Published May 5, 2017
CROP ECOLOGY & PHYSIOLOGY
Delineating Soybean Maturity Groups across the United States
Spyridon Mourtzinis* and Shawn P. Conley
ABSTRACT
Photoperiod and in-season temperature are the primary factors
that dictate the region where a soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]
variety is adapted. The first study that defined hypothetical
maturity groups (MGs) zones across the US was 45 yr ago, and
the most recent used data up to 2003. Although, photoperiod
remains constant, climatic conditions, management practices,
and soybean genetics have changed during the past decades.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to re-delineate soy-
bean MGs across the US using recent genetics. Soybean MG-
specific yield data from variety trials conducted in 2005–2015
were aggregated from 312 locations across the United States.
Seven MG zones were identified starting from MG = 0 in North
Dakota to MG = 6 in southern Georgia and South Carolina.
The width of MG = 4 and 5 zones cover the largest geographic
region extending from north of latitude 28°N to 39°N. Addi-
tionally, in contrast to previous studies, the MG zones were
defined by a downward deflection of the MG lines moving from
East to West rather than convex parallel lines. Due to the strong
effect of planting date on MG selection, a multi-location-year
experiment should be conducted across the United States using
multiple MGs evaluated in several planting dates. Such study
could provide further insight on location-specific optimum
MG. Overall results, update current knowledge by providing
valuable information for decision making and regional model-
ing. This work highlights the need to continuously monitor and
adjust the MG zones due to the constantly changing climate,
management, and genetics.
Core Ideas
• Seven maturity group zones were identified across the United States.
• The width of maturity group zones 4 and 5 cover the largest
geographic region.
• Maturity group zones were defined by a downward deflection of
the maturity group lines.
• Maturity group adaptation zones need to be continuously moni-
tored and adjusted.
Published in Agron. J. 109:1397–1403 (2017)
doi:10.2134/agronj2016.10.0581
Available freely online through the author-supported open access option
Copyright (c) 2017 American Society of Agronomy
5585 Guilford Road, Madison, WI 53711 USA
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
A g ro n o my J o u r n a l • Vo l u m e 10 9, I s s u e 4 • 2 017 1397
S
oybean is the most important oilseed crop in the United
States and its cultivated area is the second largest in the
country after corn (Zea mays L.) (USDA, 2016). The cul-
tivated areas include a wide diversity of environments from the
Great Plains to the East Coast (Fig. 1). Maturity group zones
represent defined areas where a cultivar is best adapted without
implying that MG-specific cultivars cannot be grown elsewhere
(Boerma and Specht, 2004). Maturity groups range from 000
for the very early maturing varieties to 10 (Boerma and Specht,
2004) for the latest maturing varieties. Gradations within MGs
are also commonly noted by adding a decimal to the MG number.
Maturity group is determined by two abiotic factors, photoperiod
and temperature (Cober et al., 2001; Garner and Allard, 1930;
Major et al., 1975; Summerfield et al., 1998; Wilkerson et al.,
1989). It has been reported that short days promote development
but when daylength is greater than a critical value the rate slows
(Summerfield et al., 1998, 1993). Several studies concluded that
elevated spring temperatures promoted earlier flowering; how-
ever, flowering timing differed significantly due to photoperiod
(Cooper, 2003; Hartwig, 1973; Major et al., 1975; Upadhyay
et al., 1994). It has also been reported that soybeans’ growth is
affected by a photoperiod and temperature interactive effect
with genotype (Cober et al., 2001; Heatherly and Elmore, 2004;
Summerfield et al., 1993). Four major genes (E1, E3, E4, and E7)
have been identified and characterized for their responses to long
day conditions (Cober and Voldeng, 2001a, 2001b; Saindon et
al., 1989a, 1989b). Additionally, major genes and quantitative
trait loci (QTLs) for flowering often interact with one another to
determine time to flowering (Watanabe et al., 2012). Therefore,
time to flowering may be changing as soybeans’ genetics change
due to breeding efforts and genetic engineering.
Photoperiod is a constant value for specific time period
and location and due to the strong relationship with soybean
development, more than 45 yr ago, Scott and Aldrich, delin-
eated hypothetical optimum MG zones across the United
States based on photoperiod (Scott and Aldrich, 1970). More
recently, Zhang et al. (2007) redefined the optimum MG zones
using yield variety trial data from 1998 to 2003. These authors
found that adaptation regions for varieties with MG = 0 to 3
have not changed whereas, for varieties MG = 4 to 6 adapta-
tion zones are much broader than those proposed by Scott and
Aldrich. Nevertheless, there have been significant changes
in soybean germplasm and management practices during the
past 12 yr which could affect the environmental adaptivity of
the current available varieties. For example, soybean’s value
Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Drive, Univ. of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI 53706. Received 11 Oct. 2016. Accepted 7 Mar. 2017.
*Corresponding author (mourtzinis@wisc.edu).
Abbreviations: MG, maturity group.
Fig. 1. Soybean hectarage distribution in the continental United States in 2015.
correlates with increased protein content and overall seed com-
position. Also, due to the increased demand of vegetable oil,
soybean’s oil profile has received much attention (Clemente and
Cahoon, 2009). Therefore, breeders have been using seed com-
position as additional selection criteria for germplasm develop-
ment, and since 2002 new soybean varieties with improved
seed composition have been developed. Furthermore, second
generation Roundup Ready soybean along with other herbi-
cide traits as well as new seed treatments have been released.
Also, the management practices applied in variety trials (row
spacing, seeding rate etc.) varied among states as well as their
effect on soybean yields the past 20 yr (Mourtzinis et al., 2015).
Additionally, the climatic conditions have been variable over
the past 20 to 80 yr and it has been shown that the observed
elevated temperatures have had variable results on soybean
yield across the United States (Mourtzinis et al., 2015).
There is information in the literature about region-specific
optimum MGs in the U.S. Midsouth (Parker et al., 1981;
Armstrong et al., 2009; Barreiro and Godsey, 2013; Ciampitti
et al., 2015) but there is a lack of similar peer-reviewed studies
covering the entire U.S. soybean growing area. The objective
of this study was to delineate soybean MG adaptation zones
across the United States using recent soybean genetics, manage-
ment practices, and climatic conditions from 27 states (312 sites).
1398 Agronomy Journal  •  Volume 109, Issue 4  •  2017
Materials and Methods
Soybean MG-specific yield data from variety performance
trials were aggregated for this study. These trials are typically
performed yearly in several locations across each state and for
this study, data from 27 states (312 sites) across the United
States (Fig. 2) and for periods up to 14 yr, depending on data
availability, were collected resulting in a database with 1551
location–years (~203,500 MG-specific yields). In every trial,
a range of 2 to 4 MGs were tested by planting several varieties
to the nearest 10th (e.g., 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 etc.) for MG designation.
The location-specific average planting date (as days of the year)
across years are shown in Fig. 3. Planting dates were not consid-
ered as a factor in the analysis due to: (i) missing information in
several trials (Indiana, Michigan, New York, South Carolina,
and Virginia), and (ii) severe imbalance in available planting
date information (early vs. common). In most trials the plant-
ing dates were very similar from year to year (± 3–5 d from
average) and only a few trials deviated by more than 2 wk from
the average planting date. Therefore, these data are not suitable
to test the additional effect of planting date on MG selection.
There were irrigated trials in many states (North Dakota,
Wisconsin, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South
Carolina, and Colorado) which were included in the analysis.
Fig. 2. Locations across the continental United States in which soybean yield variety trials were performed and data were used (n = 312
sites; 27 states; 203,500 maturity group-specific yields).
There were no available data in West Virginia and Florida and
there was a lack of trial data in parts of southern Missouri,
northeastern Minnesota, eastern Ohio, and western Texas,
Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota. For each
location included in the study, yield, MG, and location coordi-
nates were recorded.
The first step of the analysis was to identify the MG with
the maximum yield in every location–year–specific trial.
Considering MG as continuous variable, its linear and qua-
dratic form were regressed against yield using the REG pro-
cedure in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The MG that
maximized yield was identified by calculating the derivative of
the location–year–specific model. In the location–years that
the quadratic function was not statistically significant, and the
MG with the greatest mean yield was considered as “optimum”.
It should be noted that the MGs with the greatest average yield
in every test were very similar to those identified by the regres-
sion method with an MG = 0.02 absolute mean error differ-
ence (MG average – MG regression) and an MG = 0.4 root
mean square error.
Using these results, a new database was constructed includ-
ing the location–year–specific optimum MG, latitude, lon-
gitude, and elevation information. Then spatial analysis was
performed to predict the optimum MG in unobserved loca-
tions. The analysis was performed using the GLM procedure
to extract the residuals from the model that fitted MG as
function of latitude, longitude, their interaction, and their
quadratic forms. The model captured 87% of the observed
variability and thus used for spatial extrapolations. Then
using the VARIOGRAM procedure, the semivariance of the
Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 109, Issue 4  •   2017 1399
residuals was fitted. The semivariance was plotted against the
actual data and the spherical covariance structure was identi-
fied as the most appropriate. Then, taking into account the
spherical covariance structure, regression analysis of MG as a
function of latitude, longitude, elevation, their interactions,
and their quadratic forms was performed using the MIXED
procedure. The predicted optimum MG values, as a function
of coordinates and elevation, were utilized in the KRIG2D
procedure to spatially predict the optimum MG for longitudes
between –106.00 to –72.00 and latitudes between 27.00 to
50.00 by 0.5 × 0.5 degrees. Finally, the data were extracted and
inputted in ArcGIS 10 (ESRI, 2011) to develop a contour map
of optimum soybean MG zones across the examined region of
the conterminous United States.
Results and Discussion
The map with the soybean MG adaptation zones (Fig. 4)
shows that MG 0 varieties are best adapted to the region North
of latitude 47°N, which covers most of North Dakota, north-
western South Dakota, and northern Minnesota. The MG 1
varieties are better adapted to central and North South Dakota,
central Minnesota, northern Wisconsin and Michigan, and all
of New York. The areas from southern Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and South Dakota extended across northern Iowa
and Nebraska are better suited for MG 2. Although soybean
is not a major crop in Colorado, MG 2 varieties are better
adapted in the northern part of the state whereas MG 3 variet-
ies are better adapted to the rest of the state. The results suggest
that MG 3 varieties are adapted to the major soybean-pro-
ducing states such as the southern half of Nebraska and Iowa,
Fig. 3. Location-specific average planting dates across the examined region of the continental United States. Note: DOY denotes day of
the year.
central Illinois, central and northern Indiana and the entirety
of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Additionally, MG 3 soybean is
better suited to the northern half of Missouri and Kansas. The
MG 4 varieties are adapted to a wide range of latitudes includ-
ing the southern half of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana
as well as the entirety of Oklahoma and Kentucky. The MG 5
varieties seem to be better suited to most of the southern states
apart from the southern part of Georgia and South Carolina
where MG 6 varieties were better suited.
These results are somewhat similar to Zhang et al. (2007)
who reported that MG 0 or earlier are better suited North of
latitude 46°N including northern Wisconsin and Michigan
using a different dataset (139 sites). Results from our study
suggest that MG 0 should be restricted to North Dakota and
northern Minnesota. Also, Zhang et al. (2007) used convex
parallel lines to delineate optimum MG regions and they con-
tinued the lines to the western regions of the High Plains states
(North and South Dakota) where there was a lack of trial data.
Our updated map uses vastly more data, different methodology
in data analysis, and extends the trial locations beyond those
Zhang et al. (2007) used. Additionally, these data do not agree
with Scott and Aldrich (1970) who suggested that MG 00 is
better adapted to all of North Dakota. Nevertheless, this is
an older study in which the hypothetical zones were based on
1400 Agronomy Journal  •  Volume 109, Issue 4  •  2017
photoperiod. Although photoperiod did not change, it has
been shown that in-season temperatures increased in North
Dakota since 1994 (Mourtzinis et al., 2015) which could have
allowed for earlier planting of MG 0 varieties. Since photo-
period of a given location during specific months is constant
through time, the difference among the zones reported in 1970
(Scott and Aldrich, 1970), 2003 (Zhang et al., 2007), and our
study suggest that the effect of temperature, driven by climate
change, is also an important factor that affects the adaptation
potential of different soybean MGs.
The later MGs adaptation zones are also different from what
was reported from Scott and Aldrich, (1970) who suggested
that MG 7 to 8 are better adapted in southern states. During
the past 30 yr, farmers in the South have started to plant ear-
lier in the season, mainly to avoid extreme summer heat and
drought stress during reproductive stages (Edwards et al., 2003;
Heatherly and Elmore, 2004; Heitholt et al., 2005). Therefore,
MG = 5 to 6 were identified as the most adapted across the
southern states, and these results are in further agreement with
Zhang et al. (2007).
The MG optimum zones, defined by the downward deflec-
tion of the MG lines moving from East to West, are consistent
with several state-specific MG optimum zones. Our results
are in agreement with the MGs that exhibited the greatest
Fig. 4. Soybean maturity group zones across the examined region of the continental United States.
simulated relative yield potential in Iowa and Missouri
(Archontoulis et al., 2014). In the southern United States, our
results agree with the recommended MGs in Kansas (3.8–4.8)
for similar planting dates (mid-May to mid-June) (Ciampitti et
al., 2015). However, our results do not agree with what is rec-
ommended in Oklahoma (Armstrong et al., 2009), where the
reported optimum MGs are those reported in the map devel-
oped by Scott and Aldrich (1970). Nevertheless, another study
in Oklahoma suggested that MG = 4 and 5 planted before
29 May provide the greatest probability to achieve maximum
soybean yield (Barreiro and Godsey, 2013). These recommen-
dations are consistent with our results that MG = 4.5 to 5 have
been identified as the most suitable for that state. Furthermore,
our results are in partial agreement with a study in Georgia that
found optimum MG = 5 to 8 for planting dates from May to
early June (Parker et al., 1981). For similar planting dates, our
data suggest that suitable MGs are 5.5 to 6.5. Nevertheless, the
Georgia study was conducted more than 35 yr ago, and since
then, management, genetics, and climate has been changed.
This is an additional indication that location–specific optimum
MGs should be continuously monitored and adjusted. For
irrigated soybean planted in April in Mississippi, an MG = 4
has been recommended whereas, in non-irrigated sites planted
in early May, MGs 4 to 7 resulted in similar yields (Heatherly,
Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 109, Issue 4  •   2017 1401
2005). Our data suggest that MG = 5.2 to 5.7 are most suitable
for planting dates between late April to mid-May. It should be
noted that for Mississippi, we used irrigated and non-irrigated
data but the majority were from non-irrigated trials.
For several northern states, there is a lack of peer-reviewed
recommendations about region-specific optimum MGs.
However, examining the available information, our results are
similar to the optimum MGs recommended in North Dakota,
where MG = 00 and MG = 1 are suitable in the northern and
southeastern part of the state, respectively (Kandel, 2010).
The same level of agreement between our study and what
is currently recommended was also observed in Minnesota
(Kandel, 2010). A simulation study found that MG = 0 had
the greatest relative yield potential in Minnesota at 46° latitude
(Archontoulis et al., 2014). This result is slightly different form
our results that an MG = 1 was found to be the most suitable.
Nevertheless, in that study the simulated relative yield differ-
ences among MG = 00, 0, and 1 were minimal. A fairly wide
range of optimum MGs (MG = 0–3) is recommended in South
Dakota (Hall et al., 2012) which is similar to the optimum
MGs in our study for the same state. According to Michigan
State University Extension, the range of suitable MGs in the
central part of the state is 1.8 to 2.6 and between 2.4 to 3.2 for
the southern region (Stanton, 2014). These recommended MGs
are in close agreement with our results. Similar results to ours
have also been reported in Illinois, where MG = 3.7 exhibited
the highest 15-yr average yield in the central part of the state,
although no specific MG recommendation was implicitly
stated (Nafziger, 2015).
It is obvious that in regions where there was a lack of avail-
able data, the standard errors were large (e.g., West Virginia,
Florida, western Texas) and around clusters of proximate
locations were small. However, areas where multiple soybean
variety trials data were available, and the standard errors were
small (Fig. 4), lie within the regions with the largest soybean
cultivated area across the United States (Fig. 1). This implies
that the data presented can be considered a realistic representa-
tion of the optimum MG distribution across the largest and
most important soybean agricultural U.S. regions. It should
be noted that the contour lines extended to western Texas and
northeastern United States should be interpreted with cau-
tion since they were extrapolated from the examined region.
Additionally, it is highlighted that these results are bound to
the management practices (e.g., planting dates, etc.) that were
applied in the variety trials, as well as to the location-specific
weather conditions during the examined period. Therefore, it
is critical to emphasize that the defined optimum MG zones
should not be considered as the only regions that a specific MG
can be grown. In favorable weather conditions and in regions
where planting dates can be flexible, such as in the southern
states, earlier or later maturing varieties than the optimum
can also be successfully grown. This has been observed in a
study conducted at several locations in the southern United
States where early and late planting dates for the specific loca-
tions were tested (Salmeron et al., 2014). In that study, plant-
ing occurred earlier in spring and later in the summer by up
to 40 d compared to the variety trial data we used. However,
our results are within the optimum MG ranges (MGs that
exhibited the highest yields) that were identified across
Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas (Salmeron et al., 2014). It should be noted that across
these states, our data included more than 450 environments
(location × year) with multiple MGs, and many varieties tested
within each environment. To our knowledge, this is the most
comprehensive dataset ever analyzed for soybean. Our meth-
odology provides a new approach to synthesize diverse and
(largely) disconnect data from different states. This analysis
and framework can be updated every year, as new data come in,
to provide summary analyses for decision making and inputs
for crop modelers. Nevertheless, it should be noted that early
planting dates are not always possible due to weather condi-
tion constrains. For example, excessive rainfall can delay field
preparation and planting. Therefore, even in locations where
weather conditions can permit earlier planting, the optimum
MG information for variable planting window can be of great
importance for farmers and agronomists.
Conclusions
The constantly changing weather patterns have led scientists
and farmers to change management practices and adapt to
the new conditions. Therefore, the adaptivity of new soybean
varieties, as a result of genetic improvement and the interac-
tive effects with photoperiod and temperature, needs to be
1402 Agronomy Journal  •  Volume 109, Issue 4  •  2017
routinely evaluated. The soybean MG adaptation zones in this
study, when compared to previous works 12 and 45 yr ago,
further highlight the need to be continuously monitored and
adjusted as a result of the constantly changing climate, manage-
ment, and genetics.
A limitation of this study is that it does not allow to test
planting date effects on the location-specific MG selection.
Due to the strong effect of planting date on MG selection, a
multi-location experiment should be conducted across the
United States using multiple MGs grown in several planting
dates. Currently, such data set is nonexistent and could provide
further insight on location-specific optimum MGs across all
locations of interest in the United States. Additionally, such
data can be useful for crop simulation models that can dynami-
cally simulate region-specific optimum MGs based on current
and future weather projections, and under various management
practices. Vast amounts of information, analyzed by multiple
methods (statistical and processed based modeling), can pro-
vide further insight in region-specific MG selection.
Additionally, growers in many states follow a variety of
recommendations derived from variety trials results, which are
bound to the management practices used (e.g., planting date) in
those trials. However, there is a recent trend of earlier recom-
mended planting dates than the dates used in the variety trials
in many regions. Therefore, we suggest that variety trials should
include more planting dates (e.g., early, normal and late) or at
least should be initiated earlier in the spring, to follow current
planting date recommendations in every region and reflect
grower management practices. Such practice would provide more
insight to agronomists which in turn would provide growers
with more accurate information on region-specific MG selection.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Adam Roth and multiple students for their help in
data collection and John Gaska for constructing Fig. 1 to 4. The authors
also thank the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board and the North
Central Soybean Research Program for partial funding of this project.
References
Archontoulis, S.V., F.E. Miguez, and K.J. Moore. 2014. A methodol-
ogy and an optimization tool to calibrate phenology of short-day
species included in the APSIM PLANT model: Application to
soybean. Environ. Model. Softw. 62:465–477. doi:10.1016/j.
envsoft.2014.04.009
Armstrong, J., B. Arnall, J. Criswell, J. Damicone, C. Godsey, M.
Kizer, P. Mulder, P. Pratt, and R. Taylor. 2009. Soybean produc-
tion guide. http://oilseeds.okstate.edu/production-information/
soybean/E967SoybeanGuide2009.pdf (accessed 7 Jan. 2017).
Barreiro, A.S., and C.B. Godsey. 2013. Soybean yield as affected by
planting date and maturity group in the southern plains. www.
plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/. Crop Manage. doi: 10.1094/
CM-2012-0150-RS
Boerma, H.R., and J.E. Specht, editors. 2004. Soybeans: Improvement,
production, and uses. 3rd ed. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison,
WI. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.06.006
Ciampitti, I.A., D.E. Shoup, G. Sassenrath, J. Kimball, and E.A.
Adee. 2015. Soybean planting date × maturity group: Eastern
Kansas summary. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Reports 1(2).
doi:10.4148/2378-5977.1047
Clemente, E.T., and E.B. Cahoon. 2009. Soybean oil: Genetic
approaches for modification of functionality and total content.
Plant. Physiol. 151:1030–1040. Am. Soc. of Plant Biol. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.146282 (accessed 10 Apr. 2017).
Cober, E.R., D.W. Stewart, and H.D. Voldeng. 2001. Photoperiod and
temperature responses in early-maturing, near-isogenic soybean
lines. Crop Sci. 41:721–727. doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.413721x
Cober, E.R., and H.D. Voldeng. 2001a. A new soybean maturity
and photoperiod-sensitivity locus linked to E1 and T. Crop Sci.
41:698–701. doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.413698x
Cober, E.R., and H.D. Voldeng. 2001b. Low R:FR light quality delays
flowering of E7E7 soybean lines. Crop Sci. 41:1823–1826.
doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.1823
Cooper, R.L. 2003. A delayed flowering barrier to higher soy-
bean yields. Field Crops Res. 82:27–35. doi:10.1016/
S0378-4290(03)00003-0
Edwards, J.T., L.C. Purcell, E.D. Vories, J.G. Shannon, and L.O.
Ashlock. 2003. Short-season soybean cultivars have similar
yields with less irrigation than longer-season cultivars. www.
plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/. Crop Manage. doi:10.1094/
CM-2003-0922-01-RS
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environ. Systems Res. Inst.,
Redlands, CA.
Garner, W.W., and H.A. Allard. 1930. Photoperiodic response of soy-
beans in relation to temperature and other environmental fac-
tors. J. Agric. Res. 41:719–735.
Hall, R.G., K.K. Kirby, and S. Hawks. 2012. 2012 Annual report: Soy-
bean variety performance trials results-South shore. South Dakota
State Univ. Ext. https://igrow.org/up/resources/03-3014-2012.
pdf (accessed 2 Mar. 2017).
Hartwig, E.E. 1973. Varietal development. In: B.E. Caldwell, editor,
Soybeans: Improvement, production and uses. Agron. Monogr.
16. 1st ed. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 187–210.
Heatherly, L.G. 2005. Midsouthern USA soybean yield affected
by maturity group and planting date. www.plantman-
agementnetwork.org/cm/. Crop Manage. doi:10.1094/
CM-2005-0418-01-RS
Heatherly, L.G., and R.W. Elmore. 2004. Managing inputs for peak
production. In: B.E. Caldwell, editor, Soybeans: Improvement,
production and uses. Agron. Monogr. 16. 1st ed. ASA, CSSA,
and SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 451–536.
Heitholt, J.J., J.B. Farr, and R.L. Sutton. 2005. Risk manage-
ment in north Texas soybean: Mid-March soybean plantings
uncertain; maturity group IV cultivars reliable. www.plant-
managementnetwork.org/cm/. Crop Manage. doi:10.1094/
CM-2005-0329-01-RS
Kandel, H. 2010. Soybean production field guide for North Dakota
and Northwestern Minnesota. North Dakota State Univ. Ext.
Serv. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/extensionentomology/field-
crops-insect-pests/Documents/soybean/a-1172-soybean-produc-
tion-field-guide (accessed 2 Mar. 2017).
Major, D.J., D.R. Johnson, J.W. Tanner, and I.C. Anderson. 1975.
Effects of daylength and temperature on soybean development.
Crop Sci. 15:174–179. doi:10.2135/cropsci1975.0011183X0015
00020009x
Agronomy Journal   •  Volume 109, Issue 4  •   2017 1403
Mourtzinis, S., J.E. Specht, L.E. Lindsay, W.J. Wiebold, J. Ross,
E.D. Nafziger et al. 2015. Climate-induced reduction in US-
wide soybean yields underpinned by region- and in-season spe-
cific responses. Nat. Plants 1:Article no. 14026. doi:10.1038/
nplants.2014.26
Nafziger, E. 2015. Soybean planting date and varietal maturity.
Univ. of Illinois Ext. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/?p=2931
(accessed 2 Mar. 2017).
Parker, M.B., W.H. Marchant, and B.J. Mullinix. 1981. Date of planting
and row spacing effects on 4 soybean cultivars. Agron. J. 73:759–
762. doi:10.2134/agronj1981.00021962007300050003x
Saindon, G., W.D. Beversdorf, and H.D. Voldeng. 1989a. Adjusting
of the soybean phenology using the E4 loci. Crop Sci. 29:1361–
1365. doi:10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900060006x
Saindon, G., H.D. Voldeng, W.D. Beversdorf, and R.I. Buzzell. 1989b.
Genetic control of long daylength response in soybean. Crop Sci.
29:1436–1439. doi:10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900060021x
Salmeron, M., E.E. Gbur, F.M. Bourland, N.W. Buehring, L. Earnest,
F.B. Fritschi et al. 2014. Soybean maturity group choices for
early-and late plantings in the Midsouth. Agron. J. 106:1893–
1901. doi:10.2134/agronj14.0222
Scott, W.O., and S.R. Aldrich. 1970. Modern soybean production. 1st
ed. S & A Publ. Inc, Champaign, IL.
Stanton, M. 2014. What is the relationship between soybean maturity
group and yield? Michigan State Univ. http://msue.anr.msu.edu/
news/what_is_the_relationship_between_soybean_maturity_
group_and_yield (accessed 2 Mar. 2017).
Summerfield, R.J., H. Asumadu, R.H. Ellis, and A. Qi. 1998. Char-
acterization of the photoperiodic response of post-flowering
development in maturity isolines of soyabean Glycine max (L.)
Merrill ‘Clark’. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 82:765–771. doi:10.1006/
anbo.1998.0755
Summerfield, R.J., R.J. Lawn, A. Qi, R.H. Ellis, E.H. Roberts, P.M.
Chay et al. 1993. Towards the reliable prediction of time to flow-
ering in 6 annual crops. 2. Soybean (Glycine-max). Exp. Agric.
29:253–289. doi:10.1017/S0014479700020858
Upadhyay, A.P., R.J. Summerfield, R.H. Ellis, E.H. Roberts, and A.
Qi. 1994. Variation in the duration of the photoperiod-sensitive
phases of development to flowering among eight maturity iso-
lines of soyabean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Ann. Bot. (Lond.)
74:97–101. doi:10.1093/aob/74.1.97
USDA. 2016. Crop production, 2015 summary. USDA Natl. Agric.
Statistics Serv. http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/
cropan16.pdf (accessed 2 Mar. 2017).
Watanabe, S., K. Harada, and J. Abe. 2012. Genetic and molecular
bases of photoperiod responses of flowering in soybean. Breed.
Sci. 61:531–543. doi:10.1270/jsbbs.61.531
Wilkerson, G.G., J.W. Jones, K.J. Boote, and G.S. Buol. 1989. Photope-
riodically sensitive interval in time to flower of soybean. Crop Sci.
29:721–726. doi:10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900030037x
Zhang, L. X., S. Kyei-Boahen, J. Zhang, M.H. Zhang, T.B. Free-
land, C.E., Jr., Watson, and X.M. Liu. 2007. Modifications of
optimum adaptation zones for soybean maturity groups in the
USA. www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/. Crop Manage.
doi:10.1094/CM-2007-0927-01-RS