Abstract
Obtaining accurate seed yield information from soybean[ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] field research environments and concurrently conserving valuable field space is desirable. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of plot length and alley width on the response of short‐ and tall‐statured Maturity Group(MG) V soybean cultivars to end‐trimming after maturity. Experiments were conducted in 1995 and 1996 at the Delta Research and Extension Center at Stoneville, MS, (lat.33°26′). ‘Hutcheson’ (relatively shorts stature) and ‘DP3 3589’ in 1995 and ‘DP 3588’ in 1996 (both relatively tall stature) were planted on 9 May 1995 and 15 May 1996 Treatments were plot length (6.10 or 15.25m ), alley width (0.90 or 2.45m ), and end‐trim length (0, 0.45, or 0.90m ). Average height of Hutcheson at maturity was 52 cm in 1995 and 55 cm in 1996, while average height of DP 3589 in 1995 and DP 3588 in 1996 was 88 cm. All cultivars responded similarly in yield to all factors in this experiment. End‐trim length was the only factor that significantly affected average yields. Not end‐trimming resulted in an average yields of 2573k g ha −1 , while end‐trimming either 0.45 or 0.90 m resulted in average yields that were nearly identical (2356 and 2 337k g ha −1 , respectively). Contrary to our hypothesis, increasing plot length from 6.10 to 15.25m and decreasing alley width from 2.45 to 0.90 m did not negate the end‐of‐plot effect on yield of soybean grown in nonirrigated field plots. These results indicate that soybean grown in plots with row lengths and alley widths that are within the confines of the dimensions used in our experiment should be end‐trimmed to eliminate end‐of‐plot effects. Also, field space can be conserved by using the 6.1‐m plot length and the 0.90‐m alley width.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
The three soybean cultivars responded similarly in yield to all tested factors.
Verbatim
e0“All cultivars responded similarly in yield to all factors in this experiment.”
Claim · model-written summary
End-trim length was the only factor with a significant effect on average soybean yield.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“End‐trim length was the only factor that significantly affected average yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
Untrimmed plots yielded 2573k g ha −1 on average.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Not end‐trimming resulted in an average yields of 2573k g ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Trimming 0.45 m produced an average yield of 2356k g ha −1.
- Treatment
- end‐trimming either 0.45 or 0.90 me0
- Outcome
- average yieldse0
- Direction
- nearly identicale0
- Value
- 2356e0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“end‐trimming either 0.45 or 0.90 m resulted in average yields that were nearly identical (2356 and 2 337k g ha −1 , respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Trimming 0.90 m produced an average yield of 2 337k g ha −1.
- Treatment
- end‐trimming either 0.45 or 0.90 me0
- Outcome
- average yieldse0
- Direction
- nearly identicale0
- Value
- 2 337k g ha −1e0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“end‐trimming either 0.45 or 0.90 m resulted in average yields that were nearly identical (2356 and 2 337k g ha −1 , respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing plot length from 6.10 to 15.25m did not negate the end-of-plot yield effect.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- increasing plot length from 6.10 to 15.25me0
- Outcome
- end‐of‐plot effect on yielde0
- Direction
- did not negatee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing plot length from 6.10 to 15.25m and decreasing alley width from 2.45 to 0.90 m did not negate the end‐of‐plot effect on yield of soybean grown in nonirrigated field plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreasing alley width from 2.45 to 0.90 m did not negate the end-of-plot yield effect.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- decreasing alley width from 2.45 to 0.90 me0
- Outcome
- end‐of‐plot effect on yielde0
- Direction
- did not negatee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing plot length from 6.10 to 15.25m and decreasing alley width from 2.45 to 0.90 m did not negate the end‐of‐plot effect on yield of soybean grown in nonirrigated field plots”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend end trimming soybean plots within the tested dimensions to eliminate end-of-plot effects.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- should be end‐trimmed to eliminate end‐of‐plot effectse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean grown in plots with row lengths and alley widths that are within the confines of the dimensions used in our experiment should be end‐trimmed to eliminate end‐of‐plot effects”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 6.1-m plots and 0.90-m alleys to conserve field space.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“field space can be conserved by using the 6.1‐m plot length and the 0.90‐m alley width”