IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i11p1884-d1505628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Soybean Drought Tolerance and Escape: Field Trial Assessment of Yield, Maturity Groups and Smooth-Wrinkled Seed Coats in Kazakhstan

Author

Listed:
  • Raushan Yerzhebayeva

    (Kazakh Research Institute of Agriculture and Plant Growing, Almalybak 040909, Kazakhstan)

  • Svetlana Didorenko

    (Kazakh Research Institute of Agriculture and Plant Growing, Almalybak 040909, Kazakhstan)

  • Sholpan Bastaubayeva

    (Kazakh Research Institute of Agriculture and Plant Growing, Almalybak 040909, Kazakhstan)

  • Aigul Amangeldiyeva

    (Kazakh Research Institute of Agriculture and Plant Growing, Almalybak 040909, Kazakhstan)

  • Bekzhan Maikotov

    (Kazakh Research Institute of Agriculture and Plant Growing, Almalybak 040909, Kazakhstan)

  • Rinat Kassenov

    (Kazakh Research Institute of Agriculture and Plant Growing, Almalybak 040909, Kazakhstan)

  • Yuri Shavrukov

    (College of Science and Engineering, Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia)

Abstract

Soybean is a major legume and oilseed crop with enormous economic importance, but its production is highly dependent on optimal rainfall or ample irrigation. In Kazakhstan, soybean production is highly vulnerable to drought and irrigation shortages. The aim of this study was to assess the level of drought escape and tolerance of soybean genotypes in different maturity groups, grown in well-watered conditions or without irrigation. Field trials were conducted in the very dry conditions of Kazakhstan with the hydrothermal coefficient 0.46–0.67. Nineteen soybean cultivars from five maturity groups were tested over four seasons under two conditions, with and without irrigation. The main indicators of drought tolerance were seed yield, seed weight per plant, percentage of seeds with smooth coats compared to wrinkled and shriveled ones, and 1000 seed weight. Under drought, seed yield of the studied genotypes decreased by 45.5–69.5% compared to well-watered controls. The most optimal genotypes for cultivation without irrigation were soybean cultivars from medium maturity group MG I (Vilana, Cheremosh, Xin-D11-252, and Desna) with a vegetation period of 115–128 days when avoiding drought during flowering, and the average yield for the group (1.7 t/ha) was slightly below that of those in drought-tolerant genotypes from medium–late/late maturity groups MG II–III (1.9–2.0 t/ha). Based on yield under drought, the best cultivars were identified as follows: Ivushka (1.2 t/ha) for MG 00 group; Ustya (1.3 t/ha) for MG 0; Vilana (1.8 t/ha) for MG I; Zen (2.3 t/ha) for MG II; and Sponsor (2.5 t/ha) for MG III. The identified genotypes can be used in breeding programs to reduce drought effects on soybean crops.

Suggested Citation

  • Raushan Yerzhebayeva & Svetlana Didorenko & Sholpan Bastaubayeva & Aigul Amangeldiyeva & Bekzhan Maikotov & Rinat Kassenov & Yuri Shavrukov, 2024. "Soybean Drought Tolerance and Escape: Field Trial Assessment of Yield, Maturity Groups and Smooth-Wrinkled Seed Coats in Kazakhstan," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:11:p:1884-:d:1505628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/11/1884/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/11/1884/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markulj Kulundžić, Antonela & Josipović, Ana & Matoša Kočar, Maja & Viljevac Vuletić, Marija & Antunović Dunić, Jasenka & Varga, Ivana & Cesar, Vera & Sudarić, Aleksandra & Lepeduš, Hrvoje, 2022. "Physiological insights on soybean response to drought," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    2. Masuda, Tadayoshi & Goldsmith, Peter D., 2009. "World Soybean Production: Area Harvested, Yield, and Long-Term Projections," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Jan Buczek & Dorota Bobrecka-Jamro & Marta Jańczak-Pieniążek, 2022. "Photosynthesis, Yield and Quality of Soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merr.) under Different Soil-Tillage Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Mst. Kaniz Fatema & Muhammad Abdullah Al Mamun & Umakanta Sarker & Muhammad Saddam Hossain & Muhammad Abdul Baset Mia & Rajib Roychowdhury & Sezai Ercisli & Romina Alina Marc & Olubukola Oluranti Baba, 2023. "Assessing Morpho-Physiological and Biochemical Markers of Soybean for Drought Tolerance Potential," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    2. J. Jed Brown & Probir Das & Mohammad Al-Saidi, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture in the Arabian/Persian Gulf Region Utilizing Marginal Water Resources: Making the Best of a Bad Situation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Habineza M. Jean Pierre & Josiah M. Kinama & Florence M. Olubayo & Susan W. Wanderi & James W. Muthomi & Felister M. Nzuve, 2018. "Effect of Intercroping Maize-Soybean on Grain Quality Traits in Kenya," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(2), pages 341-341, January.
    4. Zahid Akram & Qadeer Ahmad, 2019. "Future Prospects of Soybean in Pakistan," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 15(4), pages 11562-11563, March.
    5. Julián Benitez & Roger Domecq, 2014. "Analysis of meteorological drought episodes in Paraguay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 15-25, November.
    6. Ahmadzadeh Araji, Hamidreza & Wayayok, Aimrun & Massah Bavani, Alireza & Amiri, Ebrahim & Abdullah, Ahmad Fikri & Daneshian, Jahanfar & Teh, C.B.S., 2018. "Impacts of climate change on soybean production under different treatments of field experiments considering the uncertainty of general circulation models," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 63-71.
    7. Li, Yang & Shi, Yong & Deng, Xiangzheng & Sun, Zhigang & Accatino, Francesco, 2024. "Increasing food and feed self-sufficiency and avoiding manure N surplus in eastern regions of China through a spatial crop-livestock optimisation model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    8. Milazzo, M.F. & Spina, F. & Cavallaro, S. & Bart, J.C.J., 2013. "Sustainable soy biodiesel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 806-852.
    9. Argaw, Birhanu & Haji, Jema & Aman, Mohammed & Fentahun, Gebreegziabehr, 2020. "Technical, Allocative and Economic Efficiency of Soya bean Production: The Case of Smallholder Farmers in Pawe District, Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 29(01), April.
    10. Elahe Shahkoomahally & Shirin Shahkoomahally, 2017. "Investigating of N and K Fertilizers on Yield and Components of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(10), pages 1-85, September.
    11. Masuda, Tadayoshi & Goldsmith, Peter D., 2012. "China's Meat and Egg Production and Soybean Meal Demand for Feed: An Elasticity Analysis and Long-Term Projections," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Erenstein, Olaf & Sadashivappa, Prakash & Vivek, B. S., 2014. "Potential Economic Impact of Biofortified Maize in the Indian Poultry Sector," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1-30, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:11:p:1884-:d:1505628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.