Agricultural
Communication
Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 10(1): 230-235 (2017)
Evaluation of agronomic, physiological,
agro-physiological, recovery and utilization
effeciencies in three cultivars of soybean
Sadegh Beaicknejad
Msc Agronomy, Genetics and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute of Tabarestan, Sari Agricultural Sciences
and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran
ABSTRACT
Effect of different levels of potassium fertilizer on agronomic ef ciency (AE), physiological ef ciency (PE), agro-
physiological ef ciency (APE), apparent recovery ef ciency (ARE) and utilization ef ciency (UE) in three cultivars of
soybean was investigated using an experiment with a factorial arrangement based on completely randomized block
design with three blocks in the Daronkola located at Babol, Iran during 2012-2013 growing season. The treatments
consisted of potassium phosphate fertilizer that was utilized at three levels (0, 100, 200 kgr/hectare) and three culti-
vars of Soybean included 032 (G1), 033 (G2) and JK (G3). The results showed that Potassium were signi cant effect on
PE, APE, ARE and UE in one percent level (P<0.01). In all of cultivars, potassium enhancement increased UE and APE,
but caused decrease ARE. Difference between potassium treatments in all of cultivars in ARE index was Signi cant.
KEY WORDS: POTASSIUM, SOYBEAN, CULTIVAR
230
ARTICLE INFORMATION:
*Corresponding Author: Sbeaick@yahoo.com
Received 10
th
Jan, 2017
Accepted after revision 21
st
March, 2017
BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455
Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA
Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal
NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF : 4.006
© A Society of Science and Nature Publication, 2017. All rights
reserved.
Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/
INTRODUCTION
The origin and history forms the soybean is not known,
it is might said that the soybean is native to East Asia
(Adcock et al, 2003). The soybean crop is one of the most
important crops world. Soybean grains are important as
protein meal and vegetable oil. Soybean contains whole
protein that supplies all essential amino acids required
for human health, carbohydrate, fatty acids, and miner-
als (Friedman and Brandon, 2001). Soybean oil is rich in
polyunsaturated fatty acids, including the two essential
fatty acids, linoleic and linolenic, that are not produced
in the body. Linoleic and linolenic acids help the uptake
of vital nutrients needed for human health (Friedman
Sadegh Beaicknejad
and Brandon, 2001).Potassium is an essential nutrient
involved in regulating water balance, increasing water
uptake, enhancement of pest and disease resistance and
also involved in almost all processes needed to sustain
plant life (Tiwari et al, 2001 Mehdi et al, 2007, Hartman
et al., 2011 and Hosseini et al (2016).
Soybean takes up and removes large amounts of
potassium from soil than any other nutrient (Tiwari et
al, 2001). Potassium utilization increased the number of
pods and also used a bene cial in uence on retaining
pods until harvest in soybean (Coale and Grove, 1990).
Young seedlings of soybean do not utilize much potas-
sium, but the uptake rate goes up to a peak during the
period of rapid vegetative growth. The potassium in veg-
etative parts is moved to seed during pod ll process.
The mature soybean seed is having almost 60% of the
total potassium in plant (Hoeft et al., 2000).
Potassium quantity changes in different soils and
annually fertilizers utilization is necessary in some soils
because of potassium lack. In some soils, potassium
amount is too high so that even after years of plant cul-
tivation and leaching which discharges potassium from
soil, there is no require using fertilizers (Shahdi Komleh,
2002). Tiwari, et al (2001) reported that adding potas-
sium fertilizer to soil caused increase soybean yield.
Stino et al. (2002) reported application of potassium
improve crop yield. Hosseini et al. (2016) expressed that
increasing potassium uptake caused improves crop yield
and component yield.
Potassium fertilizer has inattentively utilized in Iran
in regard to intensive cultivation. Because of more
potassium extracts from soil by the crops, the soil avail-
able potassium rate tends to reduce, quickly. So, exces-
sive application of potassium on the agricultural lands
is an indicator of the importance of paying attention to
these nutrients (Malakouti, 2004). The objective of this
research was to investigate effect potassium fertilizer on
agronomic ef ciency (AE), physiological ef ciency (PE),
agro-physiological ef ciency (APE), apparent recovery
ef ciency (ARE) and utilization ef ciency (UE) in three
cultivars of soybean.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
STUDY AREA AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
This research was carried out in research farm located
at the Daronkola located at Babol, Iran during 2012-
2013 growing season which used factorial arrangement
based on completely randomized block design with
three blocks. Each experimental plot had 5 meters long
and 3 meters (3m×5m) wide and 6 ridges spaced 50 cm
apart. Uniform healthy soybean seeds were purchased
from Iran’s Oilseed Research and Development Company
Deputy of Sari, Iran. Seeds were used for hand sowing
in the month of June, 2012 after removing the trashes
and impurities.
TREATMENT
The treatments consisted of potassium phosphate ferti-
lizer that was utilized at three levels (0, 100, 200kgr/hec-
tare) and three cultivars of Soybean included 032 (G1),
033 (G2) and JK (G3).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data analysis included the analysis of variance, mean
comparisons and correlations which was done using
SPSS software. agronomic ef ciency (AE), physiologi-
cal ef ciency (PE), agro-physiological ef ciency (APE),
apparent recovery ef ciency (ARE) and utilization ef -
ciency (UE) were calculated by using the following
equations (Baligar et al., 2001):
Where, GY
f
= Grain yield of fertilized pot, GY
uf
= Grain
yield of unfertilized pot.
Where, BY
f
= Biological yield (grain + straw)
of fertilized pot, BY
uf
= Biological yield of
unfertilized pot, UK
f
= Uptake of K in grain plus straw
of fertilized pot and UK
uf
= Uptake of potassium in grain
and straw of unfertilized pot
Where, GY
f
= Grain yield of fertilized pot, GY
uf
= Grain
yield of unfertilized pot, UK
f
= Uptake of potassium in
grain plus straw of fertilized pot and UK
uf
= Uptake of
potassium in grain and straw of unfertilized pot.
Where, UK
f
= Uptake of K in fertilized pot,
UK
uf
= Uptake of K in unfertilized pot, UK
f
=
Uptake of potassium of fertilized pot and UKuf = Uptake
of potassium in unfertilized pot.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Differences between treatments for the AE, PE, APE, ARE
and UE were signi cant (P<0.01) but was signi cant
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF AGRONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY, AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY 231
Sadegh Beaicknejad
FIGURE 1. Meancomparison between different levels of treatment based on AE index.
effected on AE in ve percent level (P<0.05) (table 1).
Farrokh and Farrokh (2012) reported that effect of potas-
sium and cultivator on agronomy ef ciency of potas-
sium, physiological ef ciency of potassium and recov-
ery ef ciency of potassium was signi cant (P<0.01).
Potassium use ef ciency stated in different ways
(agronomic, physiological, agro-physiological, recovery
and utilization) is presented in gures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Agronomic ef ciency (AE) varied from 2.3 to 4.5 mg
mg
-1
. The highest and lowest value of AE was related to
G2 and G3 cultivar in 100 kgr per hectare of potassium,
respectively. There were signi cant differences between
treatments. In G1 and G3 cultivars, Addition of potas-
sium caused increase AE ( gure 1).
Physiological ef ciency(PE) values changed from
1300 to 4700 mg mg
-1
. The PE value was greater in G1
cultivar with 200 kgr per hectare of potassium than
other treatments. Lowest value of PE was seen in G2
cultivar with 100 kgr per hectare of potassium. There
were signi cant differences between potassium treat-
ments in G1 cultivar. In G1 and G2 cultivars, Addition
of potassium caused increase PE but reduced PE in G3
cultivar ( gure 2).
Agro-physiological ef ciency (APE) values varied
from 1700 to 3700 mg mg
-1
. The APE was less in G3
cultivar with 100 kgr per hectare of potassium than
other treatments. The highest value of APE was related
to G1 in 200 kgr per hectare of potassium. There were
signi cant differences between potassium treatments in
G1 and G3 cultivars. In all of cultivar, enhancement of
potassium caused increase APE ( gure 3).
Figure 4 showed that apparent recovery ef ciency
(ARE) varied from 7.87 to 18 %. ARE index was more
in G3 cultivar with 100 kgr per hectare of potassium
than other treatments. In all of cultivar, enhancement
of potassium caused reduce ARE. There were signi -
cant differences between potassium treatments in all of
cultivars.
The utilization ef ciency (UE) varied from 310 to 550
mg mg
-1
. The highest and lowest value of UE was related
to G3 cultivar with 200 and 100 kgr per hectare of potas-
sium, respectively. There were not signi cant differences
between potassium treatments in G2 cultivars but were
seen signi cant differences between potassium treat-
ments in G1 and G2 cultivars. In all of cultivar, addi-
tion of potassium caused increase UE ( gure 5). Geno-
typic differences in ef ciency of potassium uptake and
application in all major economically important plants
and also differential exudation of organic compounds to
facilitate release of non-exchangeable potassium is one
of the mechanisms of different potassium uptake ef -
ciency (Rengel and Damon, 2008). Fageria et al (2014)
expressed that potassium use ef ciency de ned in the
several ways (agronomic ef ciency, physiological ef -
Table 1. Mean squares of various indices of soybean plants.
S.O.V Df AE PE APE ARE UE
Replication 2 0.169 779550.431 19015.438 6.167 2573.070
treatment 5 3.520* 5444303.031** 1346676.925** 54.767** 23112.646**
Error 10 0.781 163350.096 64936.201 3.633 2857.809
**Signi cant at the 1% level; *Signi cant at the 5% level.
232 EVALUATION OF AGRONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY, AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Sadegh Beaicknejad
FIGURE 2. Mean comparison between different levels of treatment based on PE index.
FIGURE 3. Mean comparison between different levels of treatment based on APE index.
FIGURE 4. Mean comparison between different levels of treatment based
on ARE index.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF AGRONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY, AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY 233
Sadegh Beaicknejad
FIGURE 5. Mean comparison between different levels of treatment based on UE index.
ciency, agro-physiological ef ciency, apparent recovery
ef ciency and utilization ef ciency) varied among cul-
tivars.
Table 2 showed that was positive, high and signi -
cant correlation between UE and APE but was negative
between ARE and APE. Also, there was negative high
and signi cant correlation between UE and ARE.
Table 3 showed that there was high and signi cant
correlation between indexes in G1 cultivar of plant.
Highest correlation was between UE and AE that its
Table 2. A matrix of simple correlation coef cient
for the estimated indices three cultivars of
soybean plants.
Indices AE PE APE ARE UE
AE 1
PE 0.219 1
APE 0.496* 0.321 1
ARE -0.345 -0.147 -0.781** 1
UE 0.573* 0.565* 0.670** -0.605** 1
**Signi cant at the 1% level; *Signi cant at the 5% level.
Table 3. A matrix of simple correlation coef cient
for the estimated indices of G1 plants.
Indices AE PE APE ARE UE
AE 1
PE 0.910* 1
APE 0.932** 0.951** 1
ARE -0.942** -0.823* -0.850* 1
UE 0.952** 0.919** 0.876* -0.844* 1
**Signi cant at the 1% level; *Signi cant at the 5% level.
value was 0.952. Correlation between APE and PE was
0.951.
There was positive, high and signi cant correlation
between PE and APE. But the rest of correlations were
not signi cant (Table 4).
There was positive, high and signi cant correlation
between UE and AE. Also between UE and ARE in G3
cultivar of plant (Table 5).
Table 4. A matrix of simple correlation
coef cient for the estimated indices of G2
plants.
Indices
AE PE APE ARE UE
AE 1
PE -0.641 1
APE -0.235 0.834* 1
ARE 0.632 -0.326 0.135 1
UE -0.487 0.692 0.731 -0.043 1
**Signi cant at the 1% level; *Signi cant at the 5% level.
Table 5. A matrix of simple correlation
coef cient for the estimated indices of G3
plants.
Indices AE PE APE ARE UE
AE 1
PE -0.352 1
APE 0.670 -0.714 1
ARE -0.899* 0.454 -0.781 1
UE 0.823* -0.335 0.754 -0.960** 1
**Signi cant at the 1% level; *Signi cant at the 5% level.
234 EVALUATION OF AGRONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY, AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Sadegh Beaicknejad
CONCLUSIONS
Potassium treatments were signi cant effect on PE,
APE, ARE and UE (P<0.01). In all of cultivars, Addition
of potassium caused increase UE and APE, but caused
reduce ARE. Among indexes, there were signi cant dif-
ferences between potassium treatments in all of cultivars
in ARE index. The high, positive and signi cant cor-
relations were seen between UE and AE, APE and PE in
plants of G1 cultivar.
REFERENCES
Adcock, D., McNeill, A., Unkovich, M., & O’Leary, G. (2003).
Water use ef ciency of wheat in a semi-arid environment. In
Solutions for a better environment: Proceedings of the 11th
Australian Agronomy Conference, Geelong, Victoria, Australia,
2-6 February 2003. (pp. 0-4). Australian Society of Agronomy
Inc., Victorian Institute for Dryland Agriculture.
Baligar, V. C., Fageria, N. K., & He, Z. L. (2001). Nutrient use
ef ciency in plants. Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis, 32(7-8), 921-950.
Coale, F. J., & Grove, J. H. (1990). Root distribution and shoot
development in no-till full-season and double-crop soybean.
Agronomy Journal, 82(3), 606-612.
Farrokh, A. R., & Farrokh, A. (2012). Effect of nitrogen and
potassium on yield, agronomy ef ciency, physiological ef -
ciency and recovery ef ciency of nitrogen and potassium in
ue cured tobacco. Intl J Agri Crop Sci, 4(12), 770-778.
Friedman, M., & Brandon, D. L. (2001). Nutritional and health
bene ts of soy proteins. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 49(3), 1069-1086.
Hartman, G. L., West, E. D., & Herman, T. K. (2011). Crops that
feed the World 2. Soybean—worldwide production, use, and
constraints caused by pathogens and pests. Food Security, 3(1),
5-17.
Hoeft, R. G., Aldrich, S. R., Nafziger, E. D., & Johnson, R. R.
(2000). Modern corn and soybean production.
Hosseini, M., Naeini, S. A. M., Dehghani, A. A., & Khaledian,
Y. (2016). Estimation of soil mechanical resistance parameter
by using particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithm and
multiple regression methods. Soil and Tillage Research, 157,
32-42.
Malakouti MJ (2004) Fertilizer use by crops in Iran. A report
prepared for FAO, Soil and Water Research Institute, Tehran,
Iran.
Mehdi, S. M., Sarfraz, M., & Hafeez, M. (2007). Response of
rice advance line PB-95 to potassium application in saline-
sodic soil. Pakistan journal of biological sciences: PJBS, 10(17),
2935-2939.
N. K. Fageria 1, H. R. Gheyi2 and M. C. S. Carvalho. (2014).
Yield, potassium uptake and use ef ciency in upland riceculti-
vars. Inovargi international meeting. 4514-4520.
Rengel, Z., & Damon, P. M. (2008). Crops and cultivars differ
in ef ciency of potassium uptake and use. Physiologia Plan-
tarum, 133(4), 624-636.
Shahdi Komleh, A. (2002). The effect potassium on removing
of growth disorter related to shortnes of Guilan rice eld (pp.
13-17). Rice Research Institute.
Stino GR, Aziz AE, Elezaby AA, and Abd Elmoneim EA (2002)
Response of Valencia orange tree to the foliar application
of different potassium salts: Their effects on the veget tive
growth, leaf miner infestation and leaf mineral contents. Hort
Science, 35(3). 421-427.
Tiwari, S. P., Joshi, O. P., Vyas, A. K., & Billore, S. D.
(2002). Potassium nutrition in yield and quality improve-
ment of soybean. In Proceedings of the International Sym-
posium on Potassium for Sustainable Crop Production
(pp. 307-321).
Tiwari, S.P., Joshi O.P., Vyas, A.K. and Billore, S.D. (2001)
Potassium Nutrition in Yield and Quality. 307-320.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF AGRONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY, AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY 235