HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Haile, F. J. Articles by Specht, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Haile, F. J. Articles by Specht, J. E. Agricola Articles by Haile, F. J. Articles by Specht, J. E.

Soybean Cultivars and Insect Defoliation: Yield Loss and Economic Injury Levels

Dep. of Entomology Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0816
Dep. of Entomology Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0816
Dep. of Agronomy Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0816

^* Corresponding author (lhigley{at}unl.edu).

Understanding the response of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars to insect defoliation is important for identifying differences in insect tolerance and compensation among soybean genotypes, for assessing yield loss differences among cultivars, and for determining if a single economic injury level (EIL) can be used for all cultivars. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the relative tolerance of selected soybean cultivars to insect defoliation. Field experiments were conducted in 1994 and 1995 on three indeterminate soybean cultivars: Dunbar, Corsica, and Clark. Sequential defoliation (46-66%) was imposed manually at the R2 stage (reproductive development of soybean at full flowering), guided by an insect consumption model. Leaf area index, percent light interception, growth, and yield data were determined. Because of ample rainfall during the soybean growing period in 1994, defoliation did not affect soybean yield; all cultivars compensated for all levels of defoliation via delayed leaf senescence and compensatory regrowth, which enhanced the light interception capacity of defoliated soybean canopies. In 1995, however, defoliation caused a significant yield reduction (15-70%) in all cultivars; this yield reduction was greater for Dunbar than the other two cultivars. In both years, yields were directly related to the light interception capacity of soybean canopies after defoliation. There were significant EIL differences among soybean cultivars. Large differences in EILs among cultivars suggest a need to revise existing EILs for defoliating pest species.

Received for publication February 27, 1997.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. P. Conley, L. Abendroth, R. Elmore, E. P. Christmas, and M. Zarnstorff Soybean Seed Yield and Composition Response to Stand Reduction at Vegetative and Reproductive Stages Agron. J., October 21, 2008; 100(6): 1666 - 1669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Board, V. Maka, R. Price, D. Knight, and M. E. Baur Development of Vegetation Indices for Identifying Insect Infestations in Soybean Agron. J., April 4, 2007; 99(3): 650 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Ziems, B. J. Zechmann, W. W. Hoback, J. C. Wallace, R. A. Madsen, T. E. Hunt, and L. G. Higley Yield Response of Indeterminate Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to Simulated Insect Defoliation Agron. J., October 3, 2006; 98(6): 1435 - 1441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Singer and D. W. Meek Repeated Biomass Removal Affects Soybean Resource Utilization and Yield Agron. J., September 1, 2004; 96(5): 1382 - 1389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Madsen, T. E. Hunt, and L. G. Higley Simulated Clover Leaf Weevil Injury and Alfalfa Yield and Quality Agron. J., January 1, 2004; 96(1): 224 - 228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Board Soybean Cultivar Differences on Light Interception and Leaf Area Index during Seed Filling Agron. J., January 1, 2004; 96(1): 305 - 310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Singer Soybean Light Interception and Yield Response to Row Spacing and Biomass Removal Crop Sci., March 1, 2001; 41(2): 424 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]