Next Article in Journal
Water Footprint Assessment of Agricultural Crop Productions in the Dry Farming Region, Shanxi Province, Northern China
Previous Article in Journal
Substituting Partial Chemical Fertilizers with Bio-Organic Fertilizers to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Water-Saving Irrigated Rice Fields
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy14030545
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fertilizer Management Strategies of Glycine max L. (Soybean) in Northcentral and North-Western North Dakota †

by
Christopher Lee Augustin
1,* and
David W. Franzen
2
1
Dickinson Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University, Dickinson, ND 58601, USA
2
School of Natural Resource Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
This paper is part of a Ph.D. dissertation from North Dakota State University.
Agronomy 2024, 14(3), 545; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030545
Submission received: 6 February 2024 / Revised: 23 February 2024 / Accepted: 25 February 2024 / Published: 7 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soybean (Glycine max L.) is a new cash crop grown in north central and northwestern North Dakota (ND). Soils and climate in these new soybean areas differ from current fertilizer guidelines. A three-year study to evaluate soybean fertility best management practices was initiated in the spring of 2016 and concluded in 2018. Each year had two sites and twelve treatments. One site was acidic (pH < 6.2) and the other was alkaline (pH > 7.2). Both site treatments were: untreated check, inoculated with rhizobia (Bradyrhizobium japonicum L.), broadcast urea (55 kg ha−1), broadcast MAP (110 kg ha−1), In-furrow 10-34-0 (28 L ha−1), in-furrow 6-24-6 (28 L ha−1), foliar 3-18-18 (28 L ha−1) at V5 and R2, and foliar 3-18-18 (28 L ha−1) with sulfate (1.1 kg ha−1) at V5 and R2. The acidic site had two treatments of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) waste lime (4411 kg ha−1 and 8821 kg ha−1). The alkaline site received treatments of iron ortho-ortho-EDDHA (7.1 L ha−1), and naked ortho-ortho-EDDHA (7.1 L ha−1). An in-furrow treatment of cobalt (2.9 kg cobalt-sulfate ha−1) was added in 2018. Fertilizer treatments did not impact soybean yield, protein content and oil content at the 0.05 significance level.

1. Introduction

Current North Dakota soybean fertility recommendations have been developed from data collected in the eastern third of North Dakota. This project evaluated selected soil fertility treatments aimed to improve fertilizer management for soybean producers in northwest and northcentral North Dakota [1]. Northcentral and northwestern North Dakota’s climate is drier and cooler than the more typical North Dakota soybean growing regions [2]. As a result of a relatively short growing season, climate, soybean growers are recommended to plant Group 0 maturity soybeans in Fargo, whereas 00 and 000 maturity group soybeans should be planted in northcentral and northwestern North Dakota [3].
No soil fertility research had been conducted in northwest and north central North Dakota until these studies were initiated in 2016. Due to different soil types and climate, fertility research is needed in the new and non-traditional soybean growing areas to help improve grain quality and yield, and to maximize soybean farmer economic return on crop input investments [4].
A large portion of the total nitrogen (N) required for soybean is often produced from the activity of the symbiotic N-fixing rhizobium (Bradyrhizobium japonicum L.) [5]. Consequently, N fertilizer is typically not recommended. Excess soil NO3− can hinder rhizobia nodulation [6]. Soil NO3− levels greater than 90 kg ha−1 have prevented nodulation and reduced yield. [7]. The use of N fertilizer in soybean is most advantageous as a rescue application for when soybean nodules are not present [4]. The use of nitrogen fertilizer can have little effect on soybean grain yield [7] economic benefit to soybean farmers [8].
Virgin soybean fields lack the rhizobia for symbiotic N fixation to occur. Without supplemental N or rhizobia, soybean yields are reduced [9]. When soybean is grown in a field for the first time, a popular inoculation strategy is to use two different inoculum forms to better ensure successful inoculation [10,11,12,13]. Soybean seldom responds positively with inoculation if the field had been seeded to properly inoculated soybean previously [13,14,15,16]. If more than five years pass between soybean grown in a field, inoculation is suggested [16].
Many have theorized [17,18,19,20,21,22] that an in-season N application could improve soybean yield and/or quality by increasing the sink of N. Dryland research suggests that there is little response from an in-season N application made during the soybean reproductive stage [18]. However, a high yielding environment like irrigation may provide a yield response [21]. Still, the cost of N inputs may not be agronomic [20].
External soil and environmental factors influence symbiotic N fixation in soybean. Acidic soils with a pH less than 5.5 reduce soybean nodulation [22]. Dry soil conditions reduce rhizobia movement to soybean root. The frequency of reported positive N fertilizer responses due to lack of adequate nodulation in soybean tends to increase under droughty conditions [23].
Rhizobia require an oxygen (O2) free environment to reduce N2 gas into ammonium (NH4+). Leg-hemoglobin is used by rhizobia to void the environment of O2. Cobalt is needed to form leg-hemoglobin by synthesizing cobalamin, or more commonly known as vitamin B12 (C63H88CoN14P). Healthy and active nodules’ pinkish appearance is caused by leg-hemoglobin [24]. Jayakumar and Jaleel [25] increased soybean yield from 50 mg Co kg−1 soil treatment compared to the untreated check. Cobalt applications greater than 100 mg Co kg−1 soil may be toxic to soybean or the rhizobia [25]. There are currently no scientifically accepted Co soil thresholds for rhizobia health [26]. Soil testing for Co is difficult [27].
Soybean grain removes approximately 14.5 kg P for each 1000 kg grain yield [28]. The greatest P demand by soybean occurs during the reproductive stage [29]. Despite the soybean yield gain of 0.5% per year [30] and increase of soybean P content [31], responses of soybean due to P fertilizer application have been inconsistent [32,33,34,35,36,37].
Results are mixed as to whether greater soybean yields can be obtained by broadcasting or banding P fertilizer, although the highest proportion of experiments indicates that broadcast P tends result in higher soybean yield compared to banded P. Several studies have recorded delayed soybean emergence and stand from P fertilizer application applied in furrow with no adverse yield impact [32,38,39,40]. Bullen et al. [41] observed greater yields with banded P than broadcasted P. Others have observed no yield response when comparing broadcast or banded P [32,35,42]. The mixed results could be from soybean being more efficient at acquiring soil P compared to other crops such as rape (Brassica napis L.) or oat (Avena sativa L.) [43].
Potassium (K) is needed for the activation of several enzymes, water uptake, and it aids in moderating turgor pressure [44]. Soybean has a high K demand and removes more than twice the amount of K that a regional corn grain harvest removes [29]. Over time a soil can be depleted of K as a result of soybean production. One Mg of soybean grain removes about 22 kg of K2O and removes more K2O than corn > wheat = oat > barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) [28].
Available soil K in North Dakota is analyzed using the 1-N ammonium acetate method (NH4OAc) [45]. When the K soil test indicates a high probability of soybean yield response soil test guidelines are used to determine fertilizer rates [22,46]. Some have observed that the 1-N ammonium acetate method has not predicted K response of soybeans consistently. Soybean may more effective than other crops at mining soil K [47]. The reliability of soil K analysis may be caused by pH, clay mineralogy, soil moisture, redox potential, weathering, and different K pools. Potassium in the soil is mainly unavailable and comprised as a primary mineral [48]. Breker [46] evaluated various K soil testing methods and found the NH4OAc method [45] to be most accurate. However, it’s been found that that when the clay mineralogy is accounted for, K soil testing thresholds can be shifted to better reflect a fertilizer response based off of the NH4OAc K soil test [49]. As a result, current North Dakota K fertilizer guidelines have been adjusted to reflect the impact of K retention influenced by difference clay type minerals [1].
Foliar feeding offers possible practical benefits to farmers who might add a fertilizer to a post-emergence herbicide or other pest management treatment to save trips over a field. To minimize leaf damage, foliar feedings should occur in the morning when temperatures are relatively cool and the plant is turgid [50]. Soybean yield improvement due to foliar fertilizer application tend to be infrequent and small. Increase of oil or protein content are unlikely or insignificant [37,50,51].
Plants require iron (Fe) in chlorophyll production and function [52]. Soybean is susceptible to Fe deficiency chlorosis (IDC). Iron deficiency chlorosis typically occurs during V1 through V5 growth stages [53]. Soybeans improve Fe uptake by secreting organic acids that acidifies, chelates, and enables Fe reduction the rhizosphere, converting Fe3+ to the much more soluble Fe2+ [54]. Planting an IDC tolerant soybean variety is the most practical, effective, and agronomically viable IDC management tool than using an iron chelate [55,56]. The application of soil applied Fe o-o-EDDHA chelate may reduce IDC severity [54,56,57,58]. However, foliar applications of o-o-EDDHA had little impact on soybean yields versus seed applied o-o-EDDHA [57]. Improvement of IDC has been observed under severe conditions from oat companion crops, due to uptake of soil NO3− and reduced soil moisture by the oat [56].
A majority of the soils in the Midwest US can provide soybean with a sufficient amount of micronutrients. Soybean rarely responds positively to the use of the micronutrients [59,60]. Research conducted in North Dakota [61,62] and Minnesota [63] did not observe a consistent positive yield and quality response from the use of S fertilizer. A recent meta-analysis [64] did not observe a soybean grain yield or composition improvement due to sulfur fertilization when exposed to drought stress. Soil organic matter can impact sulfur fertilization as the meta-analysis did observe a significant response when the soil organic matter levels were between 25 and 32 g kg−1.
Soybean does not require supplemental N fertilizer if Bradyrhizobium japonicum is present in the soil in sufficient numbers through residual bacteria populations or through inoculation of the seed. Soybean requires P and K; however, a yield or quality response will not necessarily result from application even if the soil test P and K analysis is identified as ‘low’. Foliar fertilizers have tended to provide little benefit to soybean yield or quality in previous trials [51]. Iron deficiency chlorosis is best managed by cultivar selection [55]. Liming soils is important to soybean production if the soil is too acidic (pH is less than 5.5) as nodulation is greatly reduced [4].

2. Materials and Methods

Prospective sites were screened each spring to establish experiments in one high pH (pH > 7.2), one low pH (pH < 6.2), and low Olsen P (P < 8 g kg−1). To screen, six cores were collected at the 0–15 cm and 15–60 cm depth by a 19 mm diameter hand probe. The cores were composited and sent to the North Dakota State University Soil Testing Laboratory, Fargo, ND for analysis (Table 1). pH was determined with a 1:1 soil:deionized water slurry [65] Soil nitrate was measured by the cadmium reduction method [66]. Sodium bicarbonate extractant (Olsen) was used to determine P [67]. Soil K levels were assessed by the NH4OAc method [46]. Zinc, iron, and copper were measured by DTPA extraction [68]. Sulfur was determined with a monocalcium phosphate extractant [69]. Soil salinity was assessed with a 1:1 soil:distilled water slurry [70]. Moisture of sugar beet waste lime (SBWL) was determined by comparing mass before and after a sample was oven dried for 24 h at 105 °C. Calcium carbonate equivalent was determined by hydrochloric acid dissolution [71].
The Noonan and Columbus site soil types were Williams loams (fine-loamy mixed superactive frigid Typic Argiustolls). The Minot site soil type was Aastad loams (fine-loamy mixed supractive frigid Pachic Argiudolls). The Riverdale site soil type was a Wilton silt loam (fine-silty mixed superactive frigid Pachic Haplustoll) [72]. Initial soil tests and site locations are shown on Table 1 and Figure 1 respectively. Soybean cultivars were chosen based on maturity (00 maturity or shorter) and IDC rating. Soybeans planted at the Columbus sites were rated IDC tolerant (Table 2) [4,73,74,75].
Experimental units were 3.04 m wide and 9.14 m long. Experimental sites were managed using best management practices as described by Kandel [3]. Soybeans were seeded at a rate of 370,500 pure live seeds ha−1 with a custom-built single disk opener cone plot planter. Planter row spacing was 16.8 cm. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with twelve treatments and four replications. The fertilizer treatments were: check, inoculation (Bradyrhizobium japonicum L.), hand applied urea (46-0-0) (55 kg ha−1), hand applied monammonium phosphate (11-52-0) (110 kg ha−1), hand applied waste sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris L.) lime (4400 and 8800 kg ha−1). Nutrient contents of fertilizer treatments and sugarbeet waste lime are reported in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. The urea was treated with N-(n-butyl)-thiophosphoric triamide (Agrotain Advance 1.0®) to reduce ammonia volatilization [77]. Waste sugarbeet lime treatments were applied only at the low pH Minot and Riverdale sites (Table 1) [4].
Ammonium polyphosphate (10-34-0), orthophosphate-polyphosphate (6-24-6), Fe ortho-ortho-EDDHA [78], and naked ortho-ortho-EDDHA [79] fertilizers were applied as a liquid in furrow at 7.1 L ha−1 (Table 4) The ortho-ortho-EDDHA treatments with and without Fe were applied only at the Columbus and Noonan sites (Table 2) [4]. Foliar treatments (Table 2 and Table 3) were applied with a hand boom sprayer at the V5 (@V5) and R2 (@R2) growth stage [80]. The foliar treatments were a mixture of anhydrous ammonia-phosphoric acid-potassium hydroxide based liquid fertilizer (3-18-18) and 3-18-18 with ammonium sulfate (+AMS) (1.1 kg ha−1) applied at a rate of (28 L ha−1). Sites 5 and 6 had an additional treatment of in-furrow cobalt-sulfate applied at a rate of 2.9 kg ha−1 [4].
Table 5. Mean and range of soybean grain yield of each site.
Table 5. Mean and range of soybean grain yield of each site.
SiteParameterYield
Mg ha−1p-ValueVariance
1Mean2.500.26970.05
Range2.04–3.19
2Mean2.070.86819.496
Range1.98–2.12
3Mean1.740.97126.823
Range1.50–1.86
4Mean1.860.6096.641
Range1.72–1.99
5Mean1.240.4008.827
Range1.07–1.39
6Mean1.460.5458.138
Range1.25–1.63
A lack of soil moisture was an issue during these experiments. Precipitation during the 2016, 2017, and 2018 growing seasons were below the long-term regional average [81,82,83]. The 2016 growing season was slightly warmer than the 30-year climatic mean [81]. Whereas, the 2017 and 2018 growing season temperatures were near normal [82,83].
Soybeans were harvested using a Kincaid 8-xp small plot combine [84] and cleaned by a vacuum-type seed cleaner [85] before yields, protein, and oil content were determined. Grain yield was determined by dividing the cleaned harvested seed mass by the plot area. Oil and protein content were measured using a DA 7200 NIR analyzer [86] and was corrected for 13% moisture. Individual site analysis of variance was performed using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS software version 9.4 [4,87].

3. Results

Means and ranges of soybean yield, oil content, and protein content at each environment are reported in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7, respectively. All treatments were determined to not be statistically significant at the 0.05 level on soybean grain yield, oil, and protein.

4. Discussion

The analysis of variance procedure determined that all fertilizer treatments across all environments did not impact soybean grain yield, protein content, and oil content at the 0.05 significance level (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). This agrees with several others [7,8,13,14,15,16,18,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,51,54,59,60,61,62,63,64].
However, the lack of precipitation could have impacted soybean yield and may have contributed to the lack of fertilizer response. Water stress shortens the period of seed fill which reduces grain yield [88] and can lessen protein and oil content Water stress tends to cause seed abortions and increase seed size. Proteins are more likely to accumulate in the larger source to sink ratio of fewer and larger seeds [89].
Adequate soil moisture is important to soybean production during the R1 to R6 growth stages [80] and leads to more complete pod development and seed-fill [90]. Rainfall in our experiments during the 2016, 2017, and 2018 growing seasons were below the long-term regional average [81,82,83] and less than the 406 mm required by a North Dakota soybean crop [91]. Additionally, rainfall was particularly low during the important R1 to R6 growth stages [80]. Ideal rainfall has been defined as approximately 70 mm at the R3 to R4 growth stages [92]. No-till cropping predominates Northwest and Northcentral North Dakota which reduces stress from dry soils and may thereby aid late season soybean water demands. No-till improves soil available water. Advantages of residue in no-till fields increases snowfall catch and diminishes evaporation [93]. No-till further improves dry soil conditions because water infiltration is greater than that under conventional tillage [94]. These factors increase soil profile moisture that can be used by soybean when dry surface soil conditions are present. Brun et al. [95] observed a 516 kg ha−1 yield advantage of no-till soybean over conventional till soybean. This was a result of 67.8 mm more soil water during the growing season [4].
Inoculum treatments did not impact soybean yield, oil, and protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The mean yield, oil, and protein content were 1770 kg ha−1, 335 g kg−1, and 155 g kg−1 respectively. Though not reported, various plants were pulled from the soil along experimental edges at various treatments and growth stages during the integrated pest management scouting portion of this project. All soybean plants observed appeared to have healthy and active nodules. Fields where soybean is a common crop grown within a rotation, will not likely benefit from the inoculum treatment [8]. This indicates the previous soybean crop grown within the past four years have effectively cultured northwest and northcentral North Dakota soils with rhizobia and the confirms with current North Dakota soybean fertilizer guidelines [1].
The urea treatment did not impact soybean yield, oil, and protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The mean yield, oil, and protein content were 1960 kg ha−1, 334 g kg−1, and 154 g kg−1 respectively. Positive nitrogen responses under dryland conditions have been found to be rare and offer little economic benefit [7]. Unless nitrogen is used as a rescue treatment [4].
Phosphorus treatments did not impact soybean yield, oil, and protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The range of yield, oil, and protein content for the 11-52-0, 10-34-0, and 6-24-6 treatments were 1823–1850 kg ha−1, 334–336 g kg−1, and 154–155 g kg−1 respectively. A yield response was expected from the P applications due to sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Olsen P soil tests (Table 1) were 8 ppm or less and are considered in the “low” fertility category [1].
Current North Dakota P2O5 recommendations suggest those sites should receive 11 to 60 kg ha−1 of P2O5 under the soil P conditions which were present at the sites [1]. The broadcast 11-52-0 treatment applied nearly met or exceeded the recommendation depending on the site. The row-placed starter P fertilizer treatments (Table 4) delivered fertilizer P at rates that were less than current P fertilizer recommendations [1]. Soybean has been reported as an efficient scavenger of soil P [43] which might explain the lack of a fertilizer P response in our experiments.
Regional research suggests that broadcast P fertilizer applications are superior to banded applications [42,96]. In-furrow P fertilizer applications can reduce and/or delay germination without negatively impacting yield [32,38,39]. The in-furrow 6-24-6 and 10-34-0 fertilizers did not impact yield and were less than the rate that resulted in stand/yield reduction others [39,42,96].
Sugar beet waste lime treatments did not impact soybean yield, oil, or protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The mean yield, oil, and protein content were 1873 kg ha−1, 351 g kg−1, and 151 g kg−1 respectively. Soil pH less than 5.5 has previously shown to reduce soybean nodulation [23] though all environments’ in this experiment had a soil pH was greater than 5.5. Soybean root observations indicate that the nodules were not impacted by the acidic environment.
Foliar fertilizers applied at the V5 and R2 growth stage [80] did not impact yield, protein, or oil content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The range of yield, oil, and protein content for the foliar treatments were 1748–1777 kg ha−1, 307–312 g kg−1, and 153–155 g kg−1 respectively. These data agree with Mallarion and Haq [36] and Haq and Mallarino [97] for the V5 growth stage timing and Haq and Mallarino [98] at the R2 growth stage. That foliar fertilizer research [36,97,98] occurred on soils where P and K were at sufficient or greater levels. However, our studies had Olsen P test values categorized in the “low” to “very low” (Table 1) range causing us to anticipate a positive response to foliar fertilizer [1].
Soygreen and Levesol treatments did not impact soybean grain yield, oil, or protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The mean Soygreen yield, oil, and protein content were 1683 kg ha−1, 320 g kg−1, and 157 g kg−1 respectively. Whereas the Levesol yield, oil, and protein content were 1778 kg ha−1, 320 g kg−1, and 156 g kg−1 respectively. The alkaline environments (Table 1) were chemically susceptible to IDC because CO32− were present [72]. Carbonates can neutralize acids secreted by soybean roots that aid in the reduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+ [56]. Excessive moisture can increase IDC by solubilizing more acid neutralizing CO32− [99]. During these experiments, soil moisture was not excessive [82,83,84]. Soil pH was less than 8 (Table 1) where IDC is more likely to occur [100]. Additionally, soybean cultivars that were determined to be IDC tolerant [74,75,76] were planted in the alkaline sites, which would decrease the potential for IDC impairing soybean growth [55].
The cobalt treatment was added in year three of this experiment to sites 5 and 6. Cobalt did not impact soybean yield, oil, or protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The mean yield, oil, and protein content were 1345 kg ha−1, 334 g kg−1, and 160 g kg−1 respectively. Cobalt was applied to serve as a vitamin for the rhizobia and assist with the synthesis of leg-hemoglobin needed for nitrogen fixation [24]. Greenhouse experiments have shown a positive impact from small amounts (50 mg Co kg−1 soil treatment) of cobalt [25].
The mean yield, oil, and protein content of the untreated check was 1770 kg ha−1, 335 g kg−1, and 155 g kg−1 respectively. Though no significant statistical difference was observed, the untreated check was the ninth highest yield, sixth greatest oil content, and fifth highest protein content.

5. Conclusions

Soybean acres have greatly increased in northcentral and northwestern North Dakota [2] resulting in a need for modern regional soybean fertility research to serve this area. These experiments did not observe a positive nor negative yield, protein, or oil content response (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7) from any of the fifteen fertilizer treatments over six site years in the relatively cool and semi-arid climate of northwest and northcentral North Dakota [4].
  • Soil water content was likely the biggest factor affecting soybean yield in these experiments.
  • Fields that have had soybeans within the past four years, are unlikely to show a yield response from an inoculation treatment (Table 5).
  • Phosphorus applications will likely not cause a positive yield response in soils that have Olsen P values now considered in the ‘low’ and ‘medium’ categories (Table 5). However, P fertilization of soybean may result in an increase or maintenance of soil P levels for crops within the rotation that are more sensitive to low soil P, such as small grains or corn. With the lack of fertilizer P response, future research should identify locations with very low P values (2–3 ppm Olsen P) and establish a rate response for soybean and the soil test value where P fertilization is unlikely to be profitable.
  • Lime application on soils with pH as low as 5.7 had no positive affect on yield.
  • ad no positive affect on yield. H 5.7 to 6.5ive to low soil P, such as small grains or cornan 2018 with treatment. Use of Fe-EDDHA fertilizer had no effect on soybean yield in an environment that might be considered susceptible to IDC. However, “IDC tolerant” varieties were planted.
  • Use of foliar fertilization at V5 or R2 did not impact soybean yield or quality at any site.
  • This data suggests that foliar fertilization, starter P application, N application, inoculation on land previously grown to soybean with successful nodulation in northwest and northcentral North Dakota is not cost effective. Also, critical levels for P fertilization are could be 6 ppm or less, and critical levels for consideration of lime application are <5.7 [4].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.W.F.; methodology, D.W.F.; software, C.L.A.; validation, C.L.A.; formal analysis, C.L.A.; investigation, C.L.A.; resources, D.W.F.; data curation, C.L.A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.L.A.; writing—review and editing, C.L.A.; visualization, C.L.A.; supervision, D.W.F.; project administration, D.W.F.; funding acquisition, D.W.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the North Dakota Soybean Council.

Data Availability Statement

Data for this research can be found in “FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF SOYBEAN (GLYCINE MAX L. MERRILL) IN NORTHCENTRAL AND NORTHERN NORTH DAKOTA” by C.L. Augustin North Dakota State University 2020 Ph.D. dissertation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Franzen, D.W. Soybean Soil Fertility SF1164; North Dakota State University Extension Service: Fargo, ND, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jantzi, D.; Hagemeister, K.; Krupich, B. North Dakota Agricultural Statistics 2018 Ag Statistics No. 87 August 2018 [Online]; U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture. Statistics Service. Northern Plains Regions N.D. Field Office: Fargo, ND, USA, 2018. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/North_Dakota/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2018/NDAnnual-Bulletin18.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  3. Kandel, H. Soybean Production Field Guide for North Dakota and Northwestern Minnesota A1172; North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Service, North Dakota State Climate Office, North Dakota State University: Fargo, ND, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Augustin, C.L. Fertilizer Management Strategies of Soybean (Glycine Max L.). Ph.D. Thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gage, D.J. Infection and invasion of roots by symbiotic, nitrogen-fixing rhizobia during nodulation of temperate legumes. Microbio. Molec. Bio. Rev. 2004, 68, 280–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Weber, C.R. Nodulating and nonnodulating soybean isolines: I agronomic and chemical attributes. Agron. J. 1966, 58, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mourtzinis, S.; Kaur, G.; Orlowski, J.M.; Shapiro, C.A.; Lee, C.D.; Wortmann, C.; Holshouser, D.; Nafziger, E.D.; Kandel, H.; Niekamp, J.; et al. Soybean response to nitrogen application across the United States: A synthesis-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2018, 215, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Popp, M.P.; Purcell, L.C.; Ross, W.J.; Norsworthy, J.S. Profitability of using nitrogen fertilizer or inoculating soybean seed. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 2020, 3, e20115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kandel, H. Soybean Production Field Guide for North Dakota and Northwestern Minnesota A-1172; North Dakota State University Extension Service: Fargo, ND, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fleury, D. Pulse Nodulation—What Is Needed for Best Results? Saskatchewan Pulse Growers: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2017; [Online]; Available online: https://saskpulse.com/files/newsletters/170423_Pulse_Nodulation.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2019).
  11. Forster, S. 2015 BASF Soybean Double Inoculation Trial in a Long Term Crop Rotation. In Comprehensive 2015 Annual Research Report; North Dakota State University North Central Research Extension Center: Minot, ND, USA, 2015; p. 76. [Google Scholar]
  12. Manitoba Pulse Soybean Growers. Soybean Fertility Fact Sheet [Online]; Manitoba Pulse Soybean Growers: Carman, MB, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.manitobapulse.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Soybean-Fertility-FactSheet-April-2017_WR.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2019).
  13. Endres, G.; Ostlie, M.; Indergaard, T. Seed inoculation strategies on fields with prior soybean production. In A Report of Agricultural Research and Extension in Central North Dakota; North Dakota State University Carrington Research Extension Center: Carrington, ND, USA, 2018; pp. 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  14. Henson, B. Soybean Inoculation Trial. In Carrington Research Extension Center 2003 Annual Report; North Dakota State University Carrington Research Extension Center: Carrington, ND, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lamb, J.A.; Rehm, G.W.; Severson, R.K.; Cymbaluk, T.E. Impact of inoculation and use of fertilizer nitrogen on soybean production where growing seasons are short. J. Prod. Agric. 1990, 3, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Voight, D.G., Jr. Soybean Good Inoculation Practices [Online]; Penn State Extension: State College, PA, USA, 2018; Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/soybean-good-inoculation-practices-gip (accessed on 19 July 2019).
  17. Afza, R.; Hardarson, G.; Zapata, F.; Danso, S.K.A. Effects of delayed soil and foliar N fertilization on yield and N2 fixation of soybean. Plant Soil. 1987, 97, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barker, D.W.; Sawyer, J.E. Nitrogen application to soybean at early reproductive development. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 615–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Garcia, R.L.; Hanway, J.J. Foliar fertilization of soybeans during the seed-filling period. Agron. J. 1976, 68, 653–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schmitt, M.A.; Lamb, J.A.; Randall, G.W.; Orf, J.H.; Rehm, G.W. In-season fertilizer nitrogen application for soybean in Minnesota. Agron. J. 2001, 193, 983–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wesley, T.L.; Lamond, R.E.; Martin, V.L.; Duncan, S.R. Effects of late-season nitrogen fertilizer on irrigated soybean yield and composition. J. Prod. Agric. 1998, 11, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W. A review of the use of the basic cation saturation ratio and the “ideal” soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seraj, R.; Sinclair, T.R.; Purcell, L.C. Symbiotic N2 fixation response to drought. J. Exp. Bot. 1999, 50, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yadav, D.V.; Khanna, S.S. Role of cobalt in nitrogen fixation: A review. Agric. Rev. 1988, 9, 180–182. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jayakumar, K.; Jaleel, C.A. Uptake and accumulation of cobalt in plants: A study based on exogenous cobalt in soybean. Bot. Res. Inter. 2009, 2, 310–314. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sims, J.L. Molybdenum and cobalt. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods-SSSA Book Series No. 5; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 723–737. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jarvis, S.C. The association of cobalt with easily reducible manganese in some acidic permanent grassland soils. J. Soil. Sci. 1984, 35, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Franzen, D.W.; Gerwing, J. Effectiveness of Using Low Rate of Plant Nutrients, North Central Regional Research Publication No. 341 [Online]; N.D.S.U. Ext. Service: Fargo, ND, USA, 1997; Available online: http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/info/LowRatePlantNutrients.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  29. Scott, W.O.; Aldrich, A.R. Modern Soybean Production; S & A Publication, Inc.: Champaign, IL, USA, 1983; pp. 45–82. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kumudini, S.; Hume, D.J.; Chu, G. Genetic improvement in short season soybeans: I. dry matter accumulation partitioning, and leaf area duration. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kovács, S.P.; Casteel, S.N. Changes in P uptake and partitioning in soybean cultivars released in the last 90 years. In Proceedings of the North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility Conference, Des Moines, IA, USA, 19–20 November 2014; Volume 30, pp. 148–153. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bardella, G.R. Phosphorus Management Practices for Soybean Production in Manitoba. Master’s Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cihacek, L.J.; Lizotte, D.A.; Carcoana, R. Phosphorus placement for soybean production in reduced tillage systems. North Dak. Farm Res. 1991, 49, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lauzon, J.D.; Miller, M.H. Comparative response of corn and soybean to seed-placed phosphorus over a range of soil test phosphorus. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1997, 28, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mallarino, A.P.; Borges, R. Grain yield, early growth, and nutrient uptake of no-till soybean as affected by phosphorus and potassium placement. Agron. J. 2000, 92, 380–388. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mallarino, A.P.; Haq, U.M. Response of soybean grain oil and protein concentrations to foliar and soil fertilization. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 910–918. [Google Scholar]
  37. Slaton, N.A.; DeLong, R.E.; Shafer, J.; Clark, S.; Golden, B.R. Soybean response to phosphorus and potassium fertilization rate and time. In Sabbe Arkansas Soil Fertility Studies 2010; Slaton, N.A., Wayne, E., Eds.; University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series: Fayetteville, Arkansas, 2010; Volume 588, pp. 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rehm, G.W.; Lamb, J. Soybean response to fluid fertilizers placed near the seed at planting. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 2223–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schatz, B.G. Influence of starter fertilizer on soybean performance. In Carrington Research Extension Center Annual Report 2005; North Dakota State University-Carrington Research Extension Center: Carrington, ND, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  40. Endres, G.; Hendrickson, P. Soybean Response to 10-34-0 Placement and Rates, Carrington Research Extension Center 2008 Annual Report; North Dakota State University-Carrington Research Extension Center: Carrington, ND, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bullen, C.W.; Soper, R.J.; Bailey, L.D. Phosphorus nutrition of soybeans as affected by placement of fertilizer phosphorus. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1983, 63, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Buah, S.S.J.; Polito, A.; Killorn, R. No-tillage soybean response to banded and broadcast and direct and residual fertilizer phosphorus and potassium applications. Agron. J. 2000, 92, 657–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kalra, Y.P.; Soper, R.J. Efficiency of rape, oats, soybeans, and flax absorbing soil and fertilizer phosphorus at seven stages of growth. Agron. J. 1968, 60, 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kochian, L.V. Molecular physiology of mineral nutrient acquisition, transport, and utilization. In Biochemistry; American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB): Rockville, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 1204–1249. [Google Scholar]
  45. Warncke, D.; Brown, J.R. Potassium and other basic cations. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 7.1–7.3. [Google Scholar]
  46. Breker, J.S. Recalibration of Soil Potassium Test for Corn in North Dakota. Master’s Thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bourns, M.; Flaten, D.; Heard, J.; Bartley, G. 4R potassium management for soybean production in Manitoba–is it A-OK? In Proceedings of the Manitoba Soil Science Society 62nd Annual Meeting, Winnipeg, MB, USA, 7–8 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  48. Helmke, P.A.; Sparks, D.L. Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, and Cesium. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical Methods-SSSA Book Series No 5; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 551–574. [Google Scholar]
  49. Franzen, D.W.; Bu, H. North Dakota Clay Mineralogy Impacts Crop Potassium Nutrition and Tillage Systems SF1881; North Dakota State University Extension: Fargo, ND, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mallarino, A.P.; Haq, M.U.; Wittry, D.; Bermudez, M. Variation in soybean response to early season foliar fertilization among and within fields. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1220–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Matcham, E.G.; Wann, R.A.; Lendey, L.E.; Gaska, J.M.; Lilley, D.T.; Ross, W.J.; Wrights, D.L.; Knott, C.; Lee, C.D.; Moseley, D.; et al. Foliar fertilizers rarely increase yield in United States soybean. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 5245–5253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zocchi, G.; Nisi, P.D.; Dell’Orto, M.; Espen, L.; Gallina, P.M. Iron deficiency differently affects metabolic responses in soybean roots. J. Exper. Bot. 2007, 58, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Anderson, W.B. Diagnosis and correction of iron deficiency in field crops—An overview. J. Plant Nutr. 1982, 5, 785–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lucena, J.J. Fe chelates for remediation of Fe chlorosis in strategy I plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2003, 26, 1969–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Helms, T.C.; Scott, R.A.; Schapaugh, W.T.; Goos, R.J.; Franzen, D.W.; Schlegel, A.J. Soybean iron-chlorosis tolerance and yield decrease on calcareous soils. Agron. J. 2010, 102, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kaiser, D.E.; Lamb, J.A.; Bloom, P.R.; Hernandez, J.A. Comparison of field management strategies for preventing iron deficiency chlorosis in soybean. Soil Fert. Crop Nutri. 2014, 106, 1963–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Goos, R.J.; Johnson, B.; Jackson, G.; Hargrove, G. Greenhouse evaluation of controlled-release iron fertilizers for soybean. J. Plant Nutr. 2004, 27, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schenkeveld, W.D.C.; Dijcker, R.; Reichwein, A.M.; Temminghoff, E.J.M.; van Reimsdijk, W.H. The effectiveness of soil-applied FeEDDHA treatments in preventing iron chlorosis in soybean as a function of the o,o-FeEDDHA content. Plant Soil. 2008, 303, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mallarino, A.P.; Camberato, J.J.; Kaiser, D.E.; Laboski, C.A.M.; Ruiz-Diaz, D.A.; Vyn, T.J. Micronutrients fertilization for corn and soybean:A research update. In Proceedings of the 45th North Central Extension-Industry Soil Fertility Conference, Des Moines, IA, USA, 4–5 November 2015; pp. 44–57. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sutrahar, A.K.; Kaiser, D.E.; Behnken, L.M. Soybean response to broadcast application of boron, chlorine, manganese, and zinc. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1048–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Augustin, C.L. Soybean response to micro-nutrient. In 2017 Annual Research Report No. 35; North Dakota State University, North Central Research Extension Center: Minot, ND, USA, 2017; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
  62. Endres, G.; Indergaard, T.; Ostlie, M.; Gerhardt, S.; Shaunaman, C. Soybean response to sulfur, Wishek 2018. In Carrington Research Extension Center 2018 Annual Report; North Dakota State University-Carrington Research Extension Center: Carrington, ND, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kaiser, D.E.; Kim, K.I. Soybean response to sulfur fertilizer applied as a broadcast or starter using replicated strip trials. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. De Borja Reia, A.F.; Rosso, L.H.M.; Davidson, D.; Kovacs, P.; Purcell, L.C.; Below, F.E.; Casteel, S.N.; Knott, C.; Kandel, H.; Naeve, S.L.; et al. Sulfur fertilization in soybean: A meta-analysis on yield on seed composition. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 127, 126285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Peters, J.B.; Nathan, M.V.; Laboski, C.A.M. pH and lime requirement. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 4.1–4.7. [Google Scholar]
  66. Gelderman, R.H.; Beegle, D. Nitrate-nitrogen. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 5.1–5.4. [Google Scholar]
  67. Frank, K.; Beehle, D.; Denning, J. Phosphorus. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 6.1–6.9. [Google Scholar]
  68. Whitney, D.A. Micronutrients: Zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. In Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 9.1–9.4. [Google Scholar]
  69. Franzen, D.W. Sulfate-sulfur. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 8.1–8.6. [Google Scholar]
  70. Whitney, D.A. Soil salinity. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region; North Central Regional Research Pub. No. 221 (Revised); Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station: Columbia, MO, USA, 2015; pp. 13.1–13.2. [Google Scholar]
  71. Loeppert, R.H.; Duarez, D.L. Carbonate and gypsum. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods-SSSA Book Series No. 5; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 437–474. [Google Scholar]
  72. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey [Online]; U.S. Dept. Ag.: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  73. Kandel, H.; Helms, T.; Markell, S.; Ostlie, M.; Schatz, B.; Endres, G.; Aberle, E.; Indergaard, T.; VandeHoven, C.; Zwinger, S.; et al. North Dakota Soybean Variety Trial Results for 2017 and Selection Guide A843-17; North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Service, North Dakota State Univ. North Dakota Ag. Experiment Station: Fargo, ND, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kandel, H.; Helms, T.; Markell, S.; Ostlie, M.; Schatz, B.; Endres, G.; Aberle, E.; Indergaard, T.; Zwinger, S.; Nielsen, J.; et al. North Dakota Soybean Variety Trial Results for 2016 and Selection Guide A843-16; North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Service, North Dakota State Univ. North Dakota Ag. Experiment Station: Fargo, ND, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kandel, H.; Helms, T.; Markell, S.; Ostlie, M.; Schatz, B.; Aberle, E.; Indergaard, T.; Zwinger, S.; Nielsen, J.; Schaubert, S.; et al. North Dakota Soybean Variety Trial Results for 2015 and Selection Guide A843-15; North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Service, North Dakota State Univ. North Dakota Ag. Experiment Station: Fargo, ND, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  76. Google Incorporated. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.3.6.9750; Google Incorporated: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  77. Koch Agronomic Services. Agrotain Advanced 1.0®; Koch Agronomic Services: Wichita, KS, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  78. West Central Inc. Soygreen®; West Central Inc.: Wilmar, MN, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  79. West Central Inc. Levesol®; West Central Inc.: Wilmar, MN, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  80. Fehr, W.R.; Caviness, C.E. Stages of Soybean Development; Spec. Rep. 80. Iowa State Univ. Ext. Serv.: Ames, IA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  81. Akyuz, A. North Dakota Climate Bulletin Summer 2016 [Online]; North Dakota State Climate Office, North Dakota State University: Fargo, ND, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.ndsu.edu/ndsco/climatesummaries/quarterlyclimatebulletin/2016/ (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  82. Akyuz, A. North Dakota Climate Bulletin Summer 2017 [Online]; North Dakota State Climate Office, North Dakota State University: Fargo, ND, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.ndsu.edu/ndsco/climatesummaries/quarterlyclimatebulletin/2017/ (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  83. Akyuz, A. North Dakota Climate Bulletin Summer 2018 [Online]; North Dakota State Climate Office, North Dakota State University: Fargo, ND, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.ndsu.edu/ndsco/climatesummaries/quarterlyclimatebulletin/2018/ (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  84. Kindaid Equipment Manufacturing. Kincaid 8-XP; Kindaid Equipment Manufacturing: Haven, KS, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  85. SeedTech Systems, LLC. Stratified Air Vacuum STS-MW; SeedTech Systems, LLC: Wilton, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  86. Perten Instruments Incorporated. DA 7200 NIR Analyzer; Perten Instruments Incorporated: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  87. SAS Institute Incorporated. Statistical Analysis Software, Version 9.4.; SAS Institute Incorporated: Cary, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  88. Meckel, L.; Egli, D.B.; Phillips, R.E.; Radcliffe, D.; Leggett, J.E. Effect of moisture stress on seed growth in soybeans. Agron. J. 1984, 76, 647–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rotundo, J.L.; Westgate, M.E. Meta-analysis of environmental effects on soybean seed composition. Field Crops Res. 2009, 110, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Klocke, N.L.; Eisenhauer, D.E.; Spect, J.E.; Elmore, R.W.; Hergert, G.W. Irrigation soybeans by growth stages in Nebraska. Biolog. Syst. Eng Pap. Pub. 1989, 5, 361–366. [Google Scholar]
  91. Bauder, J.W.; Ennen, M.J. Water use of field crops in eastern North Dakota. North Dak. Farm Res. 1981, 38, 3–5. [Google Scholar]
  92. Kadhem, F.A.; Specht, J.E.; Williams, J.H. Soybean irrigation serially timed during stages R1 to R6. I. agronomic responses. Agon. J. 1985, 77, 291–298. [Google Scholar]
  93. Deibert, E.J.; French, E.; Hoag, B. Water storage and use by spring wheat under conventional tillage and no-till in continuous and alternate crop-fallow systems in the northern Great Plains. J. Soil Water Cons. 1986, 41, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  94. Dick, W.A.; Roseberg, R.J.; McCoy, E.L.; Edwards, W.M.; Haghiri, F. Surface hydrologic response of soils to no-tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1989, 53, 1520–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Brun, L.J.; Enz, J.W.; Larsen, J.K. Water use by soybeans in stubble and on bare soil. North Dak. Farm Res. 1985, 42, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  96. Edwards, C.L. Evaluation of Long-Term Phosphorus Fertilizer Placement, Rate, and Source, and Research in the U.S. Midwest. Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  97. Haq, M.U.; Mallarino, A.P. Soybean yield and nutrient composition as affected by early season foliar fertilization. Agron. J. 2000, 92, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Haq, M.U.; Mallarino, A.P. Foliar fertilization of soybean at early vegetative stages. Agronomy Journal 1998, 90, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bloom, P.R.; Rehm, G.W.; Lamb, J.A.; Scobbie, A.J. Soil nitrate is a causative factor in iron deficiency chlorosis in soybeans. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 2233–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hansen, N.C.; Schmitt, M.A.; Anderson, J.E.; Strock, J.S. Iron deficiency of soybean in the upper Midwest and associated soil properties. Agron. J. 2003, 95, 1595–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 00545 g001
Figure 1. Map of experimental locations with in North Dakota, U.S.A [76].
Figure 1. Map of experimental locations with in North Dakota, U.S.A [76].
Agronomy 14 00545 g001
Table 1. Location and soil nutrient levels of experiment sites.
Table 1. Location and soil nutrient levels of experiment sites.
SiteLocationYearNO3-NPKZnFeE.C. *pH
0–15 cm Depth15–60 cm Depth0–15 cm Depth
Latitude,
Longitude		 kg ha−1g kg−1dS m−1
1Minot48.179167° N, 101.316367° W201683083160.29480.476.2
2Columbus48.795444° N, 102.853044° W2016307362240.29110.357.6
3Columbus48.8891° N, 102.8701° W2017274352760.4870.27.2
4Riverdale47.5018° N, 101.2781° W2017304072230.69560.315.8
5Minot48.169111° N, 101.316320° W201817773151.01540.285.8
6Noonan48.866667° N, 103.114722° W20182040143380.67140.467.3
* Electrical conductivity (E.C.) was determined by 1:1 soil to water dilution.
Table 2. Soybean cultivar, cultivar source, and dates of planting, foliar fertilizer applications, and harvest.
Table 2. Soybean cultivar, cultivar source, and dates of planting, foliar fertilizer applications, and harvest.
SiteSeed Company *Soybean CultivarPlantingV5 Fertilizer ApplicationR2 Fertilizer ApplicationHarvest
Date
1Pr20–3029 May 20168 July 201628 July 201625 September 2016
2NSGNS0081NR230 May 20168 July 201627 July 201623 September 2016
3L009R2022 May 20176 July 20174 August 201729 September 2017
4HH009R324 May 20178 July 20175 August 20171 October 2017
5NDSUND17009GT25 May 20183 July 201819 July 20186 October 2018
6Pe17x00924 May 20183 July 201818 July 201826 September 2018
* Seed company: Pr, Proseed; NSG, North Star Genetics; L, Legend; H, Hefty; NDSU, North Dakota State University; Pe, Peterson.
Table 3. Amount and types of nutrients applied by treatment.
Table 3. Amount and types of nutrients applied by treatment.
TreatmentRateNP2O5K2OSFeCo
kg ha−1
46-0-056 kg ha−125.4-----
11-52-0112 kg ha−112.157.3----
10-34-028 L ha−13.913.1----
6-24-628 L ha−12.28.92.2---
Beet lime *4000 kg ha−112.844.34.4-15.1-
Beet lime *8000 kg ha−125.588.68.8-30.2-
Foliar 3-18-1828 L ha−11.277---
Foliar 3-18-18 +AMS28 L ha−1 + 1.1 kg ha−12.17.771.1--
Soygreen7.1 L ha−1----0.5-
Levesol7.1 L ha−10.1-----
Cobalt2.9 kg ha−1---1.8-1.1
* Nutrients reported are based off of three year mean (Table 5).
Table 4. Nutrient tests of beet lime.
Table 4. Nutrient tests of beet lime.
YearpHEC *Nitrate–NPKZnFeCuMnMoistureCCE **
dS m−1g kg−1
20167.82.230006400130027212810123200550
20178.12.3263836795201104500136340270610
20188.31.73032306566035365017143350730
Mean8.02.12890438182757342654202270630
* Electrical conductivity (E.C.) was determined by 1:1 soil to water dilution; ** Calcium carbonate equivalent.
Table 6. Mean and range of soybean grain oil content of each site.
Table 6. Mean and range of soybean grain oil content of each site.
SiteParameterOil
%p-ValueVariance
1Mean14.80.4390.134
Range14.6–15.2
2Mean14.80.5020.125
Range14.4–14.9
3Mean15.80.6770.106
Range15.6–16.1
4Mean14.70.9750.485
Range14.4–14.9
5Mean160.2760.165
Range15.8–16.5
6Mean16.30.1480.509
Range16.0–16.6
Table 7. Mean and range of soybean grain protein content of each site.
Table 7. Mean and range of soybean grain protein content of each site.
SiteParameterProtein
%p-ValueVariance
1Mean34.50.3360.387
Range33.9–34.9
2Mean33.60.6750.338
Range33.2–34.0
3Mean31.70.1700.373
Range31.0–32.2
4Mean34.90.8880.158
Range34.6–35.2
5Mean350.2810.991
Range33.7–35.7
6Mean31.40.4710.821
Range30.7–31.8
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Augustin, C.L.; Franzen, D.W. Fertilizer Management Strategies of Glycine max L. (Soybean) in Northcentral and North-Western North Dakota. Agronomy 2024, 14, 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030545

AMA Style

Augustin CL, Franzen DW. Fertilizer Management Strategies of Glycine max L. (Soybean) in Northcentral and North-Western North Dakota. Agronomy. 2024; 14(3):545. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030545

Chicago/Turabian Style

Augustin, Christopher Lee, and David W. Franzen. 2024. "Fertilizer Management Strategies of Glycine max L. (Soybean) in Northcentral and North-Western North Dakota" Agronomy 14, no. 3: 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030545

APA Style

Augustin, C. L., & Franzen, D. W. (2024). Fertilizer Management Strategies of Glycine max L. (Soybean) in Northcentral and North-Western North Dakota. Agronomy, 14(3), 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030545

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop