Next Article in Journal
Effects of Knotweed-Enriched Feed on the Blood Characteristics and Fitness of Horses
Previous Article in Journal
Wild Plant Habitat Characterization in the Last Two Decades in the Nile Delta Coastal Region of Egypt
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/agriculture12010110
agriculture-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

The Effect of Mineral N Fertilization and Bradyrhizobium japonicum Seed Inoculation on Productivity of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill)

by
Jerzy Księżak
and
Jolanta Bojarszczuk
*
Department of Forage Crop Production, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation—State Research Institute, Czartoryskich 8 Str., 24-100 Puławy, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(1), 110; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010110
Submission received: 10 December 2021 / Revised: 5 January 2022 / Accepted: 11 January 2022 / Published: 13 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soybean yields can be considerably improved by inoculation with selected Bradyrhizobium japonicum strains and fertilization. The aim of this study was to assess the productivity of two soybean cultivars depending on the applied N mineral fertilizers and seed inoculation with B. japonicum. The study showed that on average, for both cultivars, the soybean yield was most favorably affected by the combined use of inoculation and nitrogen fertilization (increase in seed yield by 42%, protein yield by about 28%). The application of mineral nitrogen at the dose of 30 or 60 kg·ha−1 allowed the increase in the seed yield by about 17% and protein content by about 14% compared to the control. Inoculation of soybean seeds with B. japonicum increased the yield of soybeans by about 20%, proteins by about 10% compared to the control, and inoculation of Hi®Stick Soy favored a better yield than Nitragina. Inoculation of seeds with Nitragina or Hi®Stick Soy and fertilization with mineral nitrogen increased the content of protein and fiber in seeds of both soybean cultivars, as well as reduced the amount of ash and fat. The seeds of cv. Aldana had a higher amount of protein and ash than cv. Annushka, but a similar amount of fat and fiber.

1. Introduction

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is an important legume cultivated worldwide and due to the high biological value of protein it is considered the most important protein plant in the world [1,2,3]. Global soybean production in 2020 was reported to be 361 million tones [4]. Soybean covers about 29% of the world supply of consumer vegetable oil [5]. Oil and protein are the two major seed compositions that give soybean the potentiality for use in various applications [6,7]. The soybean seed contains 40–42% of protein and 18–22% of oil [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Moreover, soybean consists of carbohydrate, potassium, and sodium [6].
Soybean is a host for N2, which is a fixing bacteria representing the Rhizobium group, and they can obtain up to 50% or more of their N needs through BNF [14,15,16,17,18]. The key bacteria species that are used as soybean inoculants are B. japonicum and B. elkanii [19]. Soybean inoculation is usually conducted by coating the seeds with bacteria cells before sowing [20]. Bradyrhizobium strains remain in areas with previous soybean cropping. In addition, the inoculation benefits may be influenced by the size of the population of soil bacteria that are capable of nodulating soybean, including naturalized strains [17,21,22]. Therefore, re-inoculation is recommended as it can result in increases in grain yield of soybean exceeding 10%, even in soils with high populations of soybean bradyrhizobia [23]. A few of the studies indicated that legume seed inoculation is a profitable practice providing financial benefits [24]. BNF made by the Bradyrhizobium genus decreased costs of production and promoted more sustainable soybean yields. This is possible due to the fact that BNF sufficiently contributes to a high soybean production, in addition to replacing the N mineral fertilization [15,16,25]. Although the relevance of biological N nutrition of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is recognized worldwide, inoculation with B. japonicum shows variable results and the benefit needs to be validated under current crop production practices.
The aim of this study was to assess the productivity of two soybean cultivars depending on the applied N doses of mineral fertilizers and seed inoculation with B. japonicum.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment and Cultivation Management

A two-factor factorial field experiment was carried out in the years 2017-2018 in split-plot design on a Luvisol soil with sandy loam texture classes [26] in four replications at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Grabów [51°21′18″ N; 21°40′09″ E] (Masovian Voivodeship, Poland) belonging to the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation—State Research Institute in Puławy. The first experimental factor was soybean cultivar: Aldana (000) early cultivar from the Polish breeding, and a very early one from the Ukrainian breeding, cv. Annushka (0000). The second factor was: The nitrogen fertilization dose (N·ha−1): 1—control—0 kg; 2—30 kg; 3—60 kg; 4—Hi®Stick + 0 kg; 5—Nitragina IUNG Puławy + 0 kg; 6—30 kg + Nitragina IUNG Puławy; 7—60 kg + Nitragina IUNG Puławy; 8—30 kg + Hi®Stick Soy; 9—60 kg + Hi®Stick Soy. Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) was used.
Seed material was inoculated with two inoculants—domestic Nitragina (IUNG-PIB, PL) or foreign HiStick® Soy (BASF Agricultural Specialities Limited, GB). Both Nitragina and HiStick® Soy contain B. japonicum strains specific for soybean, in which peat is a carrier. Both cultivars were fertilized with mineral N in doses: 0, 30, and 60 kg·ha−1 before planting by mixing with surface soil.
The plots for sowing were 36 m2 in size and 32.3 m2 for harvesting. At the beginning of the trial, at a depth of 0–25 cm, the soil layer contained phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg): 10.2–12.0; 13.6–19.8; 4.2–6.0 (mg∙100 kg−1 soil), respectively. The mineral N content in the profile of 0–60 cm was 50–55 kg·ha−1. The soil pH was 5.6–6.4 (measured in 1 M of potassium chloride (KCl)). Phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) fertilization was applied in doses of 50 and 90 kg·ha−1, respectively. The forecrop was winter wheat.
Seeds were sown in row spacing of 24 cm, sowing rate of 80 germinating seeds per m2, and the sowing depth of 3–4 cm. Both cultivars were sown on 9 May 2017 and 25 April 2018.
Directly after sowing, Stomp 330 EC [3.5 L·ha−1] was applied into the soil, and after emergence, Corum 502.4 SL [1.25 L·ha−1] by KFMR Krukowiak sprayer was used to control the annual weeds.
Plants were harvested at the full maturity stage (R8) of soybean in the second 10 days of September.

2.2. Data Collection

Before harvesting, after reaching full maturity, the seed yield was determined, as well as the most important morphological traits of 10 plants and structural components of soybean yield: number of pods, number and weight of seeds per plant, number of seeds per nod. Moreover, the number and fresh weight of root nodules per plant and the plant height and the first pod height were determined. After harvesting, the seed yield, seed humidity, and 1000 seed weight (in 14% of moisture) were determined.

2.3. Chemical Analysis of Soybean Seeds

The N content (nitrogen %) in the dry weight of seeds (DWS) was determined by the flow analysis (FA) and spectrometric detection, the total protein by the Kjeldahl distillation method after mineralization in sulfuric acid, as well as the fat and ash content by the Soxhlet method.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically analyzed with the use of the variance analysis using Statistica v.10.0 software (StatSoft, Kraków, Poland). Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to compare the differences between the means for the cropping method, while confidence intervals for the means of LSD (α = 0.05) were used.

2.5. Weather Conditions

In both years of the study, the total sum of precipitation was similar in the vegetation season, but it was less by about 30 mm than the mean from the long-term average. In 2017, at the end of the second 10 days of April, strong cooling has occurred which delayed the sowing of soybean (sowing was in the first 10 days of May) (Figure 1). At the beginning of the third 10 days of April and the first 10 days of May, the high amount of precipitation was noted (exceeded by 77% of the long-term average), which made it difficult to make the mechanical treatment in the field of soybean crop. In June and in the first 10 days of July, a small amount of rainfall was recorded, compared to the long-term average, which had an unfavorable effect on the development of soybean crop. In the first 10 days of August, there were very small amounts of rainfall (0.9 mm), which caused premature soybean maturity. In 2018, the amount of precipitation in May and July exceeded the average from multi-years by 70.9 and 41.1%, respectively, which favored the yielding of soybean.

3. Results

The application of N mineral fertilizers and seed inoculation by B. japonicum or both the inoculation and N mineral fertilization and course of weather conditions during the growing season significantly affected the yielding of tested soybean cultivar.
In both years of the study, the amount of rainfall during the growing season was similar, but the delayed sowing date and the low amount of rainfall in June and the first 10 days of July in 2017 resulted in that the seed yield this year was lower by 35%, and the protein yield by about 39% than in 2018 (Table 1). On average, during both years of the study, for both cultivars, the N use at a dose of 30 or 60 kg·ha−1 increased the seed yield in relation to non-fertilized plants by about 17%, and protein by about 14%. The use of seed inoculation with Nitragina or Hi®Stick Soy, containing bacteria that increase the production of nodules on the soybean root system, positively influenced the level of soybean yielding, and the difference in the seed yield in relation to the control was about 20%, and the increase in protein yield was lower and amounted to about 10%. A more beneficial effect of increasing the N dose from 30 to 60 kg·ha−1 and the Hi®Stick Soy than the Nitragina on the soybean yield was also observed. The combined application of inoculation and nitrogen fertilization most favorably increased the seed yields in relation to the control by an average of 42%, and proteins by about 28%. The evaluated cultivars Aldana and Annushka yielded at a similar level in agroecological conditions. Moreover, during all the years of the study, the seeds of both cultivars were characterized by similar humidity during harvesting, regardless of the tested factors.
The favorable distribution of rainfall in 2018 significantly affected the growth and development of soybean, and the plants were characterized by a more favorable structure, which also resulted in a higher yield level. Soybean plants in cultivation with seed inoculation and different nitrogen fertilization rates were characterized by larger seeds, and set more pods and seeds on the plant than plants without fertilization and inoculation (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). In both years of the study, the Annushka cultivar was characterized by a greater number of pods and seeds, as well as weight per plant, but less 1000 seeds weight. Moreover, these factors only slightly changed the height of the first pod and the height of the soybean plants (Table 5). Unfavorable soil moisture conditions (drought) occurring during the growing season resulted in poor nodule fixation on the soybean root system. The formation of nodules took place only after significant rainfall at the turn of July and August. The number of nodules as well as their weight were small, although more were recorded on the root system of plants that received the Hi®Stick Soy (Table 6). In addition, the cv. Annushka set slightly more nodules than the cv. Aldana.
A more even distribution of rainfall during the growing season in 2018 favored the accumulation of protein in soybeans, as well as caused a reduction in fat content, but had a slight effect on the amount of ash and fiber (Table 7 and Table 8). The seeds of cv. Aldana were characterized by higher protein and ash content, a similar amount of fat and fiber, although a slightly higher amount of fat and fiber was observed in the seeds of cv. Annushka than cv. Aldana. A significantly higher protein content was found in the seeds of both soybean cultivars, in which 60 kg·ha−1 nitrogen was used and seeds were inoculated with Nitragina or Hi®Stick Soy. The use of seed inoculation and fertilization with mineral nitrogen had a positive effect on the accumulation of protein in the seeds of both soybean cultivars. However, at the same time, it increased the fiber content. In addition, the studied factors limited the amount of ash and fat.

4. Discussion

In Europe, soybean needs approximately 500 mm of precipitation in the growing season, including at least 300 mm at the flowering and fruit formation stage [27].
The yield of soybean is determined by the climate conditions: Air temperature, total rainfall, and its distribution [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. A negative influence of high air temperature was recorded on the yielding of both cultivars of soybean. The average air temperature at the main development stage was as follows: Flowering and pod formation stage was much lower than 25 °C, although higher than the long-term mean in Poland. Montanez et al. [36] considered this as most favorable for the soybean yield and biological N fixation. The seed yield of soybean mostly depends on the total rainfall in May, July, and August, as soybean plants assimilate approximately 20% N since the beginning of flowering, and 80% during generative development [30,31].
The study by Seneviratne et al. [37] has shown that the inoculation and N fertilizer use promote plant growth and increase yields of soybean. Incorporating 23 kg N·ha−1 as the primary fertilizer application and adding 23 kg N·ha−1 at the end of flowering stage does not inhibit soybean nodulation. Mourtzinis et al. [38] recorded an increase in yield by 120 kg ha−1, La Menza et al. [39] by up to 11%, while Capatana et al. [40] by up to 30%. Kaschuk et al. [18] stated that mineral N fertilization of soybean caused a decrease in the number of nodules and in the seed yield, but it also depends on the N dose. Prusiński et al. [35] found that in some cases N fertilization in combination with inoculation excels the inoculation alone. Capatana et al. [40] stated that an increase in the seed yield in soybean only after inoculation was increased by 3.7%, while the mineral fertilizer with inoculation increased by about 30%. Albareda et al. [41] found that the seed inoculation resulted in a significantly higher grain yield and nodulation than in the controls. The effect of the mineral N fertilization and the seed inoculation on the soybean yield, result in highly diversified findings [35]. In our own study, the average of 2-year studies, the highest seed yields were recorded after applying HiStick with 60 kg N·ha−1 in both cultivars.
In the study by Jarecki et al. [42], using Nitragina, Mikrokomplex, and Nitragina + Mikrokomplex resulted in a significant increase in soybean yield and a change in the chemical composition of seeds. Debela et al. [43] found that the combined application of 2 t VC·ha−1 (vermicompost prepared from raw materials, such as soybean straw, wood ash, and animal manure) and 75 kg NPS·ha−1 (blended fertilizer used as a source of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur: 19% N, 38% P2O5, and 7% S) inoculated with Rhizobium strain had resulted in a better and optimum yield of 3870 kg ha−1, which is environmentally sound for soil management and is tentatively recommended for use. Zilli et al. [25] in their studies found that re-inoculation provided average increases in grain yield of 12 to 18% compared to the non-inoculated control. Studies by Saturno et al. [44] showed that the N-fertilizer impaired nodulation and N2 fixation and did not improve grain production [18,45]. Zilli et al. [25,46] stated that soybean, brings additional economic benefits due to BNF by the bacteria Bradyrhizobium japonicum, and BNF allows high soybean yields at a low cost. According to Zuffo et al. [47], the application of 50 kg N ha–1 of mineral fertilizer associated with the Bradyrhizobium spp. inoculation enhanced the physiological quality of soybean seeds, resulting in higher seed germination percentage and higher emergence and seedling emergence speed index. Zerpa et al. [48] found that the inoculants combination treatment resulted as more favorable to shoot height, dry weight and leaf area, nodule number, as well as dry weight. Leggett et al. [24] showed a significant increase in soybean grain yield due to the inoculation with B. japonicum.
Under the favorable humidity in the period from June to August in the second year of the study (2018), a plant response to inoculation and mineral N fertilization was significantly different than in the first year (2017), with the significantly lower precipitation in the above period. According to Korsak-Adamowicz et al. [49], neither drought nor high air temperature is favorable for the symbiosis of soybean and B. japonicum.
The soybean seed yield depends mainly on the number of pods per plant [27,30], which states that with the high number of pods per plant, the number of seeds increase to two units. In our own research, a positive effect of the inoculants and mineral N fertilization was found on the morphological features: Pod number, as well as number and weight of seeds in both cultivars, but higher values of those traits were found in Annushka cv. which was lower than in cv. Aldana. The 1000 seed weight was higher in Aldana cv. than in Annushka cv. In the study by Prusiński et al. [35], no significant effect of the inoculants and mineral N fertilization was found on the pod number and the 1000 seeds weight in the tested cultivars. Jarecki and Bobrecka-Jamro [50] found that the starting N rate of 25 kg N·ha−1 facilitates producing significantly more seeds per pod than as the result of Nitragina inoculation. Boros [51] stated that when the purpose of selecting legumes is to increase the yield, both the number of pods, as well as the number of seeds per plant and the 1000 seeds weight value must be taken into account simultaneously, especially in soybeans. In our research, the mineral N and inoculation had little effect on plant height. Additionally, in both cultivars in all years of the study, higher plants were observed after the application of Nitragina + 60 kg N·ha−1 than after Nitragina alone. In the study by Prusiński et al. [35], the favorable effect of mineral N on plant height was confirmed only in cv. Annushka.
BNF in soybean plants is a sensitive process, dependent mostly on the weather pattern, that directly affects the development of B. japonicum bacteria, nodulation, and N fixation [49]. In our research, factors of the study (mineral N and inoculation) had little effect on the number of root nodules and dry weight. The quality of root nodules and their weight was low. However, the more nodule amount on the root system was noted after the application of inoculants Hi®Stick Soy. A higher count of nodules was noted in cv. Annushka than Aldana. Jarecki and Bobrecka-Jamro [50], after the application of inoculants, observed an increase in the number of root nodules and dry weight, as well as the higher count of B. japonicum. Kaschuk et al. [18] and Saturno et al. [44] stated that mineral N fertilization of soybean can negatively affect the nodules number. Mrkovacki and Morinkovic [52] stated that the low doses of mineral N are able to increase the nodules number and their dry weight, which, however, was not noted in our research. Results of Debela et al. [43] studies showed that the combination of VC 2 tons ha−1 with Rhizobium inoculation (TAL-379) gave the highest number of effective nodules per plant. According to those authors, three factors of interaction of Rhizobium inoculation, VC, and NPS rates significantly influenced the number of primary branches (NPB), number of pod per plant, seed yield, and harvest index.
Martyniuk [53] drew attention to the need for selecting an appropriate seed dressing if there was a plan to inoculate the seeds of legumes with nitragine. In turn, Korsak-Adamowicz et al. [49] reported that the symbiosis of nodule bacteria with the crop is not conducive to drought and high temperature. According to De Bruin et al. [54], Mason et al. [55], Hungria et al. [21], and Ambrosini et al. [22], the benefit from inoculation of the soybean with Bradyrhizobium spp. strains is affected by the soil cropping in the first year, but with smaller effects in the next seasons.
In our study, a significantly higher protein content was found in the seeds of both soybean cultivars when mineral nitrogen in a dose of 60 kg·ha−1 was applied and seeds were inoculated with Nitragina or Hi®Stick Soy. The use of seed inoculation and fertilization with mineral nitrogen increased the fiber content. It was confirmed by Jarecki et al. [42] who found a similar effect on protein content in the seeds, which was significantly higher in bacterial inoculant Nitragina (N) (36.4% dry matter) and Nitragina+foliar fertilization with Mikrokompleks (N+M) (36.3% dry matter) treatments as compared with foliar fertilization with Mikrokompleks treatment (M) and the control (C). Shahid et al. [56] and Afzal et al. [57] also used the bacterial inoculant to obtain an increase in protein content. Vratarić et al. [58] stated that foliar fertilization differentiates the chemical composition of soybean seeds, affecting an increase in the protein and fat contents. In the study by Jarecki et al. [42], Nitragina resulted in the significant change in the chemical composition of seeds. Zuffo et al. [47] reported that the mineral nitrogen fertilization increased the crude protein content of seeds.
Herein, the studied factors limited the amount of ash in seeds. While Jarecki and Bobrecka-Jamro [59] using the bacterial inoculant stated an increase in ash content in soybean seeds. Considering a widespread interest in soybean cultivation in Europe, it seems justifiable, also in Poland, to continue further studies in various regions.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, agroecological conditions have affected the effectiveness of inoculation and mineral N fertilization and directly impacted the soybean development, which also modifies the yield. In worse agroecological conditions, inoculation and N fertilization are advisable.
The soybean yield was most favorably affected by the combined use of inoculation and nitrogen fertilization (increase in seed yield by 42%, protein yield by about 28%). The application of mineral nitrogen at the dose of 30 or 60 kg·ha−1 allowed the increase of the seed yield and protein yield compared to the control. The inoculation of soybean seeds with B. japonicum increased the yield of soybeans. In addition, the protein yield compared to the control and inoculation of Hi®Stick Soy favored a better yield than Nitragina.
The seed inoculation and differentiated doses of nitrogen fertilization had a positive effect on the morphological features of both soybean cultivars. The small amount of rainfall during significant periods of growth and development of soybean strongly limited nodule binding on the root system, and their numbers and weights were small. Hi®Stick Soy has a better effect on soybean nodulation, and the cv. Annushka nodded slightly more than the cv. Aldana.
The inoculation of seeds with Nitragina or Hi®Stick Soy and fertilization with mineral nitrogen increased the content of protein and fiber in seeds of both soybean cultivars and reduced the amount of ash and fat.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K.; data curation, J.K.; formal analysis, J.K. and J.B.; funding acquisition, J.K.; investigation, J.K. and J.B.; methodology, J.K.; project administration, J.K.; resources, J.K. and J.B.; supervision, J.K.; validation, J.B.; visualization, J.B.; writing—original draft, J.K. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The studies have been supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Poland within the Multiannual Programme 2016–2020 IUNG-PIB: “Increasing the use of domestic feed protein for the production of high-quality animal products under sustainable conditions”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Stein, H.H.; Berger, L.L.; Drackley, J.K.; Fahey, G.C., Jr.; Hernot, D.C.; Parsons, C.M. Nutritional properties and feeding values of soybeans and their co-products. In Soybeans. Chemistry Production Processing and Utilization; Johnson, L.A., White, P.J., Galloway, R., Eds.; AOCS Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 2008; pp. 613–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. de Visser, C.L.M.; Remco, S.; Stoddard, F. The EU’s dependency on soya bean import for the animal feed industry and potential for EU produced alternatives. OCL 2014, 21, D407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Thrane, M.; Paulsen, P.V.; Orcutt, M.W.; Krieger, T.M. Soy protein: Impacts. production. and applications (Ch. 2). In Sustainable Protein Sources; Nadathu, S.R., Wanasundara, J.P.D., Scanlin, L., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 23–45. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128027783000020 (accessed on 6 December 2021).
  4. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 6 December 2021).
  5. SOYSTATS 2020. Available online: http://soystats.com/ (accessed on 22 January 2021).
  6. Anwar, F.; Kamal, G.M.; Nadeemb, F.; Shabir, G. Variations of quality characteristics among oils of different soybean varieties. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2016, 28, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Naresh, S.; Ong, M.K.; Thiagarajah, K.; Mutiah, N.B.S.J.; Kunasundari, B.; Lye, H.S. Engineered soybean-based beverages and their impact on human health. Non-Alcohol. Beverages 2019, 6, 329–361. [Google Scholar]
  8. Subramanian, S.; Smith, D.L. A Proteomics Approach to Study Soybean and Its Symbiont Bradyrhizobium japonicum—A Review; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Medic, J.; Atkinson, C.; Hurburgh, C.R. Current knowledge in soybean composition. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2014, 91, 363–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. James, A.T.; Yang, A. Interactions of protein content and globulin subunit composition of soybean proteins in relation to tofu gel properties. Food Chem. 2016, 194, 284–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Luboiński, A.; Markowicz, M. Effect of nitrogen fertilization system on yielding of three non-GMO soybean varieties. Fragm. Agron. 2017, 34, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
  12. Patil, G.; Vuong, T.D.; Kale, S.; Valliyodan, B.; Deshmukh, R.; Zhu, C.; Wu, X.; Bai, Y.; Yungbluth, D.; Lu, F.; et al. Dissecting genomic hotspots underlying seed protein. oil. and sucrose content in an interspecific mapping population of soybean using high-density linkage mapping. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 1939–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Lu, Y.; Bhusal, S.J.; Song, Q.; Cregan, P.B.; Yen, Y.; Brown, M.; Jiang, G.L.; Zimmer, S.; et al. Effects of soybean variety and Bradyrhizobium strains on yield, protein content and biological nitrogen fixation under cool growing conditions in Germany. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 72, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Collino, D.J.; Salvagiotti, F.; Perticari, A.; Piccinetti, C.; Ovando, G.; Urquiaga, S.; Racca, R.W. Biological nitrogen fixation in soybean in Argentina: Relationships with crop. soil. and meteorological factors. Plant Soil 2015, 392, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hungria, M.; Mendes, I.C. Nitrogen fixation with soybean: The perfect symbiosis. In Biological Nitrogen Fixation; de Bruijn, F.J., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1009–1023. [Google Scholar]
  16. Albuquerque, T.M.; Ortez, O.; Carmona, G.I.; Ciampitti, I.A. Soybean: Evaluation of Inoculation. Kans. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 2017, 3, 6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.; Kuramae, E.E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moreira, A.; Costa, N.R.; Alves, C.J.; Pascoaloto, I.M.; Rondina, A.B.L.; Hungria, M. Effects of growth-promoting bacteria on soybean root activity, plant development, and yield. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kaschuk, G.; Nogueira, M.A.; Luca, M.J.; Hungria, M. Response of determinate and indeterminate soybean cultivars to basal and topdressing N fertilization compared to sole inoculation with Bradyrhizobium. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 195, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tain, C.F.; Zhou, Y.J.; Zhang, Y.M.; Li, Q.Q.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Li, D.F.; Chen, W.X. Comparative genomics of rhizobia nodulating soybean suggest extensive recruitment of lineage-specific genes in adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 8629–8634. [Google Scholar]
  20. Carciochi, W.D.; Rosso, L.H.M.; Secchi, M.A.; Torres, A.R.; Naeve, S.; Casteel, S.N.; Kovács, P.; Davidson, D.; Purcell, L.C.; Archontoulis, S.; et al. Soybean yield. biological N2 fixation and seed composition responses to additional inoculation in the United States. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hungria, M.; Araujo, R.S.; Ju’nior, S.; Barbosa, E.; Zilli, J.E. Inoculum rate effects on the soybean symbiosis in new or old fields under tropical conditions. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1106–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ambrosini, V.G.; Fontoura, S.M.; de Moraes, R.P.; Tamagno, S.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Bayer, C. Soybean yield response to Bradyrhizobium strains in fields with inoculation history in Southern Brazil. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 1941–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moretti, L.G.; Lazarini, E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Parente, T.L.; Caioni, S.; Araujo, R.S.; Hungria, M. Can additional inoculations increase soybean nodulation and grain yield? Agron. J. 2018, 110, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Legget, M.; Diaz-Zorita, M.; Koivunen, M.; Bowman, R.; Pesek, R.; Stevenson, C.; Leister, T. Soybean response to inoculation with Bradyrhizobium japonicum in the United States and Artentina. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1031–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Zilli, J.E.; Pacheco, R.S.; Gianluppi, V.; Smiderle, O.J.; Urquiaga, S.; Hungria, M. Biological N2 fixation and yield performance of soybean inoculated with Bradyrhizobium. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2021, 119, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. IUSS Working Group WRB. World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dolijanowic, Z.; Kovacevic, D.; Oliaca, S.; Jovovic, Z.; Stipesevic, B.; Jug, D. The multi-year soybean grain yield depending on weather conditions. In Proceedings of the Medunarodni Simpozij Agronoma, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 17–22 October 2013; pp. 422–477. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bujak, K.; Jędruszczak, M.; Frant, M. The effect of simplified cultivation and foliar fertilization of macro and microelements on yielding of soybean grown in monoculture. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. E 2004, 59, 139–147. [Google Scholar]
  29. Candráková, E.; Macák, M.; Szombathová, N.; Hanáčková, E. The influence of fertilization on yield and yield component formation of soybean varieties. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2008, 9, 511–518. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stojmenova, L.; Alexieva, S. Impacts of climate condition on soybean yield. Pochvoznanie. Agrokhimiya Ekol. 2009, 43, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ohyama, T.; Minagawa, R.; Ishikawa, S.; Yamamoto, M.; Hung, N.V.P.; Ohtake, N.; Sueyoshi, K.; Sato, T.; Nagumo, Y.; Takahashi, Y. Soybean Seed Production and Nitrogen Nutrition. In A Comprehensive Survey of International Soybean Research—Genetics, Physiology, Agronomy and Nitrogen Relationships; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013; pp. 115–157. [Google Scholar]
  32. Faligowska, A.; Szukała, J. Influence of organic polymer on yield components and seed yield of soybean. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 2014, 8, 9. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  33. Toleikiene, M.; Slepetys, J.; Sarunaite, L.; Lazauskas, S.; Deveikyte, I.; Kadziuliene, Z. Soybean Development and Productivity in Response to Organic Management above the Northern Boundary of Soybean Distribution in Europe. Agronomy 2021, 11, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lu, W.; Misselbrook, T.H.; Feng, L.; Wu, L. Assessment of Nitrogen Uptake and Biological Nitrogen Fixation Responses of Soybean to Nitrogen Fertiliser with SPACSYS. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Prusiński, J.; Baturo-Cieśniewska, A.; Borowska, M. Response of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) to Mineral Nitrogen Fertilization and Bradyrhizobium japonicum Seed Inoculation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Montanez, A.; Danso, S.; Hardarson, G. The effect of temperature on nodulation and nitrogen fixation by five Bradyrhizobium japonicum strains. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1995, 2, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Seneviratne, M.; Gunaratne, S.; Bandara, T.; Weerasundara, L.; Rajakaruna, N.; Seneviratne, G.; Vithanage, M. Plant growth promotion by Bradyrhizobium japonicum under heavy metal stress. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 105, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mourtzinis, S.; Kaur, G.; Orlowski, J.M.; Shapiro, C.A.; Lee, C.D.; Wortmann, C.; Holshouser, D.; Nafziger, E.D.; Kandel, H.; Niekamp, J. Soybean response to nitrogen application across the United States: A synthesis-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2018, 215, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. La Menza, N.C.; Monzon, J.P.; Specht, J.E.; Grassini, P. Is soybean yield limited by nitrogen supply? Field Crops Res. 2017, 213, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Capatana, N.; Bolohan, C.; Marin, D.I. Research regarding the influence of mineral fertilization along with Bradyrhizobium japonicum on soybean grain yield (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) under the conditions of south-east Romania. Sci. Pap. Agron. 2017, 60, 207–214. [Google Scholar]
  41. Albareda, M.; Rodríguez-Navarro, D.N.; Temprano, F.J.; Contreras, M.A. Soybean inoculation: Dose, Nfertilizer supplementation and rhizobia persistence in soil. Field Crops Res. 2009, 113, 352–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jarecki, W.; Buczek, J.; Bobrecka-Jamro, D. Response of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) to bacterial soil inoculants and foliar fertilization. Plant Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 422–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Debela, C.; Tana, T.; Wogi, L. Effect of Rhizobium Inoculation, NPS Fertilizer and Vermicompost on Nodulation and Yield of Soybean (Glycine max (L). Merrill) at Bako, Western Ethiopia. J. Chem. Environ. Biol. Eng. 2021, 5, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Saturno, D.F.; Cerezini, P.; Da Silva, P.M.; De Oliveira, A.B.; De Oliveira, M.C.N.; Hungria, M.; Nogueira, M.A.; Moreira, P.D.S. Mineral Nitrogen Impairs the Biological Nitrogen Fixation in Soybean of Determinate and Indeterminate Growth Types. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 3, 1690–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chibeba, A.M.; Kyei-Boahen, S.; Guimarāes, M.F.; Nogueira, M.A.; Hungria, M. Feasibility of transference of inoculation- related technologies: A case study of evaluation of soybean rhizobial strains under the agro-climatic conditions of Brazil and Mozambique. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 261, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zilli, J.E.; Alves, B.J.R.; Rouws, L.F.M.; Simões-Araujo, J.L.; Soares, L.H.B.; Cassa´n, F.; Castellanos, M.O.; O’Hara, G. The importance of denitrification performed by nitrogen-fixing bacteria used as inoculants in South America. Plant Soil. 2020, 451, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zuffo, A.M.; Ratke, R.F.; Aguilera, J.G.; Steiner, F. Bradyrhizobium spp. inoculation associated with nitrogen application enhances the quality of soybean seeds. Ciencia e Agrotecnologia. Science and Agrotechnology. Agric. Sci. 2021, 45, e018721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zerpa, M.; Mayz, J.; Méndez, J. Effects of Bradyrhizobium japonicum inoculants on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) growth and nodulation. Ann. Biol. Res. 2013, 4, 193–199. [Google Scholar]
  49. Korsak-Adamowicz, M.; Starczewski, J.; Dopka, D. Influence of selected agrotechnological operations on soybean. Fragm. Agron. 2007, 24, 238–244. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  50. Jarecki, W.; Bobrecka-Jamro, D. Reaction of soybean plants to the vaccination of seeds with nitragina and initial nitrogen fertilization. Nauka Przyr. Technol.2016, 10, 12(In Polish). Available online: http://www.npt.up-poznan.net.
  51. Boros, L. Assessment of the interdependence of selected quantitative characteristics determining the seed yield in pea (Pisum sativum L.), dwarf bean (Ph. Vulgaris, L.) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Biul. Inst. Hod. Aklim. Rośl. 2003, 2, 481–486. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  52. Mrkovacki, N.; Morinkovic, J. Effect of fertilizer application on growth and yield of inoculated soybean. Not. Bot. Hort. Cluj-Napoca 2008, 36, 48–51. [Google Scholar]
  53. Martyniuk, S. Scientific and practical aspects of legumes symbiosis with root-nodule bacteria. Pol. J. Agron. 2012, 9, 17–22. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  54. De Bruin, J.L.; Pedersen, P.; Conley, S.P.; Gaska, J.M.; Naeve, S.L.; Kurle, J.E.; Elmore, W.; Giesler, L.J.; Abendroth, L.J. Probability of yield response to inoculants in fields with a history of soybean. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mason, S.; Galusha, T.; Kmail, Z. Soybean yield and nodulation response to crop history and inoculation. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 309–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Shahid, M.Q.; Saleem, M.F.; Khan, Z.H.; Anjum, S.A. Performance of soybean (Glycine max L.) under different phosphorus levels and inoculation. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 46, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  57. Afzal, A.; Bano, A.; Fatima, M. Higher soybean yield by inoculation with N-fixing and P-solubilizing bacteria. Agron. Sust. Dev. 2010, 30, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Vratarić, M.; Sudarić, A.; Kovačević, V.; Duvnjak, T.; Krizmanić, M.; Mijić, A. Response of soybean to foliar fertilization with magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt). Cereal Res. Commun. 2006, 34, 709–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jarecki, W.; Bobrecka-Jamro, D. Effect of fertilization with nitrogen and seed inoculation with nitragina on seed quality of soya bean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2015, 14, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 12 00110 g001 550
Figure 1. Monthly rainfall and temperature during the growing period in 2017 and 2018, and the long-term (1871–2000) average.
Figure 1. Monthly rainfall and temperature during the growing period in 2017 and 2018, and the long-term (1871–2000) average.
Agriculture 12 00110 g001
Table
Table 1. Effect of mineral nitrogen fertilization and inoculation on seed and protein yields in two soybean cultivars in 2017 and 2018.
Table 1. Effect of mineral nitrogen fertilization and inoculation on seed and protein yields in two soybean cultivars in 2017 and 2018.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Seed Yield (t ha−1)Protein Yield (kg ha−1)
YearMeanYearMean
2017201820172018
Aldana01.43 ± 0.023 *2.01 ± 0.0721.72402.2 ± 25.20800.2 ± 35.62601.2
301.73 ± 0.1272.12 ± 0.0861.93530.0 ± 29.30750.4 ± 36.50640.2
601.66 ± 0.0792.26 ± 0.1381.96508.4 ± 23.60780.9 ± 36.60644.6
Hi Stick + 01.63 ± 0.1242.60 ± 0.4642.12499.3 ± 18.90789.3 ± 35.60644.3
Hi Stick + 301.74 ± 0.1363.13 ± 0.2762.43543.7 ± 55.00932.6 ± 68.20738.2
Hi Stick + 601.72 ± 0.1243.39 ± 0.2752.56580.1 ± 59.801008.3 ± 72.20794.2
Nitragina + 01.52 ± 0.1042.42 ± 0.2681.97456.0 ± 29.80753.2 ± 45.60604.6
Nitragina + 301.71 ± 0.0922.90 ± 0.1872.31534.4 ± 32.20864.6 ± 36.90699.5
Nitragina + 601.74 ± 0.0723.11 ± 0.2662.42576.5 ± 56.20917.9 ± 65.20747.2
mean 1.652.66-514.6844.2-
Annushka01.36 ± 0.2062.03 ± 0.1571.69357.0 ± 18.50751.6 ± 25.50554.3
301.65 ± 0.0682.29 ± 0.0931.97464.1 ± 19.20814.4 ± 55.60639.3
601.86 ± 0.1082.42 ± 0.2312.14558.0 ± 56.60856.6 ± 65.20707.3
Hi Stick + 01.78 ± 0.0592.51 ± 0.0642.14522.8 ± 35.60817.8 ± 55.80670.3
Hi Stick + 301.98 ± 0.1212.87 ± 0.1682.43594.4 ± 22.20876.3 ± 30.40735.4
Hi Stick + 601.89 ± 0.1253.14 ± 0.4252.51602.3 ± 25.70954.4 ± 45.90778.4
Nitragina + 01.56 ± 0.0652.48 ± 0.3842.02448.5 ± 32.20813.4 ± 45.20630.9
Nitragina + 301.75 ± 0.0412.76 ± 0.1662.26513.9 ± 33.50852.6 ± 39.90683.2
Nitragina + 602.08 ± 0.1793.00 ± 0.4622.54624.0 ± 48.20897.3 ± 40.10760.6
mean-1.772.61-520.5848.3-
Mean for cultivar-1.712.63-517.5846.2-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar (A)
Treatment (B)
B/A
A/B		-
n.s. **
0.233
n.s.
n.s.		n.s.

0.523
n.s.
n.s.		-
2.802
5.493
7.769
5.102		n.s.

47.69
67.45
43.85		-
* Mean ± standard error; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test; n.s.: Non-significant.
Table
Table 2. Weight of 1000 seeds and humidity of seeds depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 2. Weight of 1000 seeds and humidity of seeds depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Weight of 1000 Seeds (g)
YearMean
20172018
Aldana0146.6 ± 3.192 *166.3 ± 6.218156.4
30153.9 ± 6.350169.2 ± 2.607161.6
60150.3 ± 4.024167.4 ± 12.958158.9
Hi Stick + 0154.7 ± 3.556175.6 ± 4.170165.2
Hi Stick + 30154.6 ± 2.010180.3 ± 9.127167.5
Hi Stick + 60154.1 ± 7.800180.4 ± 5.406167.3
Nitragina + 0148.8 ± 7.005187.1 ± 11.165168.0
Nitragina + 30148.6 ± 8.361177.6 ± 4.195163.1
Nitragina + 60148.3 ± 11.237179.2 ± 4.565163.8
mean 151.1175.9-
Annushka0115.3 ± 3.456119.9 ± 11.173117.6
30114.5 ± 1.979130.5 ± 4.161122.5
60116.2 ± 6.313127.3 ± 7.093121.8
Hi Stick + 0118.3 ± 5.347132.4 ± 7.068125.4
Hi Stick + 30118.5 ± 0.829135.1 ± 10.401126.8
Hi Stick + 60116.3 ± 5.874138.2 ± 11.258127.3
Nitragina + 0111.6 ± 5.354131.5 ± 3.583121.6
Nitragina + 30115.7 ± 5.325134.6 ± 4.710125.2
Nitragina + 60110.9 ± 3.566133.5 ± 14.679122.2
mean-115.3131.7-
Mean for cultivar-133.2153.8-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar (A)
Treatment (B)
B/A
A/B
0.897 **
1.661
2.350
1.565		0.278

0.641
0.906
0.576		-
* Mean ± standard error; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test.
Table
Table 3. Pod number per plant and seed number per pod depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 3. Pod number per plant and seed number per pod depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Pod Number per PlantSeed Number per Pod
YearMeanYearMean
2017201820172018
Aldana08.20 ± 0.406 *12.08 ± 2.14310.141.63 ± 0.1381.85 ± 0.1091.74
308.13 ± 0.16312.18 ± 1.88310.161.55 ± 0.1721.92 ± 0.0651.74
608.03 ± 1.10112.80 ± 2.25310.411.58 ± 0.1411.82 ± 0.1571.70
Hi Stick + 08.40 ± 1.38713.04 ± 2.25810.721.88 ± 0.1431.86 ± 0.0101.87
Hi Stick + 308.33 ± 0.35214.25 ± 2.69311.291.64 ± 0.1401.82 ± 0.0891.73
Hi Stick + 608.48 ± 0.99114.40 ± 2.57711.441.64 ± 0.0981.83 ± 0.1451.74
Nitragina + 08.10 ± 0.83113.43 ± 2.14410.761.58 ± 0.1621.88 ± 0.0451.73
Nitragina + 308.07 ± 0.45213.32 ± 2.56810.691.60 ± 0.1311.79 ± 0.1371.69
Nitragina + 608.09 ± 0.78613.70 ± 2.39510.891.57 ± 0.1131.84 ± 0.0631.70
mean 8.2013.24-1.631.85-
Annushka010.10 ± 1.47116.50 ± 2.02813.301.76 ± 0.0582.00 ± 0.2271.88
3010.53 ± 1.48217.68 ± 2.22814.111.69 ± 0.0951.92 ± 0.1501.81
6010.36 ± 1.81017.68 ± 1.31014.021.75 ± 0.1161.85 ± 0.0161.80
Hi Stick + 010.70 ± 2.08917.53 ± 1.94114.111.79 ± 0.0731.89 ± 0.3291.84
Hi Stick + 3010.73 ± 0.67618.30 ± 2.23914.521.79 ± 0.1591.94 ± 0.0991.86
Hi Stick + 6011.35 ± 2.26318.50 ± 3.47314.931.74 ± 0.1742.02 ± 0.0861.88
Nitragina + 09.89 ± 1.15017.60 ± 2.42413.741.69 ± 0.1501.99 ± 0.1501.84
Nitragina + 309.80 ± 1.92218.20 ± 4.02414.001.64 ± 0.1122.02 ± 0.1211.83
Nitragina + 6010.00 ± 1.43718.10 ± 3.00414.051.59 ± 0.2452.01 ± 0.1011.80
mean-10.3817.79-1.711.96-
Mean for cultivar-9.2915.51-1.671.90-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar
(A)
(B)
B/A
A/B		-

0.377 **
0.289
0.409
0.416

0.020
0.348
0.493
0.285		-

n.s.
0.096
0.135
0.111

0.033
0.037
0.052
0.042		-
* Mean ± standard error; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test; n.s.: Non-significant.
Table
Table 4. Seed number and weight per plant depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 4. Seed number and weight per plant depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Seed Number per PlantSeed Weight (g plant−1)
YearMeanYearMean
2017201820172018
Aldana013.41 * ± 0.90122.35 ± 4.04917.881.98 ± 0.1613.72 ± 0.7352.85
3012.70 ± 2.75023.28 ± 3.47817.991.96 ± 0.4753.95 ± 0.6072.96
6012.74 ± 2.81823.05 ± 2.79717.891.90 ± 0.4074.10 ± 0.4973.00
Hi Stick + 015.83 ± 2.20724.25 ± 5.45520.042.35 ± 0.3994.48 ± 1.0413.41
Hi Stick + 3013.72 ± 2.82925.85 ± 4.67119.782.20 ± 0.4655.09 ± 0.7613.64
Hi Stick + 6013.98 ± 1.29926.35 ± 7.33420.162.19 ± 0.2745.14 ± 2.0203.66
Nitragina + 012.90 ± 2.24725.20 ± 4.01419.051.91 ± 0.3364.76 ± 1.0133.33
Nitragina + 3012.99 ± 3.17823.81 ± 4.37918.041.90 ± 0.5324.90 ± 0.5513.40
Nitragina + 6012.82 ± 1.48325.21 ± 3.86019.012.00 ± 0.2214.88 ± 0.5213.44
mean 13.4524.36-2.044.56-
Annushka017.87 ± 2.77032.65 ± 7.79525.262.18 ± 0.2193.85 ± 0.7653.02
3017.80 ± 3.00733.55 ± 2.40325.672.22 ± 0.3994.01 ± 0.2823.11
6018.19 ± 7.29532.71 ± 2.33125.452.20 ± 1.0504.14 ± 0.2653.17
Hi Stick + 019.21 ± 3.50633.13 ± 5.14126.172.39 ± 0.3734.40 ± 0.9773.39
Hi Stick + 3019.27 ± 2.25735.50 ± 7.10927.382.28 ± 0.2414.97 ± 0.8853.62
Hi Stick + 6019.80 ± 2.40837.37 ± 5.83628.582.39 ± 0.4765.15 ± 0.7343.77
Nitragina + 016.78 ± 2.02135.00 ± 4.18525.892.15 ± 0.3724.48 ± 0.6123.31
Nitragina + 3016.23 ± 3.80536.76 ± 5.71726.492.15 ± 0.6614.88 ± 0.5613.51
Nitragina + 6015.99 ± 3.88346.38 ± 5.58831.182.13 ± 0.5314.93 ± 0.5343.53
mean-17.9035.89-2.234.53-
Mean for cultivar- -2.144.55-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar (A)
Treatment (B)
B/A
A/B		-
0.060 **
0.277
0.392
0.232
0.236
0.601
0.849
0.531		-
0.053
0.091
0.128
0.087
n.s.
0.561
n.s
n.s.		-
* Mean ± standard error; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test; n.s.: Non-significant.
Table
Table 5. Morphological features depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 5. Morphological features depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Treatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		20172018
AldanaAnnushkaAldanaAnnushka
First Pod Height (cm)Plant Height (cm)First Pod Height (cm)Plant Height (cm)First Pod Height (cm)Plant Height (cm)First Pod Height (cm)Plant Height (cm)
014.0 ± 1.971 *47.8 ± 4.07119.7 ± 2.63255.6 ± 5.08910.0 ± 0.88445.2 ± 3.89913.0 ± 0.81055.4 ± 7.693
3014.7 ± 1.75649.5 ± 2.92121.6 ± 2.95257.4 ± 2.57412.1 ± 1.00347.5 ± 0.97813.2 ± 1.20957.3 ± 2.222
6016.6 ± 2.28550.1 ± 0.80518.9 ± 4.45861.5 ± 1.9799.9 ± 1.18646.9 ± 1.84714.1 ± 1.73155.9 ± 1.965
Hi Stick + 013.6 ± 1.55651.7 ± 5.13721.9 ± 1.80359.2 ± 2.09710.8 ± 1.59646.7 ± 2.80413.8 ± 2.39555.8 ± 1.105
Hi Stick + 3013.6 ± 1.72852.9 ± 2.96220.9 ± 3.03157.9 ± 5.0189.8 ± 0.99150.2 ± 4.33513.4 ± 0.80462.1 ± 2.239
Hi Stick + 6013.4 ± 1.41659.0 ± 2.12919.6 ± 1.72561.5 ± 6.4929.9 ± 1.39052.3 ± 2.83414.2 ± 2.74559.8 ± 6.717
Nitragina + 016.4 ± 1.85949.3 ± 2.02321.5 ± 2.78857.8 ± 2.8129.9 ± 0.46046.4 ± 3.38314.2 ± 1.42458.4 ± 3.688
Nitragina + 3014.3 ± 3.14653.7 ± 2.61221.8 ± 2.48158.2 ± 7.3729.9 ± 1.66550.1 ± 2.79411.9 ± 1.65360.1 ± 4.033
Nitragina + 6016.6 ± 2.02253.1 ± 2.85922.5 ± 3.16159.9 ± 7.74410.9 ± 0.86548.3 ± 3.59313.3 ± 2.95160.0 ± 4.004
mean14.851.920.958.810.448.210.458.3
* Mean ± standard error.
Table
Table 6. Number and fresh matter of nodules per plant depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 6. Number and fresh matter of nodules per plant depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Number of Nodules per PlantFresh Matter of Nodules (g·Plant−1)
YearMeanYearMean
2017201820172018
Aldana0 0.10 *0.270.180.040.130.08
30 0.050.301.170.020.120.07
60 0.020.330.170.040.120.08
Hi Stick + 0 0.615.603.100.121.400.76
Hi Stick + 30 0.526.113.310.072.301.18
Hi Stick + 60 0.597.133.860.022.401.21
Nitragina + 0 0.106.273.180.023.491.76
Nitragina + 30 0.355.472.910.062.231.14
Nitragina + 60 0.105.182.640.021.930.97
mean 0.274.07-0.041.57-
Annushka0 0.114.202.160.051.240.64
30 0.102.271.180.051.030.54
60 0.112.601.360.050.990.52
Hi Stick + 0 1.156.133.640.301.370.83
Hi Stick + 30 1.355.933.640.231.340.78
Hi Stick + 60 0.926.123.520.191.600.89
Nitragina + 0 0.409.805.100.143.291.71
Nitragina + 30 0.156.203.170.041.730.88
Nitragina + 60 0.209.004.600.032.631.33
mean-0.495.81-0.121.69-
Mean for cultivar-0.384.93-0.0831.63-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar (A)
Treatment (B)
B/A
A/B		-
0.091 **
0.123
n.s.
n.s.
0.192
0.421
n.s.
n.s.		-
0.021
0.014
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.032
n.s.
n.s		-
* Mean; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test; n.s.: Non-significant.
Table
Table 7. Total protein and fat content in dry matter of the soybean seeds depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 7. Total protein and fat content in dry matter of the soybean seeds depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Protein Concentration (mg·g DW−1)Fat Concentration (mg·g DW−1)
YearMeanYearMean
2017201820172018
Aldana0 281.3 *271.7276.5270.2251.2260.7
30 306.3282.5294.4263.3253.1258.2
60 306.3289.4297.8270.1259.4264.7
Hi Stick + 0 306.3329.4317.8272.2257.5264.8
Hi Stick + 30 312.5335.6324.1264.4247.3255.8
Hi Stick + 60 337.5336.2336.8263.3246.4254.8
Nitragina + 0 300.0321.3310.6266.9254.3260.6
Nitragina + 30 312.5335.4323.9267.7242.5255.1
Nitragina + 60 331.3338.8335.1269.2244.4256.8
mean 310.4315.6-268.3250.7-
Annushka0 262.5270.1266.3270.1252.3261.2
30 281.3281.2281.3267.4262.4264.9
60 300.0282.5291.3260.3265.5262.9
Hi Stick + 0 293.7306.9300.3266.6259.4263.0
Hi Stick + 30 300.0327.5313.7266.3244.6255.4
Hi Stick + 60 318.7329.0323.8264.2243.8254.0
Nitragina + 0 287.5304.9296.2268.1263.2265.6
Nitragina + 30 293.7323.7308.7267.4248.6258.0
Nitragina + 60 300.0334.3317.2265.5246.3255.9
mean-293.0306.7-266.2254.0-
Mean for cultivar-301.7311.1-267.1252.3-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar (A)
Treatment (B)
B/A
A/B		-
2.30 **
6.56
9.28
5.64
0.82
6.82
9.65
5.62		-
n.s.
4.11
5.81
4.74
0.25
2.18
3.09
1.80		-
* Mean at p ≤ 0.05; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test; n.s.: Non-significant.
Table
Table 8. Ash and fiber content in dry matter of the soybean seeds depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
Table 8. Ash and fiber content in dry matter of the soybean seeds depending on the mineral N fertilization applied and the inoculation.
CultivarTreatment
Nitrogen Rates (kg ha−1)		Ash Content (%)Fiber Content (%)
YearMeanYearMean
2017201820172018
Aldana0 6.20 *6.316.265.415.305.36
30 5.946.025.985.525.465.49
60 6.116.036.075.585.485.53
Hi Stick + 0 5.855.955.905.615.535.57
Hi Stick + 30 5.915.915.915.355.225.28
Hi Stick + 60 5.925.965.945.615.535.57
Nitragina + 0 6.116.126.115.986.026.00
Nitragina + 30 6.055.956.005.625.565.59
Nitragina + 60 6.015.865.946.006.166.08
mean 6.016.01-5.635.58-
Annushka0 6.016.126.066.326.246.28
30 5.906.146.026.516.426.46
60 5.956.035.996.486.606.54
Hi Stick + 0 6.015.965.986.576.626.60
Hi Stick + 30 5.745.825.786.616.686.64
Hi Stick + 60 5.865.785.826.446.396.41
Nitragina + 0 5.935.855.896.766.896.82
Nitragina + 30 5.825.745.786.436.386.40
Nitragina + 60 5.715.765.736.626.736.67
mean-5.885.91-6.536.55-
Mean for cultivar-5.955.96-6.086.07-
LSD (α = 0.05):
Cultivar (A)
Treatment (B)
B/A
A/B		-
0.127 **
0.085
0.121
0.136
0.017
0.105
0.148
0.087		-
0.153
0.112
0.158
0.167
0.152
0.170
0.241
0.193		-
* Mean at p ≤ 0.05; ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Księżak, J.; Bojarszczuk, J. The Effect of Mineral N Fertilization and Bradyrhizobium japonicum Seed Inoculation on Productivity of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Agriculture 2022, 12, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010110

AMA Style

Księżak J, Bojarszczuk J. The Effect of Mineral N Fertilization and Bradyrhizobium japonicum Seed Inoculation on Productivity of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Agriculture. 2022; 12(1):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Księżak, Jerzy, and Jolanta Bojarszczuk. 2022. "The Effect of Mineral N Fertilization and Bradyrhizobium japonicum Seed Inoculation on Productivity of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill)" Agriculture 12, no. 1: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010110

APA Style

Księżak, J., & Bojarszczuk, J. (2022). The Effect of Mineral N Fertilization and Bradyrhizobium japonicum Seed Inoculation on Productivity of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Agriculture, 12(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010110

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