Tillage and Crop Rotation Impact on Soybean Grain Yield and Composition

Abstract

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] yield response to tillage and crop rotation has varied among studies. Information regarding the effects of crop rotation and tillage on protein and oil concentrations in soybean grain is limited. A 3‐yr field study was conducted near Arlington, WI using conventional tillage and no‐tillage systems in seven soybean and corn (Zea mays L.) rotations. The objective was to determine the effect of tillage system and crop rotation on the yield, protein concentration, and oil concentration of soybean grain. The tillage × rotation interaction was significant (P ≤ 0.05) for grain yield. In the no‐tillage system, yields dropped 42% from 4.00 Mg ha−1 in first‐year soybean following 5 yr of consecutive corn to 2.33 Mg ha−1 in continuous soybean. In the conventional tillage system, yields dropped 35% from 3.01 Mg ha−1 in first‐year soybean following 5 yr of consecutive corn to 2.04 Mg ha−1 in continuous soybean. The tillage × rotation interaction was significant (P ≤ 0.05) for protein concentration. In the conventional tillage system, protein concentration decreased from 357 mg kg−1 in first‐year soybean following five consecutive years of corn to 351 mg kg−1 in fifth‐year soybean following five consecutive years of corn. No clear trend was observed for protein concentration in the no‐tillage system. Oil concentration increased as consecutive years of soybean production increased in both tillage systems at a similar rate.

Tillage and Cover Cropping Effects on Soil Properties and Crop Production in Illinois

“…While crop yields were not affected by either Rcc, or their interaction with T, a significant effect of T was found for soybean yields (p < 0.0044), with NT soybean yielding some 0.3 Mg/ha more than the Till soybean. This agrees with other findings from the northern Midwest region (Pedersen and Lauer, 2004;Temperly and Borges, 2006), but we recognize that soybean yield responses to T is influenced by seasonal distribution of precipitation and temperature, as well as by soil drainage characteristics.…”

Soybean yield gaps and water productivity in the western U.S. Corn Belt

“…late sowing dates. Despite all these confounding factors, in a majority of the studies, researchers have reported soybean yield penalties in NT fields in years with early-season above-normal precipitation or low temperature (e.g., Wilhelm and Wortmann, 2004;Temperly and Borges, 2006;Vetsch et al, 2007), which is consistent with the findings for irrigated soybean reported in the present study. Despite lower yield associated with NT, non-yield related factors can counterbalance this penalty leading to adoption of NT in irrigated fields to attain soil erosion control, better capture of pre-and in-season precipitation leading to lower irrigation water requirements, and lowered fossil-fuel use for field operations.…”

Water use and grain yield response of rainfed soybean to tillage-mulch practices in southeastern Nigeria

“…Specifically for soybean, the effect of tillage methods on yield is inconsistent. It has been reported to be variable among years (Norwood, 1999;Singer et al, 2008;Thiagalingam et al, 1996) or higher with NT (Pederson and Lauer, 2003;Temperly and Borges, 2006) or higher with CT (Fecak et al, 2010;Lasisi and Aluko, 2009;Onwualu and Ahaneku, 2001). There are also studies showing only marginal differences in soybean yields between NT and CT (Alvarez and Steinbach, 2009;Koga and Tsuji, 2009;Rodrigues et al, 2009).…”