Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to identify soybean cultivars which maintained high yields on acid soil. A secondary purpose was to determine what nutrient changes were responsibe for the yield losses occurring due to low pH soil. The significant cultivar × lime interaction indicated that yield in some cultivars was more adversely affected than in others. Terra Vig 708 and Deltapine 345 showed no significant yield loss when grown on low pH compared to limed soil and were classified as very insensitive to soil acidity. Other cultivars were classified as either moderately insensitive, sensitive, very sensitive, or severely sensitive. Analysis of variance and correlation studies indicated that the most probable reason for reduced seed yield on low pH compared to limed soil in this study was interference with N fixation and reduced N uptake by the plants grown on low pH soil.
References
Adams F 1984 In Soil Acidity and Liming, second edition. Ed. FAdams. pp 211–265. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.
Cherney J H and Robinson D L 1983 Agron. J. 75, 145–147.
Fehr W R and Caviness C E 1977 Special Report 80, Iowa State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames, IA.
Havlin J L and Soltanpour P N 1981 Agron. Abstr. 73, 178.
McLean E O 1982 In Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy no. 9, part 2, second edition. Ed. R CDinauer, pp 199–224. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.
Mengel D B et al. 1987 In Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses, second edition. Ed. J RWilcox. pp 461–489. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.
Sedberry J E Jr et al. 1973. Lousiana Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 670.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Approved for publication by the Director of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station as manuscript number 90-09-4138.
Approved for publication by the Director of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station as manuscript number 90-09-4138.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Board, J.E., Caldwell, A.G. Response of determinate soybean cultivars to low pH soils. Plant Soil 132, 289–292 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00010410
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00010410