Registration of S16-9090: A Soybean Cultivar Combining High Yield, Tolerance to Drought and Multiple Nematodes

Registration of S16-9090: A Soybean Cultivar Combining High Yield, Tolerance to Drought and Multiple Nematodes | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 2 December 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Registration of S16-9090: A Soybean Cultivar Combining High Yield, Tolerance to Drought and Multiple Nematodes Authors : Harmeet Singh 0009-0009-8685-9556 , Francia Ravelombola 0009-0006-1447-2393 , Nannan Li , Cheryl Adeva 0000-0002-0454-3024 , Maiara Oliveira , Destiny Hunt , J. Grover Shannon 0000-0001-8524-081X , Ben Fallen 0000-0001-7185-5493 , and Feng Lin [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176463853.33818841/v1 215 views 113 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract S16-9090 (Reg. no., PI XXXXXX) is an early maturity group V (relative maturity 5.2) conventional soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivar released by the University of Missouri-Fisher Delta Extension and Education Center (MU-FDREEC) soybean breeding program. S16-9090 has white flowers, gray pubescence, tan pod wall, and semi-determinate growth habit. Seeds of S16-9090 have buff hilum and intermediate seed luster, with an oil content of 226.4 g kg-1, a protein content of 393.7 g kg-1 on a dry-weight basis, and an average 100-seed weight of 13.7g. S16-9090 demonstrated broad adaptability and high yield stability. Across 81 environments, it averaged 4,431 kg ha-1, yielding 109% of check mean and 108% of the test mean. During the three-year drought trials (across 10 environments), S16-9090 maintained strong performance under both irrigated and rainfed conditions. Its yield averaged 4,519 kg ha-1 under irrigation (118% of the check mean) and 2,765 kg ha-1 under rainfed conditions (108% of the check mean), confirming resilience across environments. S16-9090 is resistant to southern root-knot nematode (SRKN), moderately resistant to soybean cyst nematode (SCN) race 3, and moderately susceptible to SCN races 2 and 5, and stem canker. Its yield stability, drought tolerance, and nematode resistance make it a valuable cultivar for soybean production. 1. INTRODUCTION Soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] stands as a globally significant crop, boasting extensive cultivation and rich nutritional value. With high protein and oil content, it demonstrates remarkable versatility in the food sector: It can be processed into diverse products such as soymilk and tofu to meet human dietary needs, while also serving as a key ingredient in animal feed (Siamabele, 2021). Soybean oil ranks second in global consumption among edible oils, and its derivatives find wide application in numerous industrial fields including biodiesel and soap production (Fauzan & Hambali, 2021). However, the application of genetically modified crops remains a subject of controversy, with core concerns focusing on their potential impacts on human health, nutritional properties, and environmental sustainability. Consequently, the demand for conventional (non-genetically modified) soybean cultivars has continued to increase. Drought is the most serious abiotic stress globally, causing highly significant yield reductions in soybean production systems (Guzzo et al., 2021; Manavalan et al., 2009). In severe drought conditions, yield losses in soybean can reach up to 80% (Desclaux et al., 2000; Sadeghipour & Abbasi, 2012; Wei et al., 2018). In the U.S.A., almost 90% of soybean acreage is relied on rainfed production, leaving it highly prone to inadequate rainfall and drought conditions (Hamed et al., 2021; Soybean Research & Information Network, 2025). In the mid-South U.S.A. states, drought stress frequently coincides with flowering and early pod filling, leading to major reductions in seed yield and quality (Du et al., 2020). Soybean is especially vulnerable to water deficits during reproductive phase, where drought can substantially reduce seed size, weight and composition (Poudel et al., 2023). Additionally, pests including southern root-knot (SKRN; Meloidogyne spp.) and soybean cyst (SCN; Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) nematodes account for substantial yield losses. On average, they accounted for ~42% of yield losses caused by top 10 biotic stressors across the southern U.S during 2015-2019 (Bradley et al., 2021). Therefore, integrating drought tolerant germplasm with nematode resistance into soybean breeding programs is a key priority, especially in drought prone environments. Over the past several decades, considerable progress has been made in identifying genetic resources that enhance drought tolerance in soybean. One of the earliest and most widely studied accessions is PI 416937, originally collected from Japan, which was reported by Sloane et al. (1990). It has been exhibited to have slow canopy wilting and reduced yield penalties under water limited conditions. Physiological characterization of PI 416937 demonstrated that it possesses a highly branched fibrous root system with large surface area, as well as increased nodule number and biomass, traits that contribute to improved performance under drought conditions (Pantalone et al., 1996). PI 416937 has served as a parent in the development of multiple drought tolerant soybean germplasm lines and cultivars, including USDA-N7005 (Bagherzadi et al., 2022), USDA-N7006 (Fallen et al., 2023), and R10-2436 (Manjarrez-Sandoval et al., 2020). More recently, this germplasm has contributed to the pedigree of R19-42848 (Reg. no. GP-532, PI 706865), a drought-tolerant, high yielding soybean germplasm line released by the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture (Wu et al., 2025). S16-9090 was released in 2025 by the University of Missouri Fisher Delta Extension and Education Center (MU-FDREEC) Soybean Breeding Program as an early maturity group V (RM 5.2) conventional soybean cultivar. It was developed to deliver stable, high yield performance across diverse environments while maintaining resilience under both irrigated and rainfed production systems in Missouri and other mid-South U.S. states. 2. METHODS 2.1. Parent selection and pedigree S16-9090 is derived from the cross R10-230 × S11-20124. ‘R10-230’ (Chen et al., 2018) is a soybean variety, originating from the cross ‘5002T’(PI 634193, Pantalone et al., 2004) × ‘R04-357’. It is characterized by its moderate resistance to reniform nematode ( Rotylenchulus reniformis ) and resistance to stem canker ( Diaporthe aspalathi ). ‘S11-20124C’ (PI 689118) (Shannon et al., 2019) is a high-yielding semi-determinate MG V (RM 5.1) conventional variety derived from the cross ‘S05-11482’ × ‘S06-4649RR’ at the University of Missouri-FDREEC, Portageville. It has a multiple nematode resistance package, including moderate resistance to soybean cyst nematode races 1, 2, 3, 5, and 14 (HG Type 2.5.7, Type 1.2.5.7, Type 7, Type 2.5.7, Type 1.3.6.7 respectively) and resistance to southern root‐knot nematode and reniform nematode. 2.2. Breeding line development The cross R10-230 × S11-20124 was made in summer 2014 at the MU-FDREEC in Portageville, MO. The F 1 -F 4 generations were advanced in an off-season nursery in Costa Rica (2014-2016) by the modified single pod descent method (Fehr, 1987). Selected F 4 seeds were grown as progeny rows during the summer of 2016 in Portageville, MO. The row designated as experimental line ‘S16-9090’ was visually selected at maturity based on agronomic characteristics like plant type, lodging, yield potential, and then, bulked for further evaluation. 2.3. Agronomic traits and seed composition S16-9090 was evaluated for agronomic and morphological traits, including maturity, plant height, lodging, flower, pod, and pubescence color, growth habit in the USDA Southern Uniform Soybean Trials (SUST) during 2019 (Gillen & Shelton, 2020) and 2020 (Gillen & Shelton, 2021). Maturity was defined as the point when 95% of pods reached physiological maturity (Fehr et al., 1971), and the values are expressed as days earlier and later than reference check Ellis (PI 680630; Pantalone et al., 2017). Plant height was measured from the center rows of each plot as the average distance (cm) from the soil surface to the top of the canopy at maturity. Lodging was rated visually on a 1-5 scale, where 1 indicated completely erect and 5 represented plants lying flat. S16-9090 was also evaluated for seed size, seed quality, protein and oil. Seed size was expressed as the weight (g) of 100 seeds. Seed quality was assessed on a 1-5 scale, where 1 denoted excellent quality and 5 indicated poor quality, based on visual observations of seed coat integrity and damage. Protein and oil contents were determined using near-infrared transmittance via a Perten IM 9500 Grain Analyzer and reported on a dry weight basis. Meal protein content was adjusted to a 13% moisture basis, calculated based on seed protein and oil content (Gillen & Shelton, 2020, 2021). 2.4. Evaluation of seed yield performance S16-9090 was evaluated in a total of 81 environments across 10 states. These included 23 environments in the MU-FDREEC yield trials (MYT) (2017-2021), 18 environments across five states in the USDA-SUST (2019-2020), and 40 environments across six states in the State Variety Trials (SVTs) in 2021. Drought tolerance of S16-9090 was additionally assessed in the drought yield trials (DYT) conducted across 10 environments. The check varieties and lines included in all the trials are listed in Table 1. S16-9090 was initially tested in 2017 across four environments, in unreplicated preliminary yield trials (PYT). Subsequently, S16-9090 was tested in five environments in advanced yield trials (AYT) in 2018. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications within each environment was used. Plots in the PYT and AYT consisted of four rows of 3.66 m in length with 0.76 m row spacing. Seed yield was collected from the two center rows of each plot. In the 2018-21 cooperative yield trials (COOP) as part of MYT, S16-9090 was tested in fourteen environments across five states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia. Plot sizes in the COOP varied among environments. In the SUST, S16-9090 was evaluated across 20 total environments in the 2019 preliminary (UP) and 2020 uniform trials (UT). In the 2019 UP trials, S16-9090 was tested in five environments across four states, including Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In the 2020 UT, S16-9090 was tested in 13 environments across seven states, including Tennessee, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Noth Carolina, Missouri, Mississippi. Plot sizes in the SUST also varied among environments. In the SVT-2021, S16-9090 was evaluated in Alabama (five environments) (Henry Jordan, 2021), Kentucky (six environments) (Venard & Mertz, 2021), Louisiana (seven environments) (Moseley et al., 2022), Mississippi (four environments) (Burgess & Bullard, 2022), Virginia (five environments) (Holshouser & Taylor, 2021), and North Carolina (13 environments). The experimental design was a randomized complete block design (RCBD), with the number of rows, plot length, and spacing varying across environments. 2.5. Evaluation of drought tolerance Drought tolerance of S16-9090 was assessed in rainfed and irrigated drought yield trials (DYT) across 10 environments in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and North Carolina from 2021 to 2023. Variety ‘Ellis’ and germplasm line R19-42848 (PI 706865; Wu et al., 2025) were included as drought tolerant checks. All the experiments were conducted using RCBD with three replications. Other than yield, the canopy wilting score (CWS) was recorded in rainfed trials during the R4 to R5 (Fehr et al., 1971) growth stages, when there was no rain for 7-10 days. The CWS was rated on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 represented the plants with no visible wilting, 2 indicated slight wilting, 3 indicated moderate wilting, 4 indicated severe wilting with partial defoliation, and 5 represented severe wilting with some plant death. 2.6. Biotic stress evaluation S16-9090 was evaluated for resistance to major biotic stressors of soybean including soybean cyst nematode, southern root-knot nematode and stem canker disease. Greenhouse evaluations for SCN resistance were performed at the USDA-ARS Crop Genetics Research Unit in Jackson, TN (Gillen & Shelton, 2020, 2021), using previously established methods (Niblack et al., 2002). Populations of SCN race 2 (HG Type 1.2.5.7), race 3 (HG Type 5.7) and race 5 (HG Type 2.5.7) were tested. For each nematode population, a single seed of each genotype was planted in sterile soil amended with 2,500 eggs. Four weeks after planting, plants were scored based on cyst counts on the roots, using a 1-5 scale: 1 = resistant (0-5 cysts), 2 = moderately resistant (6-10 cysts), 3 = moderately susceptible (11-20 cysts), 4 = susceptible (21-40 cysts), and 5 = highly susceptible (>40 cysts). The cultivar ‘5601T’ (V. r. Pantalone et al., 2003) served as susceptible control. Each population was evaluated in five replications, and results were averaged to generate the final disease rating. Screening for SRKN was carried out in a greenhouse at the University of Georgia (Gillen & Shelton, 2021) following the procedure described below. Four replications of each genotype contained four seedlings that were transplanted into cone-tainers with sandy loam soil. One-week post-transplant, seedlings were inoculated by injecting 3,000 eggs of SRKN in 1 mL suspensions into two shallow holes (2-3 cm deep) prepared around the seedling bases. Plants were hand watered for two weeks and then kept on automated bench irrigation systems. Six weeks later, shoots were removed, and galls were counted. Root systems were rinsed to remove galls and other soil from the fine hair. Gall numbers were normalized to a gall index (GI) of the susceptible check ‘GaSoy17’ (PI 553046; Baker & Harris, 1979), expressed on a 1-5 scale of 1 = 40% GI. Mean final disease scores of the four replications of each genotype consisted of the mean GI of each replication. Stem canker assessments were conducted at the Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS (Gillen & Shelton, 2020, 2021). Single-row plots of 1.8 m with eight plants per genotype were inoculated with the toothpick technique, where toothpicks autoclaved and colonized with LiDA18-2, a fungal isolate, were placed in the upper third of the plant stem. Disease severity was scored on a 1-5 based on lesion progression and foliar symptomatology: 1 = no external lesions (resistance) and 5 = all plants dead with major lesions (susceptibility). Genotype ‘AG 4403’ (Bayer Crop Science) and the commercial cultivar ‘Ellis’ acted as susceptible and resistant checks, respectively. 2.7. Statistical analysis For PYT analysis, the mixed linear model was fitted using “genotype” as a fixed effect and “environment” put as “replication” as random effects. For AYT and COOP analysis, the mixed linear model was fitted using “genotype” as a fixed effect and “environment,” “genotype × environment” interaction, and “replication nested within environment” as random effects. To determine the statistical difference in seed yield performance among genotypes, the least significant difference (LSD 0.05 ) was calculated to determine the statistical differences in yield among all the genotypes tested in each trial. Data for the SUST were analyzed by the USDA-ARS (Gillen & Shelton, 2020, 2021). The data gathered in each SVT was statistically analyzed by each state program method. To compare the yield between S16-9090 and the test mean across different environments, a percentage of the test mean was calculated. 3. CHARACTERISTICS 3.1. Botanical and seed quality traits S16-9090 is an early MG V (RM 5.2) semi-determinate soybean variety. Plants have white flowers, gray pubescence, and tan pod walls at maturity, and seeds have a buff hilum and intermediate luster, with a mean weight of 13.7 g per 100 seeds (Table 2). In the SUST (2019-2020), plants of S16-9090 matured approximately 1.5 days later than checks mean. The mean plant height of S16-9090 was 80 cm, significantly higher than checks height (Table 2). Lodging score of S16-9090 was 2.3 (similar to the checks mean of 2.1). The seed protein content of S16-9090 averaged 393.7 g kg -1 on a dry weight basis, which is statistically similar to the checks mean (403.6 g kg -1 ). Seed oil mean was 226.4 g kg -1 on a dry-weight basis, which is numerically higher than the checks mean (219.5 g kg -1 ) (Table 2). The meal protein was 532.8 g kg -1 , slightly greater than checks mean (542.7 g kg -1 ). S16-9090 has seed quality of 1.6, similar to checks mean (1.7). 3.2. Agronomic performance In the 2017 PYT, S16-9090 yielded 4,610 kg ha -1 , which was significantly higher than the commercial checks and test mean (4,590 kg ha -1 and 3,979 kg ha -1 , respectively). In the 2018 AYT, S16-9090 produced 4,244 kg ha -1 , significantly greater than the commercial checks (4,031 kg ha -1 ) and test mean (3,812 kg ha -1 ) (Table 3). S16-9090 yielded 4,457 kg ha -1 in the 2018 COOP, which was significantly higher than the commercial checks and test mean (4,330 kg ha -1 and 4,309 kg ha -1 , respectively). In the 2020 COOP, S16-9090 exhibited yield of 4,702 kg ha -1 , significantly higher than the commercial checks and test mean (4,656 kg ha -1 and 4,370 kg ha -1 , respectively) (Table 3). In the 2021 COOP, S16-9090 yielded 4,742 kg ha -1 , which was significantly higher than the commercial checks (4,590 kg ha -1 ) and test mean (3,954 kg ha -1 ). In the 2019 SUST-UP, S16-9090 had mean yield of 3,984 kg ha -1 which was numerically higher than the test (3,586 kg ha -1 ) and checks means (3,662 kg ha -1 ) (Table 4). In the 2020 SUST-UT, its mean yield of 3,932 kg ha -1 was numerically higher than the test (3,649 kg ha -1 ) and checks means (3,726 kg ha -1 ) (Table 4). In the SVT, S16-9090 achieved a mean yield of 4,830 kg ha -1 across 40 environments, which was numerically higher than the test mean (4,516 kg ha -1 ) (Table 5). 3.3 Drought Evaluation Across three years of DYT (2021-2023), S16-9090 consistently exhibited higher seed yield performance under both irrigated and rainfed conditions (Table 6). Under irrigated conditions, the mean yield of S16-9090 (4,519 kg ha -1 ) exceeded that of Ellis (3,710 kg h -1 ) and R19-42848 (3,913 kg ha -1 ). The yield advantage of S16-9090 relative to Ellis was most pronounced in 2023 (+719 kg ha -1 ) and 2022 (+1,312 kg ha -1 ), while the difference was smaller in 2021 (+498 kg ha -1 ). Similarly, S16-9090 outperformed R19-42848 in all three years, with yield advantages ranging from 478 kg ha -1 (2022) to 666 kg ha -1 (2021). Under rainfed conditions, S16-9090 also demonstrated superior performance, averaging 2,765 kg ha -1 across years, compared with 2,647 kg ha -1 for Ellis and 2,481 kg ha -1 for R19-42848. The yield differences between S16-9090 and the checks were significant at the 5% level across multiple environments, as indicated by the LSD values. Canopy wilting scores further supported the drought tolerance of S16-9090. Across years, S16-9090 had a mean CWS of 2.3, which was similar to R19-42848 (2.1) and slightly higher than Ellis (1.8). Although Ellis maintained the lowest CWS, the higher yield potential of S16-9090 under both irrigated and rainfed conditions indicates that this line combines favorable drought tolerance with superior yield performance across diverse environments. 3.4. Biotic Stress Response S16-9090 is resistant to southern root-knot nematode (SKRN) (score of 1 out 5), moderately resistant to soybean cyst nematode (SCN) race 3 (score of 2 out 5), and moderately susceptible races 2 and 5 (scores of 3.5 out of 5). S16-9090 is also moderately susceptible to stem canker (SC) with score of 3 out of 5 (Table 7). 4. AVAILABILITY The Missouri Foundation Seed Program, managed by the Missouri Crop Improvement Association at 3211 Lemone Industrial Blvd., Columbia, MO 65201, will produce and distribute the foundation seed of S16-9090. Breeder seed will be maintained by the Missouri Agriculture Experiment Station (MOAES), at the University of Missouri–Fisher Delta Research Center, 147 State Hwy. T, Portageville, MO 63873. Seed of S16-9090 has been deposited at the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection at Urbana, IL, and USDA ARS National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation at Fort Collins, CO, where the seed will be available upon request. A small amount of seed for research purposes including the development of new cultivars may be obtained from the corresponding author during the next five years through a material transfer agreement (MTA). It is requested that proper recognition be made if S16-9090 is used for breeding and contributes to the release of germplasm or cultivar. ACKNOWLDGEMENT We thank the Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council (MSMC, grant # 00077591) and the United Soybean Board (USB, grant # 00079411) for the funding support that led to the development of this variety. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The authors also want to thank all the members of the Soybean Breeding and Genetics Team at MU-FDREEC for their technical support in the development of S16-9090. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS H. Singh-Bakala 1 Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing - review & editing, F. Ravelombola 1* Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, N. Li 1 Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing – review & editing, C. Adeva 1 Review & editing, M. Oliveira 1 Review & editing, D. Hunt 1 Review & editing, B. Fallen 1 Funding acquisition, Review & editing, G. Shannon 1 , Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, F. Lin 1* , Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflict of interest. TABLE 1. Check Varieties/lines used in the multi-environment yield tests including MYT, SUST and DYT Year Test Non-Xtend Xtend 2017 PYT AG 5335 AG 49X6, AG 53X6 2018 AYT AG 5335 AG 51X8, AG 55X7, P54A75X, P55A49X 2018 COOP AG 5335 AG 51X8, AG 55X7, P54A75X, P55A49X 2019 SUST-UP Ellis AG 53X6, AG 55X7 2020 COOP AG 4835 AG 49X9, AG 52X9, AG 53X0 2020 SUST-UT Ellis, TN 09-008, TN 11-5140 AG 56X8, AG 55X7, AG 53X9 2021 COOP - AG 52X9, AG 55X7 2021-2023 DYT Ellis, R19-42848 - Note : PYT, preliminary yield trial; AYT, advanced yield trial; COOP, cooperative yield trial; DYT, Drought yield trial Non-Xtend, soybean check cultivars, not containing the herbicide trait technology of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend ® ; Xtend ® , soybean check cultivars, containing the herbicide trait technology of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend ® . Dash (-) indicates absence of Non-Xtend check Plant height (cm) 2019 76.2 70.1 76.2 7 7.6 10 2020 83.8 77.5 76.2 14 5.1 11 Mean a 80.0 73.8 76.2 21 Maturity (days) 2019 3.0 0.0 1.0 7 3.0 537 2020 2.0 2.0 2.0 13 2.0 158 Mean 2.5 1.0 1.5 20 Lodging (1-5) 2019 2.2 1.6 1.9 6 0.5 24.6 2020 2.3 2.7 1.6 14 0.4 36.1 Mean 2.3 2.1 1.8 20 100 seed weight (g) 2019 13.2 13.4 13.5 7 1.3 10.7 2020 14.2 14.8 14.7 13 0.7 7.2 Mean 13.7 14.1 14.1 20 Seed quality (1-5) 2019 1.8 1.9 2.0 5 0.5 22 2020 1.4 1.5 1.5 12 0.3 28.3 Mean 1.6 1.7 1.8 17 Protein (g kg -1 ) 2019 395.4 410.3 416.1 7 10.3 2.4 2020 392.0 396.9 403.4 13 6.9 2.5 Mean 393.7 403.6 409.8 20 Oil (g kg -1 ) 2019 229.9 223.0 223.0 7 5.7 2.6 2020 223.0 216.1 216.1 13 3.4 2.6 Mean 226.4 219.5 219.5 20 Meal Protein (g kg -1 ) 2019 537.9 553.6 560.9 7 12.6 2.2 2020 527.6 531.8 540.2 13 8.0 2.2 Mean 532.8 542.7 550.6 20 TABLE 2. Agronomic and seed quality traits of ‘S16-9090’ in the USDA Southern Uniform Soybean Tests (2019-2020) TABLE 3. Yield of S16-9090 in the University of Missouri-FDREEC Yield Trials (MYT) including PYT, AYT and COOP (2017-2021) Entry 2017 PYT 2018 AYT 2018 COOP 2020 COOP 2021 COOP Mean a S16-9090 4,610 4,244 4,457 4,702 4,742 4,528 Checks Mean 4,590 4,031 4,330 4,656 4,590 4,415 Non-Xtend b AG 5335 4,869 4,057 4,353 - - 4,392 AG 4835 - - - 4,387 - 4,387 Xtend c AG 49X6 4,571 - - - - 4,571 AG 49X9 - - - 4,881 4,881 AG 53X6 4,329 - - - 4,329 AG 51X8 - 3,098 3,960 - 3,568 AG 52X9 - - - 4,729 4,783 4,749 AG 53X0 - - - 4,626 4,626 AG 55X7 - 4,130 4,581 - 4,396 4,380 P54A75X - 4,548 4,393 - 4,463 P55A49X - 4,323 4,361 - 4,344 Test Mean 3,979 3,812 4,309 4,370 3,954 4,111 LSD 219 157 200 274 165 - Environments 4 5 6 5 3 Total= 23 Replications 1 3 1 1 3 - Entries 48 32 50 50 10 - Rank 2 4 17 10 2 - Note : PYT, preliminary yield trial; AYT, advanced yield trial; COOP, cooperative yield trial. a Weighted Mean calculated across all environments b Non-Xtend, soybean check cultivars, not containing the herbicide trait technology of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend®. c Xtend®, soybean check cultivars, containing the herbicide trait technology of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® Dashes (-) indicate data not available TABLE 4. Yield of S16-9090 in the USDA-SUST (2019-2020) Entry 2019 UP 2020 UT Mean a S16-9090 3,984 3,932 3,946 Check mean 3,662 3,726 3,708 Non-Xtend b TN09-008 - 3,537 3,537 TN11-5140 - 3,564 3,564 Ellis 3,911 3,433 3,566 Xtend c AG 53X6 3,384 - 3,384 AG 55X7 3,691 3,875 3,824 AG 56X8 - 3,884 3,884 AG 53X9 - 4,060 4,060 Test Mean 3,586 3,649 3,632 LSD 416 306 Environments 5 13 Total= 18 Entries 29 33 - Rank 4 4 - a Weighted Mean calculated across all environments b Non-Xtend, soybean check cultivars, not containing the herbicide trait technology of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend®. c Xtend, soybean check cultivars, containing the herbicide trait technology of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend®. Dashes (-) indicate data not available TABLE 5 . Yield of S16-9090 in the SVT in 2021 AL KY LA MS NC VA Mean a S16-9090 3,806 5,406 3,877 6,298 5,127 4,467 4,820 Test mean 3,470 4,933 3,611 5,936 4,765 4,549 4,516 %Test mean 110 110 107 106 108 98 107 Environments 5 6 7 4 13 5 Total =40 Entries 21 7 23 10 58 26 Rank 4 1 3 1 7 17 a Weighted Mean calculated across all environments of testing. TABLE 6 . Yield comparison of S16-9090 with drought tolerant checks Ellis and R19-42848 in the DYT (2021-2023) under irrigated and rainfed conditions Irrigated yield (kg ha -1 ) S16-9090 4,069 4,903 4,734 4,519 Ellis 3,571 3,591 4,015 3,710 R19-42848 3,403 4,425 4,082 3,913 Environments 4 3 3 Total = 10 LSD 476 575 572 539 Rainfed yield (kg ha -1 ) S16-9090 2,757 2,508 2,966 2,765 Ellis 2,683 2,199 2,946 2,647 R19-42848 2,609 2,300 2,488 2,481 Environments 4 3 4 Total = 11 LSD 503 608 417 500 CWS (1-5) S16-9090 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.3 Ellis 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.8 R19-42848 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.1 Environments 3 3 3 Total = 9 LSD 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 a Weighted Mean calculated across all environments TABLE 7. Biotic stress responses of S16-9090 to Soybean Cyst Nematode (SCN), Southern Root-knot Nematode (SRKN) and Stem Canker (SC) 2019 2020 2020 2019 2020 Race 2 Race 3 Race 5 Race 2 Race 5 S16-9090 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 3 Ellis 5 4 5 4 5 1 1 1 AG 53X9 - - - 4 5 5 - 1 AG 55X7 5 3 4 5 5 - 1 1 TN09-008 - - - 1 1 - - 4 TN11-5140 - - - 5 5 - - 1 AG 56X8 - - - 5 4 1 - 1 AG 53X6 4 1 3 - - - 1 - Dashes (-) indicate data not available REFERENCES • Bagherzadi, L., Gillen, A. M., McNeece, B. T., Mian, R., Song, Q., Talierico, E., Fallen, B., Li, Z., & Carter, T. E. (2022). Registration of USDA-N7005 soybean germplasm with high yield and 62.5% pedigree from japanese accessions tamahikari and PI 416937. Journal of Plant Registrations , 16 (3), 641–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/plr2.20209 • Baker, S. H., & Harris, H. B. (1979). Registration of gasoy 17 Soybeans1 (reg. No. 121). Crop Science , 19 (1), 130–130. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1979.0011183X001900010036x • Bradley, C. A., Allen, T. W., Sisson, A. J., Bergstrom, G. C., Bissonnette, K. M., Bond, J., Byamukama, E., Chilvers, M. I., Collins, A. A., Damicone, J. P., Dorrance, A. E., Dufault, N. S., Esker, P. D., Faske, T. R., Fiorellino, N. M., Giesler, L. J., Hartman, G. L., Hollier, C. A., Isakeit, T., & Wise, K. A. (2021). Soybean yield loss estimates due to diseases in the united states and ontario, canada, from 2015 to 2019. Plant Health Progress , 22 (4), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHP-01-21-0013-RS • Burgess, B., & Bullard, J. (2022). Mississippi soybean variety trials, 2021 . • Chen, P., Manjarrez-Sandoval, P., Orazaly, M., Wu, C., & Palacios, S. L. F. (2018). Soybean cultivar R10-230 . • Desclaux, D., Huynh, T.-T., & Roumet, P. (2000). Identification of soybean plant characteristics that indicate the timing of drought stress. Crop Science , 40 (3), 716–722. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.403716x • Du, Y., Zhao, Q., Chen, L., Yao, X., Zhang, H., Wu, J., & Xie, F. (2020). Effect of drought stress during soybean R2–R6 growth stages on sucrose metabolism in leaf and seed. International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 21 (2), 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21020618 • Fallen, B. D., Mian, M. A. R., Robertson, M. H., Powell, E., & Carter Jr., T. E. (2023). Registration of USDA-N7006 soybean germplasm with increased tolerance to drought stress and 37.5% pedigree from asian accessions PI 416937 and PI 407859-2. Journal of Plant Registrations , 17 (3), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/plr2.20323 • Fauzan, I. A., & Hambali, E. (2021). Biorefinery of genetically modified soybean as biodiesel with sustainable production system in indonesia: A review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , 749 (1), 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/749/1/012029 • Fehr, W. (1987). Principles of cultivar development: Crop species . Iowa State University. • Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., & Pennington, J. S. (1971). Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, glycine max (L.) merrill. Crop Science , 11 (6), cropsci1971.0011183X001100060051x. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1971.0011183X001100060051x • Gillen, A. M., & Shelton, G. W. (2020). Uniform soybean tests southern states, 2019 . • Gillen, A. M., & Shelton, G. W. (2021). Uniform soybean tests southern states, 2020 . • Guzzo, M. C., Costamagna, C., Salloum, M. S., Rotundo, J. L., Monteoliva, M. I., & Luna, C. M. (2021). Morpho-physiological traits associated with drought responses in soybean. Crop Science , 61 (1), 672–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20314 • Hamed, R., Van Loon, A. F., Aerts, J., & Coumou, D. (2021). Impacts of compound hot–dry extremes on US soybean yields. Earth System Dynamics , 12 (4), 1371–1391. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1371-2021 • Henry Jordan. (2021). Performance of soybeans in Alabama, 2021 . • Holshouser, D., & Taylor, B. (2021). Virginia soybean performance tests 2021 . • Manavalan, L. P., Guttikonda, S. K., Phan Tran, L.-S., & Nguyen, H. T. (2009). Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean. Plant and Cell Physiology , 50 (7), 1260–1276. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcp082 • Manjarrez-Sandoval, P., Chen, P., Mozzoni, L., Florez-Palacios, L., Orazaly, M., Wu, C., Sinclair, T. R., Carter Jr., T. E., Purcell, L. C., & King, C. A. (2020). Registration of soybean germplasm lines R10-2436 and R10-2710 with drought tolerance traits and high yield under moderate water stress. Journal of Plant Registrations , 14 (2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/plr2.20048 • Moseley, D., Padgett, B., Price, T., Harrell, D., Kongchum, M., Stephenson, D., Buckley, B., Parvej, R., Brown, S., Towles, T., Davis, J., Watson, T., Gentry, G., Burns, D., Williams, G., Lee, L., & Collins, F. (2022). 2022 soybean variety yields and production practices . • Niblack, T. L., Arelli, P. R., Noel, G. R., Opperman, C. H., Orf, J. H., Schmitt, D. P., Shannon, J. G., & Tylka, G. L. (2002). A revised classification scheme for genetically diverse populations of Heterodera glycines. Journal of Nematology . • Pantalone, V. r., Allen, F. l., & Landau-Ellis, D. (2003). Registration of ‘5601T’ soybean. Crop Science , 43 (3), 1123–1124. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1123 • Pantalone, V. R., Burton, J. W., & Carter Jr., T. E. (1996). Soybean fibrous root heritability and genotypic correlations with agronomic and seed quality traits. Crop Science , 36(5), https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600050008x • Pantalone, V. R., Allen, F. L., & Landau-Ellis, D. (2004). Registration of’5002T’soybean. Crop science , 44 (4), 1483-1485. • Pantalone, V., Smallwood, C., & Fallen, B. (2017). Development of ‘ellis’ soybean with high soymeal protein, resistance to stem canker, southern root knot nematode, and frogeye leaf spot. Journal of Plant Registrations , 11 (3), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2016.12.0071crc • Poudel, S., Vennam, R. R., Shrestha, A., Reddy, K. R., Wijewardane, N. K., Reddy, K. N., & Bheemanahalli, R. (2023). Resilience of soybean cultivars to drought stress during flowering and early-seed setting stages. Scientific Reports , 13 (1), 1277. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28354-0 • Sadeghipour, O., & Abbasi, S. (2012). Soybean response to drought and seed inoculation . • Siamabele, B. (2021). The significance of soybean production in the face of changing climates in africa. Cogent Food & Agriculture , 7 (1), 1933745. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1933745 • Sloane, R. J., Patterson, R. P., & Carter Jr., T. E. (1990). Field drought tolerance of a soybean plant introduction. Crop Science , 30(1). https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000010027x • Soybean Research & Information Network. (2025). Soybean irrigation . https://soybeanresearchinfo.com/agronomics/soybean-irrigation USDA Economic Research Service . (2025). Soybeans and Oil Crops. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-and-oil-crops • Venard, C., & Mertz, D. (2021). 2021 Kentucky soybean variety performance tests . • Wei, Y., Jin, J., Jiang, S., Ning, S., & Liu, L. (2018). Quantitative response of soybean development and yield to drought stress during different growth stages in the huaibei plain, China. Agronomy , 8 (7), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8070097 • Wu, C., Harrison, D., Florez-Palacios, L., Acuña, A., Rogers, D., Marmo, R., Carlin, J., Fallen, B., Mozzoni, L., & Vieira, C. C. (2025). Registration of R19-42848 as a drought-tolerant, high-yielding soybean germplasm line. Journal of Plant Registrations , 19 (1), e70000. https://doi.org/10.1002/plr2.70000 Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 02 December 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords agricultural conventional drought nematode soybean yield stability Authors Affiliations Harmeet Singh 0009-0009-8685-9556 University of Missouri System View all articles by this author Francia Ravelombola 0009-0006-1447-2393 University of Missouri View all articles by this author Nannan Li University of Missouri View all articles by this author Cheryl Adeva 0000-0002-0454-3024 University of Missouri System View all articles by this author Maiara Oliveira University of Missouri System View all articles by this author Destiny Hunt University of Missouri View all articles by this author J. Grover Shannon 0000-0001-8524-081X University of Missouri View all articles by this author Ben Fallen 0000-0001-7185-5493 USDA-ARS View all articles by this author Feng Lin [email protected] University of Missouri System View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 215 views 113 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Harmeet Singh, Francia Ravelombola, Nannan Li, et al. Registration of S16-9090: A Soybean Cultivar Combining High Yield, Tolerance to Drought and Multiple Nematodes. Authorea . 02 December 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176463853.33818841/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176463853.33818841/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9feff82d4cdc4193',t:'MTc3OTMyODYzNw=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();