Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp1 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - II

Optimizing soybean productivity through land configuration and integrated nutrient management under subtropical

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8074
Submitted
4 March 2025
Published
06-10-2025

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the Kharif season of 2024 at Lovely Professional University, Punjab, to evaluate the effect of land configuration and nutrient management on the growth, yield and quality of soybean (Glycine max L.). The experiment followed a factorial randomized block design (FRBD) with two land configurations: flatbed (L1) and ridge and furrow (L2). Eight nutrient management treatments (N1 to N8) including various combinations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and farmyard manure (FYM). Soybean variety SL958 was used and data were collected on growth parameters, yield components and seed protein content. Ridge and furrow configuration significantly improved plant growth and seed yield compared to the flatbed system. The best performance for growth, yield attributes and protein content (40.00 %) were observed under 75 % N + 25 % FYM + 75 % P (N8), followed by 75 % N + 100 % P (N4), while the control showed the lowest performance across all parameters. Significant interaction effects confirmed that combining ridge and furrow with balanced nutrient application optimally enhances soybean growth, yield and quality. The study highlights the potential of ridge and furrow land configuration combined with integrated nutrient management to maximize soybean yield and quality in sandy clay loam soils under subtropical conditions.

References

  1. 1. Pagano MC, Miransari M. The importance of soybean production worldwide. In: Abiotic and biotic stresses in soybean production. Academic Press; 2016. p. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801536-0.00001-3
  2. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. India at a glance. https://www.fao.org/india/fao-in-india/india-at-a-glance/en/
  3. 3. Verma C, Tripathi VK, Verma LP, Paikra IS. Effect of ridge and furrow system in soybean cultivation and feasibility of economics. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(3):1755-60. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i3x.9451
  4. 4. Masciarelli O, Llanes A, Luna V. A new PGPR co-inoculated with Bradyrhizobium japonicum enhances soybean nodulation. Microbiol Res. 2014;169(7-8):609-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2013.10.001
  5. 5. Jain M. Yield potentials of soybean on altered land configuration. Soy Res. 2019;17(1&2):77-82.
  6. 6. Manhas S, Singh J, Saini A, Sharma T, Parita K. Effect of tillage and fertilizer doses on growth and growth indices of soybean (Glycine max L.) under conservation tillage systems. Environ Conserv J. 2021;22(3):181-6. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.2021.22322
  7. 7. Rath S, Mishra G, Gulati JM, Mohapatra AK. Root growth, nutrient uptake, nodulation and yield of summer mung [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] as influenced by land configuration and varying nutrient management practices under coastal plains of Odisha. Indian J Agric Res. 2023;57(4):461-7. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-6084
  8. 8. Porpavai S, Nagarajan M. Effect of land configuration and nutrient management methods on growth and yield of blackgram (Vigna mungo). Agric Sci Digest. 2022;42(1):88-90. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.D-5245
  9. 9. Bhuiya ZH, Chowdhary SV. Effect of N, P, K and S on quality of groundnut. Indian J Agric Sci. 1974;44(1):751-4.
  10. 10. Sheoran OP. Statistical package for agricultural scientists (OPSTAT). CCS HAU; 1998.
  11. 11. Tian CH, Xu M, Tu J, Wang H, Ni X. Relationship between omnibus and post-hoc tests: An investigation of performance of the F test in ANOVA. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2018;30(1):60. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.218014
  12. 12. Keteku AK, Kadam AK, Suchada DA, Blege PK. Influence of land configuration and fertilization techniques on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill.) productivity, soil moisture and fertility. Acta Agric Slov. 2020;115(1):79-88. https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2020.115.1.1220
  13. 13. Rabbani MG, Salam MA, Kheya SA, Paul SK. Effect of phosphorus fertilization on nodulation, growth, yield and quality of soybean varieties. J Arid Land Agric. 2023;9:99-107. https://doi.org/10.25081/jaa.2023.v9.8364
  14. 14. Liu X, Rahman T, Song C, Yang F, Su B, Cui L, et al. Relationships among light distribution, radiation use efficiency and land equivalent ratio in maize-soybean strip intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2018;224:91-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.010
  15. 15. Raza MA, Cui L, Khan I, Din AM, Chen G, Ansar M, et al. Compact maize canopy improves radiation use efficiency and grain yield of maize/soybean relay intercropping system. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28:41135-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13541-1
  16. 16. Choudhary M, Panday SC, Meena VS, Singh S, Yadav RP, Mahanta D, et al. Long-term effects of organic manure and inorganic fertilization on sustainability and chemical soil quality indicators of soybean-wheat cropping system in the Indian mid-Himalayas. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2018;257:38-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.029
  17. 17. Sharma T, Singh J, Singh A, Sharma R, Chauhan G. Effect of organic nutrient sources on the yield, nutrient uptake and nodulation in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) under mid-hill conditions of Western Himalayas. Environ Conserv J. 2023;24(2):250-6. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.13232381
  18. 18. Sodavadiya HB, Naik VR, Chaudhari SD. Effect of land configuration, irrigation and INM on growth, yield and water use efficiency of Indian bean (var. GNIB-21). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(7):2624-30. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.310
  19. 19. Raghuveer M, Charan GS, Kumar YP, Kumar MS, Ramadevi A, Poshadri A, et al. Impact of frontline demonstrations of broad bed furrow on yield and economics of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) under rainfed conditions of Northern Telangana Zone, India. Environ Ecol Conserv. 2022;28(2):702-6. https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2022.v28i02.019
  20. 20. Bhadre CK, Narkhede WN, Desai MM. Effect of different land configuration, superabsorbent and nutrient management on yield and economics of soybean (Glycine max L.)-safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) cropping system. Legume Res. 2022;45(12):1540-6. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4319
  21. 21. Rath S, Mishra G, Gulati JM, Mohapatra AK. Root growth, nutrient uptake, nodulation and yield of summer mung Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek as influenced by land configuration and varying nutrient management practices under coastal plains of Odisha. Indian J Agric Res. 2023;57(4):461-7. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-6084
  22. 22. Gohil KO, Kumar S, Jat AL. Effect of plant geometry, seed priming and nutrient management on growth, yield and economics of summer greengram Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(9):2386-90. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.292
  23. 23. Rajanna GA, Dass A, Suman A, Babu S, Venkatesh P, Singh VK, et al. Co-implementation of tillage, irrigation, and fertilizers in soybean: Impact on crop productivity, soil moisture, and soil microbial dynamics. Field Crops Res. 2022;288:108672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108672
  24. 24. Khanam M, Islam MS, Ali MH, Chowdhury IF, Masum SM. Performance of soybean under different levels of phosphorus and potassium. Bangladesh Agron J. 2016;19(1):99-108. https://doi.org/10.3329/baj.v19i1.29876
  25. 25. Mandal KG, Thakur AK, Mohanty S. Paired-row planting and furrow irrigation increased light interception, pod yield and water use efficiency of groundnut in a hot sub-humid climate. Agric Water Manag. 2019;213:968-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.12.018
  26. 26. Nair RM, Boddepalli VN, Yan MR, Kumar V, Gill B, Pan RS, et al. Global status of vegetable soybean. Plants. 2023;12(3):609. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030609
  27. 27. Sikka R, Singh D, Deol JS, Kumar N. Effect of integrated nutrient and agronomic management on growth, productivity, nutrient uptake and soil residual fertility status of soybean. Agric Sci Digest. 2018;38(2):103-7. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.LR-3994
  28. 28. Garud HS, Asewar BV, Chavan AA, Gokhale DN, Narkhede WN. Production potential of pigeon pea based intercropping systems under various land configurations in Marathwada region of Maharashtra. Legume Res. 2021;44(8):947-51. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4398
  29. 29. Sakarvadia HL, Vekaria LC, Ponkia HP, Jadeja AS, Parakhia DV. Soil test-based fertilizers application for targeted yield of soybean (Glycine max L.) in Saurashtra region of Gujarat. Agric Sci Digest. 2021;41(3):464-7. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.D-5214
  30. 30. Yang JX, Richards RA, Jin Y, He J. Both biomass accumulation and harvest index drive the yield improvements in soybean at high and low phosphorus in south-west China. Field Crops Res. 2022;277:108426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108426
  31. 31. Moreira A, Moraes LC, Moretti LG. Yield, yield components, soil chemical properties, plant physiology, and phosphorus use efficiency in soybean genotypes. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2017;48(20):2464-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2017.1416126
  32. 32. Gaspar AP, Laboski CA, Naeve SL, Conley SP. Phosphorus and potassium uptake, partitioning, and removal across a wide range of soybean seed yield levels. Crop Sci. 2017;57(4):2193-204. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.05.0378

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.