowing and abscission of leaves at the lower nodes, stunting, and reduced dry weight and seed yield. Canopy height and dry weight decreased linearly with duration of the flood at both growth stages. The growth rates were 25 to 35% less when soybean was flooded at R2 than at V4. The additional 4 wk of vegetative growth after flooding allowed the soybean flooded at V4 to recover to a greater extent than the cultivars flooded at R2. A linear relation was found between seed yield and monthly average crop growth rates for the 4 wk following flooding. A linear decrease in seed yield with flood duration was also found. On the Sharkey clay, rates of yield reduction were 157 and 124 kg ha−1 d−1 of the flood for the soybean flooded at R2 and V4, respectively. On the Crowley silt loam, yield reduction rates were 101 and 53 kg ha−1 d−1 of the flood duration for the soybean flooded at R2 and V4, respectively. Crop susceptibility factors (CS) were determined by dividing the decline in yield by the unstressed control, where the 2‐d flooded soybean cultivars were considered the controls. Values of CS ranged from 0.0 to 0.6 and were linearly related to flood duration after 2 d. The slopes of the lines were 1.5 times greater for the flood applied at R2 than at V4, and 2.4 times greater with soybean grown on the Sharkey clay than on the Crowley silt loam. The determinate soybean cultivars were more susceptible to prolonged flooding during early reproductive growth than early vegetative growth and when grown on the clayey soil than on the silt loam.

Effect of Waterlogging During Vegetative Stage On Growth And Yield in Supernodulating Soybean Cultivar Sakukei 4

“…Numerous previous studies on excess moisture injury in soybean specifically examined the stress-induced decrease of growth and related eco-physiological parameters such as leaf color, photosynthetic activity, nodule activity and mineral absorption during the waterlogged period (Bennett and Albrecht, 1984;Sojka, 1985;Buttery, 1987;Sallam and Scott, 1987;Griffin and Saxton, 1988;Scott et al, 1989;Oosteshuis et al, 1990;Sung, 1993;Sugimoto, 1994;Bacanamwo and Purcell, 1999). Few reports have described growth recovery after the removal of stress and its relation to final yield.…”

Simulation of soybean growth and yield under northeastern Amazon climatic conditions

“…In the original model, the daily N uptake is set to zero when the soil is flooded (FTSW>1), as described by Sinclair et al (2003). Since this phenomenon is common in the Amazon region, two different empirical penalizations were included in the model, depending on the phase in which it occurs, to represent real situations, according to Scott et al (1989). Whenever the FTSW was above 1, N uptake simulated by the model was reduced by 18% and 26%, before and after flowering, respectively.…”

Effects of Short-Term Waterlogging on Soybean Nodule Nitrogen Fixation at Different Soil Reductions and Temperatures

“…Even four days of waterlogging reduced the yield signifi cantly (Scott et al, 1989), and the decrease was more marked in clayey soil (Rhine et al, 2010;Scott et al, 1989).…”

“…Even in the United States, excess water after intense rainfall is a most serious cause of damage to crop production, second to drought (Boyer, 1982). Waterlogging and fl ooding depress growth and yield in soybean (Matsunami et al, 2007;Oosterhuis et al, 1990;Scott et al, 1989;Sugimoto, 1994;Sullivan et al, 2001).…”