Determination of Dry Matter Yield and Some Properties of Different Quinoa Genotypes Grown in Erzurum and Iğdır Conditions

Abstract

This study was planned to determine the genotypes of suitable quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)

for hay production in Erzurum and Iğdır provinces which have different ecological characteristics of Eastern

Anatolia Region. The study was conducted under irrigated conditions in 2015 and 2016. Experiments were carried

out at each location in four replications with 14 genotypes (4 populations and 10 varieties) and in randomized

complete blocks design. Dry matter production and some related properties were investigated in the study.

According to the two-year average results, higher yields were obtained from Iğdır location than Erzurum location

(1165.9 kg da-1 and 511.6 kg da-1 respectively). In the Erzurum conditions, the yields of Chinese population,

Sandoval Mix and Peruvian white seeded population were found high. In the Iğdır conditions, Peruvian white

seeded population and red seeded population have high dry matter yields. According to the results of this research,

quinoa did not perform very well in Erzurum conditions. On the other hand, white and red seeded populations, Red

Head, Sandoval Mix and Cherry Vanilla varieties can be recommended for hay production in the Iğdır location.

Keywords

• Alternative forage plants,Chenopodium quinoa,genotypes,quinoa,hay yield

Erzurum ve Iğdır Şartlarında Yetiştirilen Farklı Kinoa Genotiplerinin Kuru Madde Verimi ve Bazı Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırma Doğu Anadolu Bölgesinin farklı ekolojik özellikler gösteren Erzurum ve Iğdır illerinde kaba

yem üretimi için uygun kinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotiplerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla planlanmıştır.

Araştırma 2015 ve 2016 yıllarında sulu şartlarda yürütülmüştür. Denemeler her bir lokasyonda 14 adet genotip

(4 adet popülasyon ve 10 adet çeşit) ile şansa bağlı tam bloklar deneme deseninde dört tekrarlamalı olarak

yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada kuru madde verimi ve ilgili bazı özellikler incelenmiştir.

İki yıllık ortalama sonuçlara göre Iğdır lokasyonundan Erzurum lokasyonuna göre daha yüksek verimler elde

edilmiştir (sırasıyla 1165.9 kg da-1 ve 511.6 kg da-1). Erzurum şartlarında Çin kökenli popülasyon, Sandoval Mix ve

Peru kökenli beyaz tohumlu popülasyonun verimleri yüksek bulunmuştur. Iğdır şartlarında ise Peru kökenli beyaz

popülasyon ile kırmızı popülasyon yüksek kuru madde verimine sahip olmuşlardır. Bu araştırmanın sonuçlarına

göre kinoa Erzurum şartlarında çok iyi performans gösterememiştir. Buna karşılık Iğdır lokasyonu için beyaz ve

kırmızı renkli popülasyonlar ile Red Head, Sandoval Mix ve Cherry Vanilla çeşitleri kuru ot üretimi için önerilebilir.

Keywords

• Alternatif yem bitkisi,Chenopodium quinoa,genotip,kinoa,ot verimi

References

1. AOAC, 1997. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 16 Th Ed. 3rd Revision. Arlington, VA, USA. 125 p.
2. Bertero HD, Kingand RW, Hall AJ, 2000. Photoperiod and temperature effects on the rate of leaf appearance in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 27: 349–356.
3. Christiansen J, Jacobsen SE, Jørgensen SE, 2010. Photoperiodic effect on flowering and seed development in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B Soil and Plant Science, 60: 539–544.
4. FAO, 2011. Quinoa: An Ancient Crop to Contribute to World Food Security. FAO Regional Office For Latin America and the Caribbean, http://www.fao.org/alc/file/media/pubs/20 11/cultivo_quinua_en.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 04 Mayıs, 2017)
5. Geren H, 2015. Effects of different nitrogen levels on the grain yield and some yield components of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 20(1): 59–64.
6. Geren H, Kavut YT, Altınbaş M, 2015. Effect of different row spacings on the grain yield and some yield characteristics of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under Bornova ecological conditions. Journal of Ege University Faculty of Agriculture, 52(1): 69-78.
7. Jacobsen SE, 2003. The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Rev Int., 19(1-2): 167–177.
8. Kakabouki I, Bilalis D, Karkanis A, Zervas G, Tsiplakou E, Hela D, 2014. Effects of fertilization and tillage system on growth and crude protein content of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): An alternative forage crop. Emir. J. Food Agric., 2014. 26(1): 18–24.

9. Kaoutar F, Abdelaziz H, Ouafae B, Redouane C, Ragab R, 2017. Yield and dry matter simulation using the saltmed model for five quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) accessions under deficit irrigation in South Morocco. Irrigation and Drainage, http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2116/epdf
10. Pulvento C, Riccardi M, Lavini A, d’Andria R, Iafelice G, Marconi E, 2010. Field trial evaluation of two chenopodium quinoa genotypes grown under rain‐fed conditions in a typical Mediterranean environment in South Italy. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 196(6): 407–411.
11. Tan, M, Yöndem Z, 2013. İnsan ve hayvan beslenmesinde yeni bir bitki: Kinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Alınteri, 25: 62–66.
12. Üke Ö, Kale H, Kaplan M, Kamalak A, 2017. Olgunlaşma döneminin kinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)’da ot verimi ve kalitesi ile gaz ve metan üretimine etkisi. KSÜ Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(1): 42–46.
13. Van Schooten HA, Pinxterhuis JB, 2003. Quinoa as an alternative forage crop in organic dairy farming. Optimal Forage Systems for Animal Production and the Environment Grassland Science in Europe, 26-28 May 2003, Pleven, Bulgaria, Vol: 8, p: 445–448.