Crop ScienceVolume 46, Issue 2 p. 999-1000 Registrations of Germplasm Registration of PA 15 Soybean Germplasm T.E. Devine, Corresponding Author T.E. Devine [email protected] USDA/ARS, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Bldg.001Corresponding author ([email protected])Search for more papers by this authorJ.E. McMurtrey III, J.E. McMurtrey III USDA/ARS, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Bldg.007 Animal and Natural Resources Institute, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20705Search for more papers by this author T.E. Devine, Corresponding Author T.E. Devine [email protected] USDA/ARS, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Bldg.001Corresponding author ([email protected])Search for more papers by this authorJ.E. McMurtrey III, J.E. McMurtrey III USDA/ARS, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Bldg.007 Animal and Natural Resources Institute, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20705Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 March 2006 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.04-0028Citations: 1 Registration by CSSA. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES 1Bernard, R.L., and D.A. Lindahl. 1972. Registration of ‘Williams’ soybean. Crop Sci. 12: 716. 2Buss, G.R., H.M. Camper, Jr., and C.W. Roane. 1988. Registration of ‘Hutcheson’ soybean. Crop Sci. 28: 1024. 3 CTIC. 2005. National crop residue management survey [Online]. Available at www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CTIC.html (verified 1 Dec. 2005). Conserv. Technol. Information Cent., West Lafayette, IN. 4Hartwig, E.E., and J.M. Epps. 1973. Registration of ‘Forrest’ soybeans. Crop Sci. 13: 287. 5McMurtrey, J.E., C.S.T. Daughtry, T.E. Devine, and L.A. Corp. 2005. Spectral detection of crop residues for soil conservation from conventional and large biomass soybean. J. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 25: 25– 33. 6Morrison, J.E., Jr., C. Huang, D.T. Lightle, and C.S.T. Daughtry. 1993. Residue cover measurement techniques. J. Soil Water Conserv. 48: 479– 483. 7Tachibana, H., J.B. Bahrenfus, and W.R. Fehr. 1983. Registration of BSR 201 soybean. Crop Sci. 23: 186. 8Tyler, J.M. 1997. Uniform Soybean Tests- Southern States 1996. USDA- ARS, Stoneville, MS. 9 USDA-ARS Germplasm Resources Information Network. PI 548431 [Online]. Available at www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/acchtml.pl?1443367 (verified 1 Dec. 2005). Natl. Germplasm Resour. Lab., Beltsville, MD. 10Weiss, M.G. 1953. Registration of soybean varieties, IV. Agron. J. 11: 570– 572. 11Wu, S., Y. Lu, J.E. McMurtrey, G. Weesies, T.E. Devine, and G.R. Foster. 2004. Soil conservation benefits of large biomass soybean (LBS) for increasing crop residue cover. J. Sustain. Agric. 24: 107– 128. Citing Literature Volume46, Issue2March–April 2006Pages 999-1000 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Drought is an important yield-reducing factor for corn and soya bean which are the two major crops in the Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (Delmarva) region of the United States. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) is primarily grown in drier regions of the world where it is one of the most drought-resistant food legumes. Field experiments were conducted in which 10 genetically diverse cowpea genotypes were evaluated for adaptability to the Delmarva area. The cowpea genotypes were grown in rain-out shelters under non-water-stressed and water-stressed conditions. The results showed that under non-water-stressed conditions cowpea genotypes California Blackeye 5, Champion and Mississippi Silver gave higher seed yields, while genotypes White Acre, Six Week Browneye and Texas Cream 8 provided lower seed yields. Genotypes California Blackeye 5 and Champion gave comparatively better seed yields under water-stressed conditions. California Blackeye 5 was the highest seed-yielding genotype under both water-stressed and non-water-stressed conditions. The highest biological yield under non-water-stressed conditions was given by genotypes Two Crop Brown, White Acre and Elite, whereas under the water-stressed condition genotypes Texas Cream 8, California Blackeye 5, and Mississippi Silver gave higher biological yield. Genotypes Quickpick Pinkeye and Elite were identified as early maturing genotypes. The harvest index (HI) varied significantly among genotypes, with Texas Cream 8 having the lowest HI. Cowpea genotypes which gave higher seed yield under water-stressed conditions could play an important role in sustaining crop production in the Delmarva region.

Crop ScienceVolume 45, Issue 4 p. 1674-1675 Registrations of Genetic Stock Registration of TW 98-1 Soybean Genetic Stock T.E. Devine, Corresponding Author T.E. Devine devinet@ba.ars.usda.gov Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20705 Corresponding author (devinet@ba.ars.usda.gov)Search for more papers by this author T.E. Devine, Corresponding Author T.E. Devine devinet@ba.ars.usda.gov Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20705 Corresponding author (devinet@ba.ars.usda.gov)Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 July 2005 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.060 Registration by CSSA. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume45, Issue4July–August 2005Pages 1674-1675 RelatedInformation

Crop ScienceVolume 44, Issue 3 p. 1020-1021 Registration of Cultivar Registration of ‘Tara’ Soybean T.E. Devine, Corresponding Author T.E. Devine DevineT@ba.ars.usda.gov USDA/ARS, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Bldg. 001, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20707Corresponding author (DevineT@ba.ars.usda.gov)Search for more papers by this authorJ.E. McMurtrey, J.E. McMurtrey USDA/ARS, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Bldg. 007 Animal and Natural Resources Institute, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20707Search for more papers by this author T.E. Devine, Corresponding Author T.E. Devine DevineT@ba.ars.usda.gov USDA/ARS, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Bldg. 001, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20707Corresponding author (DevineT@ba.ars.usda.gov)Search for more papers by this authorJ.E. McMurtrey, J.E. McMurtrey USDA/ARS, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Bldg. 007 Animal and Natural Resources Institute, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD, 20707Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 May 2004 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.1020Citations: 6 Registration by CSSA. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume44, Issue3May–June 2004Pages 1020-1021 RelatedInformation

Hairy vetch (Vicia villosaRoth) is a winter annual legume that has become an important cover crop for sustainable production systems. New cultivars of hairy vetch, developed in the southern United States, need to be tested as cover crops in the northeastern states. Research was conducted at three locations (Salisbury, MD; Beltsville, MD; and Freeville, NY) that represent a range from a relatively mild coastal climate to a colder interior climate. Four cultivars of hairy vetch (common and three cultivars developed at Auburn University, AU Early Cover, Advanced Population 8, and Advanced Population 26) were planted at either optimum or delayed dates, and biomass was harvested when either vegetative or flowering. Common hairy vetch biomass was equal to or higher than the Auburn cultivars at all locations and years. The Auburn cultivars were winter hardy under Maryland but not under New York conditions. The Auburn cultivars reached 50% flowering an average of 15 d earlier than common hairy vetch. Delaying planting by 2 to 3 wk reduced hairy vetch biomass by 43% when harvested vegetative and by 20% when harvested at flowering. Hairy vetch growth and development could be predicted on the basis of growing degree days (GDD) with a base temperature of 4°C. The biomass of common hairy vetch increased linearly by 41 g m−2for every 100 GDD, and there was no significant difference in the slope of biomass gain between cultivars. Results suggest that the Auburn cultivars are an alternative for Maryland growers desiring a legume cover crop that flowers earlier than common hairy vetch but that delayed planting may compromise adequate winter ground cover and spring biomass regardless of cultivar.

Despite progress made in constructing the molecular map of soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.], many genes remain to be located on the classical map. The genetic linkage studies reported here were undertaken to advance the construction of the classical genetic map. Hybridizations were made in the field and the F 2 and F 3 generations were produced and classified in the greenhouse or field at Beltsville, MD. Data were tested by chi‐square for single‐factor segregation and linkage. Recombination estimates were made by the maximum likelihood method. The Lf2 locus (controlling leaflet number) segregated independently of the T , Ln , W1 , Rj1 , F , Y17 , Df4 , Fr2, and Pc loci. The Pd2 locus (controlling pubescence density) segregated independently of the W1 locus. The chi‐square for Lf2 and Pd2 strongly indicated linkage. The recombination frequency between the Lf2 and Pd2 loci was estimated at 12 ± 2.2%. Soybean breeders attempting to couple or decouple the Lf2 and Pd2 alleles in their breeding populations should take cognizance of this linkage association in estimating the population sizes required to achieve their goals.

The soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] expressed sequence tagged (EST) database is growing rapidly and promises to be a valuable resource for discovering agronomically important genes. Genetic maps featuring cDNA clones of known sequence and function are important because association of genes with phenotypes will increase understanding of the molecular mechanisms affecting valuable agronomic traits. Our objective is to place sequenced cDNA (EST) and genomic clones on an anchored soybean genetic map. The genetic mapping of these markers was conducted by standard restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) techniques with an F 2 population of 149 individuals derived from a cross between two publicly available soybean genotypes cv. Noir 1 (PI 290136) and BARC‐2 ( Rj 4 ) (PI 547895). DNA sequences of mapped EST and genomic clones were compared with accessions in GenBank, and significant sequence similarities are reported. The ESTs were more likely than the genomic clones to have a significant similarity to a GenBank accession. Because the objective was to map ESTs and sequenced genomic clones, only the 24 linkage groups (1200 cM) containing the 39 mapped EST and sequenced genomic clone markers plus the four phenotypic traits root fluorescence ( Fr 2 ), seed coat color ( I ), flower color ( W 1 ) and nodulation response ( Rj 4 ) were presented. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers were added to increase marker density. Simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers were included to align this map with other soybean maps. The population has been further advanced to develop a F 8:9 recombinant inbred line population available to researchers interested in associating the mapped cDNAs with quantitatively inherited traits.

Recently, soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars have been developed specifically for use as a forage crop. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of maturity group on and compare the agronomic performance of forage and grain soybean cultivars in Iowa. In 1994, 13 forage- and five grain-type cultivars were studied. In 1995, one additional forage cultivar and grain cultivar were each evaluated. Node number, plant height, lodging, and dry matter accumulation were measured biweekly during the growing season. By 135 days after planting (DAP), forage cultivars yielded 5 to 19% more dry matter than 'Sherman', which had the greatest yield among grain cultivars. Forage cultivars were 37 to 69% taller than 'Biloxi', the tallest grain cultivar, which may partially explain the greater lodging of the forage cultivars compared with the grain cultivars. Forage cultivars initiated reproductive growth 60 to 88 DAP, whereas the locally adapted Sherman cultivar initiated reproductive growth 55 DAP. Forage cultivars produced more dry matter than grain cultivars, but had a lower leaf/stem ratio and leaf + pod/stem ratio in August and September, respectively, which may reduce forage quality. Forage cultivars developed in Pennsylvania generally accumulated more dry, matter than forage cultivars developed in Virginia by late August, but initiated reproductive growth sooner and produced less dry matter by late September. The significant productivity differences observed between forage and grain cultivars suggest the potential of breeding to improve the forage potential of soybean.

Tall forage soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars in maturity groups V, VI, and VII have been developed to supply forage. Our objective was to determine the effect of harvest date and row spacing on the forage yield and quality of these new soybean cultivars. We grew forage and standard grain soybean in Minnesota with harvests in early and late September. Average maturity of tall forage soybean was R3 (early harvest) to R4 or R5 (late harvest) and average maturity of grain soybean was R6 (early harvest) to R7 (late harvest). Herbage of forage soybean was mostly leaves and stems at both harvests, whereas herbage of grain soybean contained an average of 400 and 595 g kg−1 pods at the early and late harvests, respectively. There was no harvest date × soybean entry interaction for forage yield or forage quality. Forage and grain soybean had similar forage yields (∼8.8 Mg ha−1). Because adapted grain soybean was more mature and had a greater pod proportion than forage soybean, grain soybean had greater crude protein (CP) and lower fiber concentration than forage soybean. Average forage CP for forage and grain types was 146 and 218 g kg−1, respectively, while neutral‐detergent fiber (NDF) concentration was 523 and 400 g kg−1, respectively. Decreasing row width from 76 to 25 cm increased forage yield 0.8 Mg ha−1 but had no effect on total herbage quality.

The Rj4 allele in soybean protects the soybean plant from nodulation by many strains of Bradyrhizobium elkanii, a rhizobitoxine chlorosis-inducing species with generally less efficient symbiosis with soybean. However, the frequency of the Rj4 phenotype shows progressive diminution with domestication in Asia and breeding for agronomic type in North America. This decrease in frequency might be due to linkage of the Rj4 gene with unknown genes selected against during domestication and breeding for agronomic type. For this reason it is of interest to determine the location of the Rj4 gene in the soybean genome. In this study, we tested the Rj4 gene for linkage with Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) markers segregating in recombinant inbred lines of the cross of PI290136 X BARC-2 (Rj4). The Rj4 gene was mapped to a catena of AFLP markers.

Effective nodulation and efficient symbiotic biological nitrogen fixation with two alfalfa cultivars, 'ARC' and 'Giza 4' by some strains of the fast-growing soybean microsymbiont species Sinorhizobium fredii was recently observed for the first time. However, the host specificity and symbiotic competence of these strains on a range of genetically diverse alfalfa cultivars had not yet been investigated. Therefore, in this study, twenty genetically distinct alfalfa cultivars that differ in origin and fall dormancy, from fall non-dormant to completely dormant, were inoculated with each of four S, fredii strains or inoculated with S, meliloti strain USDA 1936, grown in the growth-chamber or in the greenhouse for six weeks and then examined for growth vigor, nodulation and nitrogenase activities. Whereas S, fredii strains USDA 205 and USDA 208 effectively nodulated all of the alfalfa cultivars, strains USDA 201 and USDA 214 nodulated only two and six cultivars, respectively. The latter strains nodulated some of the semi-dormant and dormant alfalfa genotypes, but failed to nodulate any of the non-dormant genotypes. In many cases, strains USDA 205 and USDA 208 were as symbiotically competent with the alfalfa cultivars tested as was the alfalfa microsymbiont S. meliloti strain USDA 1936. Therefore, this study clearly shows that nodulation of alfalfa by S. fredii type strain USDA 205 and strain USDA 208 is not cultivar specific.

Crop ScienceVolume 38, Issue 6 cropsci1998.0011183X003800060062x p. 1719-1719 Registration of Cultivars Registration of ‘Derry’ Forage Soybean T. E. Devine, Corresponding Author T. E. Devine reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov Weed Sciences Lab., Plant Sciences Institute, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 001, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Blvd., Beltsville, MD, 20705Corresponding author (reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov).Search for more papers by this authorE. O. Hatley, E. O. Hatley Dep. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802Search for more papers by this authorD. E. Starner, D. E. Starner Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Northern Piedmont Agric. Res. & Ext. Ctr., Orange, VA, 22960Search for more papers by this author T. E. Devine, Corresponding Author T. E. Devine reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov Weed Sciences Lab., Plant Sciences Institute, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 001, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Blvd., Beltsville, MD, 20705Corresponding author (reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov).Search for more papers by this authorE. O. Hatley, E. O. Hatley Dep. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802Search for more papers by this authorD. E. Starner, D. E. Starner Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Northern Piedmont Agric. Res. & Ext. Ctr., Orange, VA, 22960Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 1998 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800060062xCitations: 13AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume38, Issue6November–December 1998Pages 1719-1719 RelatedInformation

Crop ScienceVolume 38, Issue 6 cropsci1998.0011183X003800060063x p. 1719-1720 Registration of Cultivars Registration of 'Donegal' Forage Soybean T. E. Devine, Corresponding Author T. E. Devine reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov Weed Sciences Lab., Plant Sciences Institute, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 001, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Bldg., Beltsville, MD, 20705Corresponding author (reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov).Search for more papers by this authorE. O. Hatley, E. O. Hatley Dep. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802Search for more papers by this author T. E. Devine, Corresponding Author T. E. Devine reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov Weed Sciences Lab., Plant Sciences Institute, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 001, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Bldg., Beltsville, MD, 20705Corresponding author (reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov).Search for more papers by this authorE. O. Hatley, E. O. Hatley Dep. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 1998 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800060063xCitations: 13AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume38, Issue6November–December 1998Pages 1719-1720 RelatedInformation

Crop ScienceVolume 38, Issue 6 cropsci1998.0011183X003800060064x p. 1720-1720 Registration of Cultivars Registration of ‘Tyrone’ Forage Soybean T. E. Devine, Corresponding Author T. E. Devine reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov Weed Sciences Lab., Plant Sciences Institute, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 001, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Blvd., Beltsville, MD, 20705Corresponding author (reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov).Search for more papers by this authorE. O. Hatley, E. O. Hatley Dep. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802Search for more papers by this authorD. E. Starner, D. E. Starner Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Northern Piedmont Agric. Res. & Ext. Ctr., Orange, VA, 22960Search for more papers by this author T. E. Devine, Corresponding Author T. E. Devine reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov Weed Sciences Lab., Plant Sciences Institute, USDA-ARS, Bldg. 001, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Blvd., Beltsville, MD, 20705Corresponding author (reisingr@asrr.arsusda.gov).Search for more papers by this authorE. O. Hatley, E. O. Hatley Dep. of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802Search for more papers by this authorD. E. Starner, D. E. Starner Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Northern Piedmont Agric. Res. & Ext. Ctr., Orange, VA, 22960Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 1998 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800060064xCitations: 19AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume38, Issue6November–December 1998Pages 1720-1720 RelatedInformation

The classical genetic map of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] remains at a primitive stage of development relative to the map of other crops. This study was undertaken to augment the information base needed for a more comprehensive classical map. The cultivar Minsoy, which carries the dominant allele Pb that conditions a sharp pubescence tip, was crossed to the genetic type T162, which carries the recessive allele yl7 that conditions chlorotic foliage. The F2 seedlings were classified for sharp vs. blunt pubescence tip and green vs. chlorotic foliage. the chi‐square for linkage partitioned from the total chi‐square was significant and recombination value of 27% was calculated for the y17 and pb loci. Because a recombination value of 27% had previously been reported for pb and the y9 gene, which also conditions foliar chlorosis, an allelism test was conducted to test for the allelism of y17 and y9 by hybridizing genetic type T135, which carries the recessive allele y9, with T162, which carries the recessive allele y17. The F1 hybrids had normal green foliage indicating that y17 and y9 were separate loci. To determine whether y9 and y17 were on the same side or opposite sides of the Pb locus, the F2 of the T135 ✕ T162 cross was tested with chi‐square for fit to a 9:7 ratio or a 1:1 ratio for green:chlorotic foliage. The F2 segregation data fit the 1:1 ratio indicating that the Y17 and Y9 loci were both on the same of the Pb and in close proximity.

Crop ScienceVolume 38, Issue 2 cropsci1998.0011183X003800020088x p. 563-563 Registration of Germplasm Registration of BARC-13 Vegetable Soybean Germplasm Thomas E. Devine, Corresponding Author Thomas E. Devine [email protected] Weed Science Lab., Plant Sciences Inst., USDA-ARS, BARC-West, Beltsville, MD, 20707Corresponding author ([email protected]).Search for more papers by this author Thomas E. Devine, Corresponding Author Thomas E. Devine [email protected] Weed Science Lab., Plant Sciences Inst., USDA-ARS, BARC-West, Beltsville, MD, 20707Corresponding author ([email protected]).Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 March 1998 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800020088xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume38, Issue2March–April 1998Pages 563-563 RelatedInformation

`Emperor' broccoli ( Brassica oleraceae L. Botrytis Group) was grown in Fall 1995 at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), Md., and at the Kentland Agricultural Research Farm (KARF), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg. The objectives were to determine the effects of cover crop mulches in no-tillage production systems on marketable broccoli yield and weed suppression. The mulch treatments included cover crops of forage soybean ( Glycine max L.), foxtail millet ( Setaria italica L.P. Beauv), and a combination of soybean and millet. Broccoli marketable yield from all three mulch treatments was equal to that from a conventional clean cultivation system, except for the millet treatment at BARC, which produced a lower yield. All treatments maintained weeds below levels that reduced yield. Cover crop biomass ranged from 4.6 to 9.6 t·ha -1 and N content from 10 g·kg -1 for millet to 28 g·kg -1 for soybean.

Acid soil [aluminum (Al)] toxicity and ozone toxicity are potential yield-limiting factors for soybeans [Glycine mau (L.) Merr.]. Previous studies in our laboratory suggested that tolerance to these two stress factors coincided in some soybean cultivars. The objective of the current study was to determine the relationship between acid soil (Al) tolerance and ozone (O3) tolerance in a range of soybean cultivars. Seventeen cultivars, known to differ in Al tolerance, were screened for O3 tolerance, some in a fumigation chamber and some in O3 polluted, unfiltered air in a greenhouse. In spite of variability encountered, we concluded that Ferry, Santa Rosa, Davis, Biloxi, Bossier, Lee, VNIIS-2, and Essex soybean cultivars were more tolerant to O3 than Forrest, Aurora, Smena, Brunatna, Yantarnaya, and Chief. Some cultivars showing high tolerance to O3 (St. 59, Giessener, Biloxi, Bossier, Lee, and Ferry) were also acid soil (Al) tolerant, but two Al-tolerant cultivars (Aurora and Brunatna) were O3 Sensitive. Other cultivars (Chief, Salute 216, and Smena) were sensitive to both Al and O3. Manganese (Mn)-tolerant Lee soybean was more tolerant to O3 than Mn-sensitive Forrest. Because both O3 toxicity and Mn toxicity are regarded as oxidative stresses, this finding has implications for future studies on oxidative stress tolerance mechanisms in plants.

Ozone toxicity can reduce soybean yields by an estimated 5 to 20%. The most economical and practical solution to the problem would be to use ozone-tolerant cultivars. Because ozone toxicity is an oxidative stress, one would expect that plants having higher concentrations and proper kinds of antioxidants would be more tolerant. To test this hypothesis, 20 soybean lines or cultivars varying in contents of flavonol glycosides (naturally occurring antioxidants) were tested for ozone tolerance in a fumigation chamber and in phyto-toxic concentrations of ozone in ambient, unfiltered, air in a greenhouse. In general, ozone tolerance was associated with the presence of kaempferol glycosides, particularly K3 through K6 and K9. Lines containing no kaempferol glycosides (OX942 and OX281) were among the most sensitive to ozone stress. The K9 compound has been associated with reduced numbers of stomata, drought tolerance, and slower growth rates, and this could reduce ozone absorption and toxicity, or K9 may be more effective in detoxifying ozone than other glycosides. Lee soybean was more tolerant to ozone and to manganese (Mn) toxicity (also an oxidative stress) than Forrest. Cross tolerances of plant genotypes to these two stresses deserve additional study. Among cultivars compared, Mukden was ozone tolerant, Columbia and Harosoy were sensitive, and Blackhawk was moderately sensitive.