American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2013, 4, 1204-1211
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.46148 Published Online June 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajps)
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of
Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
Jialei Xiao1,2, Guijiang Wang2, Ming Zhao3*, Jing Yin4*, Wei Li2, Yingdong Bi2, Wan Li2,
Yongcai Lai2, Xiatian Shu2, Yang Zhao2
1Agricultural University of Shenyang, Shenyang, China; 2Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Harbin, China; 3Institute
of Crop Science of Agricultural Sciences of China, Beijing, China; 4College of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin,
China.
Email: *ZhaomingCAU@163.net, *yinjingjialei@yahoo.com.cn
Received February 21st, 2013; revised March 22nd, 2013; accepted April 20th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Jialei Xiao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
Heilongjiang Province is the main soybean-producing area in china. In this study, we analyzed the canopy structure,
dynamic characteristics of light radiation and yield of Hefeng50 (the main variety of soybean in Heilongjiang Province)
under six different cultivation patterns (ORP, TPCR, ORCP, BRHD, SRHD and FPHD). The results showed that SRHD
and BRHD at different growth period (blossom period R1, podding R3 and grain filing period R5) produced an even
distribution of the population leaf area, suitable mean foliage inclination angle (MFIA), low transparency coefficients
for defuse penetration (TCDP) and transparency coefficients for radiation penetration (TCRP), high leaf area index
(LAI), extinction light coefficient (K value), fraction of radiation intercepted (FRI) and light energy utilization rate.
Grain number, dry matter weight per plant, and yield of SRHD and BRHD were significantly higher than those of other
cultivation patterns. The yield of SRHD, BRHD, ORCP, FPHD and TPCR was increased by 136%, 112%, 79%, 50.1%
and 14.7%, respectively, compared to that of ORP. These results suggest that SRHD and BRHD are the optimal cultiva-
tion pattern for the improvement of soybean yield in phaeozem region of northeastern China.
Keywords: Cultivation Methods; Light Enrichment; Soybean Canopy; Yield Components; Population Canopy
1. Introduction
Intensity and quality of solar radiation intercepted by a
soybean canopy during the reproductive period are im-
portant environmental factors for the soybean yield and
yield components [1-4]. Elevation of soybean yield in
narrow rows can be attributed to the increased light in-
terception during reproductive period [5,6]. Light en-
richment initiated at early flowering stages increases the
productive pod number, resulting in 144% - 252% in-
creases of the seed yield [7]. In contrast, reduction of
light source through shading during the seed filling stage
decreases the yield [8,9]. Adjusting the planting density
is an important tool to optimize crop growth and canopy
closure time and to achieve maximum biomass and grain
yield [11-14]. High populations provide a way to optimize
grain yields in short-season production systems [15].
Breeding of semi-dwarf cultivars and adoption of narrow
row spacing cultivation could increase the densities and
the soybean yield [16]. Decrease in the radiation utiliza-
tion efficiency was responsible for the yield ceiling com-
monly observed in population density experiments. The-
oretically, enriched light in field conditions could permit
an increase of plant population. However, cultivation
patterns differ in responses to light enrichment, and there
probably exists interactions between light enrichment
and plant population density [17,18]. Population struc-
ture is one of the important factors to achieve high yield.
Soybean canopy is an important system for interception
and conversion of light radiation. Cultivation pattern
affects the yield of soybean by directly influencing soy-
bean population structure and the light energy utilization
efficiency. Therefore, establishment of a good canopy
structure is essential for high yield of soybean and im-
provement of the variety.
*Corresponding author.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
1205
Heilongjiang Province is the main soybean producing
area in Northern China and it has an average soybean
planting area of 333 million hectares. In this study, we
examined the canopy structure and light radiation char-
acteristics and their relationship to the yields of soybean
variety Hefeng50 under different cultivation patterns.
Our results suggest that SRHD and BRHD are the opti-
mal cultivation pattern to improve the soybean yields in
phaeozem region of northeastern China. This study sheds
lights on soybean cultivation and ecological breeding.
2. Results
2.1. The Impact of Cultivation Patterns on the
Leaf Area Index (LAI) of Soybean Canopy
SRHD and BRHD produced an even distribution of the
population leaf area at the podding stage (Figures 1(d)
and (e)), while the other cultivation patterns produced an
uneven distribution in 2010 (Figures 1(a)-(c) and (f)).
2.2. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on LAI of
Soybean
Soybean LAI affects light distribution, energy utilization
and crop yields. LAI of soybean was gradually increased
from the blossom (R1) to the seed filing (R5) periods
under all cultivation patterns in 2010 and 2011 (Figure
2). During R1 period (2010), LAI of SRHD, BRHD and
ORCP was increased by 153%, 126% and 76.1%, re-
spectively, compared to that of ORP (P 0.05). During
R3 period in 2010, LAI of ORCP, BRHD, SRHD and
FRHD was increased by 83.2% - 99.3% compared to that
of ORP. During R5 period, LAI of BRHD, SRHD and
FRHD was increased by 23.3% - 26.1% compared to that
(
a)
(
d)
(
b
)
(e)
(c)
(f )
Figure 1. Distribution of soybean groups under ORP (a),
TPCR (b), ORCP (c), BRHD (d), SRHD (e) and FPHD (f) in
pod stage (2010).
of ORP (P 0.05) (Figure 2).
2.3. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on MLA
of Population Canopy
The mean foliage inclination angle (MFIA) was affected
by the cultivation pattern (Figure 3). MFIA of ORP,
TRCP and SRHD was increased from R1 to R3 and de-
creased from R3 to R5 (Figure 3). MFIA of FRHD and
BRHD was gradually decreased from R1 to R5 (Figure
3). MFIA of ORCP was decreased from R1 to R3 and
then increased from R3 to R5. In 2010, in R1 period, the
highest MFIA was observed under ORCP (53.68˚), fol-
lowed by BRHD (49.59˚) and the lowest MFIA was un-
der ORP (9.55˚). In R3 period, the highest MFIA was
observed under SRHD, followed by TPCR, ORCP and
FPHD. In R5 period, the highest and lowest MFIA was
under ORCP and ORP, respectively. The average MFIA
under different cultivation patterns was 9.55˚ - 53.68˚,
30.41˚ - 54.46˚, and 9.55˚ - 48.11˚ in R1, R3 ad R5 peri-
ods, respectively. Statistical analysis showed that MFIA
of ORP at R3 and R5 was significantly lower than that of
other cultivation patterns. ORCP produced the highest
MFIA in R1 and R5 periods.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
R1 R3 R5
LAI
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2010
(a)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
R1 R3 R5
LAI
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2011
(b)
Figure 2. The change of leaf area index of soybean canopy
(2010, 2011). X axis indicates the growth stage of soybean;
Y axis indicates LAI.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
1206
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
R1R3 R5
MFIA(°)
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2010
(a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
R1 R3 R5
MFIA(。)
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2011
(b)
Figure 3. The change of MLA of population canopy of soy-
bean under different cultivation patterns. X axis indicates
the growth stage of soybean; Y axis indicates MFIA.
2.4. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on TCDP
TCDP of soybean under different cultivation patterns
was decreased from R1 to R5 (Figure 4). TPCR pro-
duced the highest TCDP in R1, R3 and R5 periods, while
OPR produced the lowest TCDP at R1 and R5 periods.
TCDP at R3 and R5 periods under BRHD and SRHD
was relatively low, suggesting that BRHD and SRHD are
beneficial to the light interception and utilization.
2.5. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on TCRP
TCRP of soybean under different cultivation patterns was
decreased with the increases of zenith angle (Figure 5).
TCRP under the same cultivation pattern was decreased
from R1 to R5 (Figure 5). The order of TCRP with a
7.5˚ - 67.5˚ of zenith angle was R1 > R3 > R5. In R1
period, TRCP, FRHD and ORCP had higher light leak-
age and lower light interception and utilization efficiency.
In R5 period, the leaves of the plant became gradually
withered and yellow and the remaining leaf area was not
significantly different between different cultivation pat-
terns. Therefore, the light interception and TCRP were
not significantly different among different cultivation
patterns.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
R1 R3 R5
TCDP
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2010
(a)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
R1R3 R5
TCDP
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2011
(b)
Figure 4. The change of TCDP of population canopy of
soybean under different cultivation patterns. X axis indi-
cates the growth stage of soybean; Y axis indicates TCDP.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
R1 R3 R5
TCRP
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2010
(a)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
R1 R3 R5
TCRP
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2011
(b)
Figure 5. The change of TCRP of population canopy of
soybean under different cultivation patterns. X axis indi-
cates the growth stage of soybean; Y axis indicates TCRP.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
1207
2.6. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on
Extinction Light Coefficient
The extinction coefficient (K) was increased with the
increases of zenith angle (Figure 6). K value was statis-
tically different among different cultivation patterns. The
order of K value at the upper part of the soybean (zenith
angle: 67.5˚) was ORCP > BRHD > TPCR > FPHD >
SRHD > ORP (Figure 6).
2.7. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on Dry
Matter Accumulation, Height and Stem
Diameter of Soybean
Dry matter accumulation and plant height were continu-
ously increased in R1 and R5 periods. In R5 period, dry
matter accumulation of different cultivation patterns was
significantly higher than that of the control (ORP). Dry
matter accumulation of ORCP, SRHD and FPHD was
increased by 3.25, 2.12 and 1.71 times, respectively,
compared to that of the control (ORP). In R5 period, the
highest plant height was observed in SRHD, followed by
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
R1R3 R5
Extinction coefficient(1/m)
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2010
(a)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
67.5
R1 R3 R5
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
2011
(b)
Figure 6. The change of extinction light coefficient of popula-
tion canopy of soybean under different cultivation patterns
(Left 2010, Right 2011). X axis indicates the growth stage of
soybean; Y axis indicates K value.
BRHD and TPCR. The plant height of SRHD, BRHD
and TPCR was increased by 38.9%, 16.1% and 10.2%,
respectively, compared to the control (ORP). In R5 pe-
riod, the stem diameter of TPCR was the highest, which
was increased by 34.4% compared to that of the control.
There was no significant difference among other cultiva-
tion patterns (Figure 7).
2.8. The Impact of Cultivation Pattern on the
Yield of Soybean
Soybean grain number, grain weight per plant and yield
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
R1R3 R5
Growing Stages of Soybeans
dry matter accumulation of
single plant (g)
ORP
TPCR
ORCP
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
(a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
R1R3 R5
Growing Stages of Soybeans
plant height (cm)
ORP
TPCR
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
ORCP
a a a a a a
a a b a b b
c b b a c c
(b)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
R1 R3 R5
Growing Stages of Soybeans
stem diameter(cm)
ORP
TPCR
BRHD
SRHD
FPHD
ORCP
a a a a a b
c a b a b c
b a b b b b
(c)
Figure 7. The change of dry matter accumulation (a), plant
height (b) and stem diameter (c) of soybe an under different
cultivation patterns (2010). X axis indicates the growth
stage of soybean; Y axis indicates dry matter accumulation
(a), plant height (b) and stem diameter (c).
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
1208
were significantly different between different cultivation
patterns (Table 1 and Table 2). BPHD produced the
highest grain number (39.7/plant), followed by SRHD
(28.9/plant). The grain number of SRHD and BRHD was
increased by135% and 112% compared to that of ORP.
The order of the yield for each cultivation pattern was
SRHD > BRHD > ORCP > FPHD > TPCR > ORP. The
yield of SRHD, BRHD, ORCP, FPHD and TPCR was
increased by 136%, 112%, 79.4%, 50.1% and 14.7%,
respectively, compared to that of ORP. These results
suggest that SRHD and BRHD can be used as high-yield
cultivation pattern in Heilongjiang Province.
3. Discussion
Light intercepted by the soybean canopy during the re-
productive period is an important environmental factor
for the soybean yield components and grain yield [7,19].
At low or moderate density, light enrichment increases
seed yield per plant and yield per unit area by 26% - 94%
regardless of cultivars. However, the yield increase effect
was not observed in H339 and HN35 cultivars at the high
density. Elucidation of the mechanisms that increase
yields in high population as demonstrated under light-
enriched conditions may provide insights for crop man-
agement and phenotypic improvement [15]. Coordinated
Table 1. The analysis for yield index of soybean under
different cultivation patterns (2010).
Cultivation
patterns
Grain
number/plant
Grain weight
/plant (g)
Yeilds
(g/m2)
ORP 25.8c 6.8d 162.97f
TPCR 25.4c 12.2b 186.94e
ORCP 25.8c 12.2b 292.39c
BRHD 39.7a 14.4a 345.12b
SRHD 28.9b 16.0a 383.48a
FPHD 25.2c 10.2c 244.46d
Different leter indicate significant at P ≤ 0.05.
Table 2. The analysis for yield index of soybean under
different cultivation patterns (2011).
cultivation
patterns
Grain
number/plant
Grain weight/
plant (g)
Yeilds
(g/m2)
ORP 25d 8.8d 170.96f
TPCR 27c 13.4b 190.88e
ORCP 27c 13.2b 298.35c
BRHD 39a 14.8b 348.11b
SRHD 29b 16.2a 388.45a
FPHD 26c 10.8c 250.43d
Different leter indicate significant at P ≤ 0.05.
development of the population and individuals, reason-
able distribution of canopy internal radiation source, and
high light energy utilization rate could lead to high yield
[5]. Asanomie and Ikeda reported that light distribution
in soybean canopy is a major limiting factor of seed yield
[3]. Liu et al. suggests that high density (54 plants/m2) of
plants resulted in similar competition for light in both the
ambient light and light enriched treatments [15,16].
The relationship between the light radiation, planting
density and yield of soybean relationship has been
widely studied, but studies for light energy utilization,
canopy structure and yield of soybean under different
cultivation modes have not been studied. In this study,
we examined the canopy structure and light radiation
characteristics and their relationship to the yields of soy-
bean variety Hefeng50 under different cultivation pat-
terns including SRHD, BRHD, ORCP, FPHD, TPCR and
ORP. LAI, MFIA, Extinction coefficient (K), TCDP and
TCRP and yield index were determined under 6 different
cultivation patterns.
The results showed light penetration area is large and
there was more light radiation loss under the cultivation
pattern of ORPA and TPCR (Figure 1), which is not
good for photosynthesis. In contrast, cultivation mode
SRHD, BRHD and ORCP have good light transparence,
which ensures the lower leaves to fully carry out photo-
synthesis (Figure 1). Many studies have shown that op-
timal LAI is required to obtain high yields of soybean
[20,21]. In this study, the LAI of BRHD and SRHD was
significantly higher than that of ORP and TPCR. We also
showed that FPHD had highest LAI, but not the highest
yield, which may be due to the low solar energy utilize-
tion of the lower leaves.
In this study, MFIA of SRHD and BRHD in R3 and
R1 period was the highest, while in R5 it is relatively low,
indicating lower leaves have high ventilation and light
use utilization efficiency to promote the form of yield
(Figure 3, Tables 1 and 2).
TCDP and TCRP can clearly reflect the inter-line and
intra-line light distribution and utilization status. We
studied TCDP and TCRP at different levels and different
angles, which is conducive to understanding the radiation
characteristics of soybean canopy in the three-dimen-
sional space and the creation of high-yield population.
Our results also showed that the difference for TCDP and
TCRP of the six kinds of cultivation mode, mainly was in
R1, TCDP and TCRP were low under SRHD and BRHD,
which further explains the low light loss. This might be
another reason that leads higher yield of these 2 cultiva-
tion modes.
The extinction coefficient K is an effective index of
the canopy light interception. Great K value indicates a
serious population intensity attenuation [22,23]. Studies
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
1209
have shown that large K value can result in serious leaf
shading, less light received by lower leaves, which is bad
for pod of soybean [24]. In this study, ORP cultivation
mode has a largest K value and SRHD and BRHD had
medium K value and the TPCR had a minimum K value
(Figure 6). Small K values of SRHD and BRHD is fa-
vorable to the light utilization and yield formation.
In summary, the light interception ability of soybean
canopy is closely related to the yield. The radiation
characteristics of the canopy are mostly affected by can-
opy structure. LAI, MFIA, TCDP, TCRP and extinction
coefficient (K) are important parameters to evaluate
soybean population [19]. Growth and development of the
soybean at different stages will, in turn, change canopy
parameters of soybean population and affect soybean
yield [25]. Particularly, subsoiling and cultivation tech-
niques are the most important factors to influence popu-
lation parameters. In this study, grain number/plant, dry
matter accumulation and yield were significantly differ-
ent between different cultivation patterns. Our results
suggest that SRHD and BRHD are the optimal cultiva-
tion pattern for the improvement of soybean yield in
phaeozem region of northeastern China.
4. Experimental Section
4.1. Plant Materials
Soybean cultivar used in this study was Hefeng50. This
cultivar had sub-limited pods, 85 - 90cm of plant height,
sharp leaves, strong stalks, resistance to high density and
short internodes.
4.2. Experimental Design
This study was conducted in Fuyu Agroecological Ex-
perimental Station of Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences
in Northeast China in 2010 and 2011. The research site
(47˚18N, 124˚0E, Altitude: 240 m) is in the north tem-
perate and continental monsoon area (cold and arid in
winter, hot and rainy in summer). The average annual
precipitation is 530 mm with 65% in June-August, and
an average annual temperature of 1.5˚C. Annual sunshine
time is approximately 2600 - 2800 h, annual solar radia-
tion is 113 MJ·cm–2 and annual average available accu-
mulated temperature (10˚C) is 2450˚C. The soil is the
typical Mollisol (Black soil), and textural class is silty
clay loam or silty clay with about 40% clay. In each year
a cultivar-by-density factorial experiment, arranged in a
randomized complete block design with three replica-
tions, was conducted.
Soybean was cultivated with 6 cultivation Patterns:
Big ridge and high density, ridge width 140 cm (BRHD),
Small ridge and high density, ridge width 45 cm (SRHD),
Flat planting and high density (FPHD), Three line planting
in ridge, ridge width 70 cm (TPCR), Original ridge and
cards planting, Maize stubble (ORCP) and ORP (Ordinary
ridge planting, 70 cm) (Table 3). The planting area for
each cultivation pattern was 1260 m2 (21 m × 60 m) and
each experiment was performed in split plot with three
replicates. The seeds were sowed on 1 May, 2010. Me-
chanical precision sowing was used and the experimental
field management was similar to the production field.
Fertilizer standard for BRHD SRHD and FPHD was 40
kg·ha–1 carbamide (46% N), 180 kg·ha–1 diammonium
phosphate (18% N, 46% P2O5) and 80 kg·ha–1 of K2SO4
(50% K2O). The fertilizer standard for TPCR, ORCP and
ORP was 75 kg·ha–1 carbamide, 150 kg·ha–1 diammo-
nium phosphate and 45 kg·ha–1 of K2SO4.
The fences were inspected periodically and all plants
in rows bordering the center row were pushed behind the
fences to prevent encroachment on the sample row.
Canopy parameters and pictures measurements were ob-
tained at 15:00-17:00 each day at the beginning flower
stage R1 (15th Jul 201020th Jul 2011), podding stage
R3 (1st Aug 2010, 5th Aug 2011) and the seed filing
stage R5 (20th Aug 2010, 25th Aug 2011) using a plant
canopy digital image analyzer (CI-110, CID, US) that
was placed parallel to and beside the center row plants.
Canopy structure indicators included LAI, FIA, VHFD,
TCDP, TCRP, extinction light coefficient and picture of
population structure at R1, R3 and R5 stage. In each plot,
the yield parameters including mature pod number per
plant, seeds per plant and seed size (mg/seed) were
measured on 15 plants. The plant was cut at ground level,
bulked and a total biomass was determined. Mass of a
100-seed subsample was used to determine the mass of
an individual seed. Statistical analysis of data was per-
formed by using the PROC ANOVA of SAS, and mean
comparison was made according to the Duncan’s multi-
ple range tests (SAS Institute, Inc. 1996).
Table 3. Experimental design in 2010 and 2011.
Cultivation
Pattern
Density
(plants/m2)
Line distance,
Line number
Plant
distance
Ridge
width
ORP(control)25 12 cm, 2 line 5 cm 70 cm
TPCR 25 12 cm, 2 line 5 cm 70 cm
ORCP 30 12 cm, 2 line 5 cm 70 cm
BRHD 45 12 cm, 6 line 5 cm 140 cm
SRHD 38 12 cm, 12 line 5 cm 45 cm
FPHD 38 12 cm, 12 line 5 cm 70 cm
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
1210
5. Conclusion
In this study, we analyzed the canopy structure, dynamic
characteristics of light radiation and yield of Hefeng50
(the main variety of soybean in Heilongjiang Province)
under six different cultivation patterns (ORP, TPCR,
ORCP, BRHD, SRHD and FPHD). The results showed
that SRHD and BRHD at different growth period (blos-
som period R1, podding R3 and grain filing period R5)
produced an even distribution of the population leaf area,
suitable mean foliage inclination angle (MFIA), low
transparency coefficients for defuse penetration (TCDP)
and transparency coefficients for radiation penetration
(TCRP), high leaf area index (LAI), extinction light co-
efficient (K value), fraction of radiation intercepted (FRI)
and light energy utilization rate. Grain number, dry mat-
ter weight per plant, and yield of SRHD and BRHD were
significantly higher than those of other cultivation pat-
terns. The yield of SRHD, BRHD, ORCP, FPHD and
TPCR was increased by 136%, 112%, 79%, 50.1% and
14.7%, respectively, compared to that of ORP. These
results suggest that SRHD and BRHD are the optimal
cultivation pattern for the improvement of soybean yield
in phaeozem region of northeastern China.
6. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Nature Science Foundation
Grant of Nation (31101171), Nonprofit sector projects in
the Ministry of Agriculture (200903007-09) and Youth
Innovate Foundation Grant of Haerbin city (2011RFQY-
N048).
REFERENCES
[1] Q. N. Alvaro, P. Eligio and O. Morandi, “Post-Flowering
Leaflet Removals Increase Pod Initiation in Soybean Ca-
nopies,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 120, No. 3, 2011, pp.
151-160.
[2] A. Biabani, M. Hashemi and S. J. Herbert, “Agronomic
Performance of Two Intercropped Soybean Cultivars,”
International Journal of Plant Production, Vol. 2, No. 3,
2008, pp. 215-222.
[3] N. Asanome and T. Ikeda, “Effect of Branch Directions
Arrangement on Soybean Yield and Yield Components,”
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Vol. 181, No. 2,
1998, pp. 95-102.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.1998.tb00404.x
[4] R. A. Ball, L. C. Purcell and E. D. Vories, “Optimizing
Soybean Plant Population for a Short-Season Production
System in the Southern USA,” Crop Scienc e, Vol. 40, No.
5, 2000, pp. 757-764. doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.403757x
[5] R. C. David and A. Alain, “Vanasse Production of Soy-
bean Associated with Different Hybrid Poplar Clones in a
Tree-Based Intercropping System in Southwestern Que-
bec, Canada,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
Vol. 131, No. 1-2, 2009, pp. 51-60.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.011
[6] B. C. Emine, “Changes in Leaf Area Index, Light Inter-
ception, Quality and Dry Matter Yield of an Abandoned
Rangeland as Affected by the Different Levels of Nitro-
gen and Phosphorus Fertilization,” Turkish Journal of
Field Crops, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 117-120.
[7] Y. Gan, I. Stulen and H. V. Keulen, “Physiological Re-
sponse of Soybean Genotypes to Plant Density,” Field
Crop Research, Vol. 74, No. 2-3, 2002, pp. 231-241.
doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00212-X
[8] G. R. Haddadchi and Z. Gerivani, “Effects of Phenolic
Extracts of Canola (Brassica napuse L.) on Germination
and Physiological Responses of Soybean (Glycin max L.)
Seedlings,” International Journal of Plant Production,
Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp. 63-74.
[9] T. Hirose, “Development of the Monsi-Saeki Theory on
Canopy Structure and Function,” Annals of Botany, Vol.
95, No. 3, 2005, pp. 483-494. doi:10.1093/aob/mci047
[10] L. F. Huang, J. H. Zheng and W. H. Zhang, “Diurnal Va-
riations in Gas Exchange, Chlorophyll Fluorescence
Quenching and Light Allocation in Soybean Leaves: The
Cause for Midday Depression in CO2 Assimilation,” Sci-
entia Horticulturae, Vol. 110, No. 2, 2006, pp. 214-218.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2006.07.001
[11] E. James and S. Board, “Soybean Cultivar Differences on
Light Interception and Leaf Area Index during Seed Fill-
ing,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, 2004, pp. 305-
310. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.0305
[12] W. Jeremy, W. M. David and J. S. Thomas, “Variability
of Light Interception and Radiation Use Efficiency in
Maize and Soybean,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 121,
No. 1, 2011, pp. 147-152. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2010.12.007
[13] J. Jin and X. B. Liu, “A Comparative Study on Phy-
siological Characteristics during Reproductive Growth
Stage in Different Yielding Types and Maturities of Soy-
bean,” Acta Agronomica Sinica, Vol. 30, No. 12, 2004,
pp. 1225-1231. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[14] B. Liu, Y. Li, X. B. Liu and C. Wang, “Lower Total So-
luble Sugars in Vegetative Parts of Soybean Plants Are
Responsible for Reduced Pod Number under Shading
Conditions,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 5, No. 13, 2011,
pp. 1852-1857.
[15] B. Liu, X. B. Liu and W. Cheng, “Responses of Soybean
Yield and Yield Components to Light Enrichment and
Planting Density,” International Journal of Plant Pro-
duction, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1735-1742.
[16] X. B. Liu, S. J. Herbert and A. M. Hashemi, “Soybean
(Glycine max) Seed Growth Characteristics in Response
to Light Enrichment and Shading,” Plant, Soil and En-
vironment, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2006, pp. 178-185.
[17] X. B. Liu, S. J. Herbert and Q. Y. Zhang, “Yield-Density
Relation of Glyphosate-Resistant Soya Beans and Their
Responses to Light Enrichment in North-Eastern USA,”
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Vol. 193, No. 1,
2007, pp. 55-62. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00241.x
[18] R. S. Loomis and W. A. Williams, “Productivity and the
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
Effect of Cultivation Pattern on the Light Radiation of Group Canopy and Yield of Spring Soybean
(Glycine Max L. Merrill)
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. AJPS
1211
Morphology of Crop Stands: Patterns with Leaves,” Am-
erican Society of Agronomy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1969, pp. 27-
47.
[19] P. S. Shawn, N. D. Dylan and L. K. Eric, “Leaf Optical
Properties Reflect Variation in Photosynthetic Metabo-
lism and Its Sensitivity to Temperature,” Journal of Ex-
perimental Botany, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2012, pp. 489-502.
doi:10.1093/jxb/err294
[20] G. A. Maddonni, M. E. Otegui and A. G. Cirilo, “Plant
Population Density, Row Spacing and Hybrid Effects on
Maize Canopy Architecture and Light Attenuation,” Field
Crops Research, Vol. 71, No. 3, 2001, pp. 183-193.
doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00158-7
[21] T. Mevlüt, A. Sebahattin and Y. Osman, “Effect of Seed-
ing Rate on the Forage Yields and Quality in Pea Culti-
vars of Differing Leaf Types,” Turkish Journal of Field
Crops, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 137-141.
[22] S. B. Peng, G. S. Khush and P. Virk, “Progress in Ideo-
type Breeding to Increase Rice Yield Potential,” Field
Crops Research, Vol. 108, No. 1, 2008, pp. 32-38.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2008.04.001
[23] D. G. Reta-Sanchez and J. L. Fowler, “Canopy Light
Environment and Yield of Narrow-Row Cotton as Affect-
ed by Canopy Architecture,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 94,
No. 6, 2002, pp. 1317-1322.
doi:10.2134/agronj2002.1317
[24] T. Rüveyde, “The Effects of Varying Row Spacing and
Phosphorus Doses on the Yield and Quality of Fenugreek
(Trigonella foenum-graecum L.),” Turkish Journal of
Field Crops, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2011, pp. 142-148.
[25] Z.Svecnjak, B. Varga and J. Butorac, “Yield Components
of Apical and Subapical Ear Contributing to the Grain
Yield Responses of Prolific Maize at High and Low Plant
Populations,” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,
Vol. 192, No. 1, 2006, pp. 37-42.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00188.x