Nohut Genotiplerinin Trakya Bölgesi Kışlık Ekim Koşullarında Tane Verimi Performansları

Abstract

Denemeler, 2022 ve 2023 yıllarında Tekirdağ ve Edirne olmak üzere iki farklı lokasyonda kurulmuştur. Çalışmada, dokuz gelişmiş nohut hattının tane verim performansını belirlemek için karşılaştırma amacıyla önerilen dört kışlık nohut çeşidi, standart olarak kullanılmış ve çalışmada kışlık ürün olarak ekilmişlerdir. Denemeler, dört tekrarlamalı olarak tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre kurulmuştur. Araştırmada denemeler, Tarımsal Değerleri Ölçme Denemeleri (TDÖ) Teknik Talimatı dikkate alınarak yürütülmüştür. Denemelerin ekimi Kasım ayında metrekareye 60 bitki olacak şekilde yapılmıştır. Ekim, 6 sıra, 5 m uzunluğunda, 5-6 cm derinliğinde, sıra üzeri 5 cm ve sıralar arası 45 cm aralıklarla 13.50 m²’ lik parsellere yapılmıştır. 7.20 m² (4 m × 4 rows × 45 cm) alan hasat edilmiştir. Çalışmada elde edilen veriler, 2 yıllık veriler birleştirilerek ve 2 yıllık veriler ayrı ayrı olmak üzere, tesadüfi bloklarda 3 faktörlü deneysel tasarıma göre analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen ortalamalar arasındaki fark, ESP (0.01) testi kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. İki ekolojik olarak farklı lokasyonda ve iki yetiştirme sezonu boyunca yürütülen çalışmada nohut genotiplerinin ortalama tane verimleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur. Varyans analizi ve önemlilik testi sonuçları birlikte incelendiğinde, nohut genotiplerinin ortalamalarının 221.6 ile 341.8 kg da-1 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. En yüksek ortalama tane verimi 341.8 kg da-1 ile HTN 6 ileri hattında elde edilmiş olup, bunu sırasıyla HTN 1, Arda, HTN 4 ve HTN 3 genotipleri izlemiştir. Lokasyonların birleştirilmiş ortalamalarına dayanarak, en yüksek ortalama tane verimi veren ileri hatlar HTN 6, HTN 1, HTN 4 ve HTN 3’ ün ortalama tane verimlerinin standart çeşitlerin ortalama tane veriminden sırasıyla 79,6 kg da-1 (%23,3), 37,9 kg da-1 (%12,6), 29,6 kg da-1 (%10,1) ve 27,3 kg da-1 (%9,4) daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Çeşit
• İleri hat
• Lokasyon
• Nohut
• Tane verimi

Grain Yield Performance of Chickpea Genotypes Under Winter Sowing Conditions of the Thrace Region

Abstract

The experiments were established in two different locations, Tekirdağ and Edirne, during the 2022 and 2023 growing years. Four winter chickpea standard varieties recommended for comparison were used as standards to determine the grain yield performance of nine advanced chickpea lines, and they were sown as winter crops in the study. The experiments were set up according to a randomized complete block design with four replications. In this research, the experiments were conducted in accordance with the Technical Instructions for Measuring Agricultural Values (TIMAV). Sowing was done in November at a rate of 60 plants per square meter. Planting was done in 13.50 m² plots consisting of 6 rows, 5 m long, with a depth of 5-6 cm, a spacing of 5 cm between plants in a row, and a spacing of 45 cm between rows. 7.20 m² (4 m × 4 rows × 45 cm) of area was harvested. The data obtained in the study were analysed according to a 3-factor experimental design in randomized blocks, combining data from 2 years and separately from 2 years. The difference between the obtained means was determined using the ESP (0.01) test. Statistically significant differences were found among the mean grain yields of chickpea genotypes in the experiments conducted in two ecologically different locations and over two growing seasons. Examination of the combined analysis of variance and significance test results revealed that the mean grain yields of chickpea genotypes ranged from 221.6 to 341.8 kg da⁻¹. The highest mean grain yield was obtained in the HTN 6 advanced line with 341.8 kg da-1, followed by HTN 1, Arda, HTN 4 and HTN 3 genotypes, respectively. Based on the combined means of the locations, the advanced lines HTN 6, HTN 1, HTN 4 and HTN 3, which yielded the highest means, were determined to have mean grain yields that were 79.6 kg da-1 (23.3%), 37.9 kg da-1 (12.6%), 29.6 kg da-1 (10.1%) and 27.3 kg da-1 (9.4%) higher than the mean grain yield of the standard varieties, respectively.

Keywords

• Advanced line
• Chickpea
• Grain yield
• Location
• Variety

References

1. Abdula, I. A. (2013). Agronomic and symbiotic characteristics of chickpea, (Cicer arietinum L.) as influenced by Rhizobium inoculation and phosphorus fertilization under farming systems of Wolaita area, Ethiopia Agronomic and symbiotic characteristics of chickpea. (MSc Thesis). Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
2. Anonymous (2025). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Agricultural Products Markets. July 2025. (In Turkish). Babagil, G. E. (2010). Evaluation of yield and yield components of some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties under Muş ecological conditions. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 7(3): 181-186. (In Turkish)
3. Basha, S. J., Jayalakshmi, V., Ahammed, S. K. and Kamakshi, N. (2020). Studies on growth and yield characters of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties suitable for mechanical harvesting. Tropical Plant Research, 7(3): 634–637.
4. Güngör, H., Çakır, M. F. and Dumlupınar, Z. (2021). Evaluation of yield and yield components of some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in Kırklareli and Edirne conditions. Agricultural Engineering, (373): 10-18. (In Turkish)
5. Karaman, M. (2025). Investigation of physiological and agronomic characteristics of some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in Muş ecological conditions. Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Journal of Science Institute. 8(4): 1727-1738.
6. Maherisis, N., Chamani, M., Sadeghi, A. and Aghazadeh, A. M. (2008). Nutritional evaluation of kabuli and desi type chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) for ruminants using in vitro gas production technique. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(16): 2946-2951.
7. Muruiki, R., Kimurto, P., Vandez, V., Gangarao, R., Silim, S. and Siambi, M. (2018). Effect of drought stress on yield performance of parental chickpea genotypes in semi-arid tropics. Journal of Life Sciences, 12(3): 159-168.
8. Özen, N. (1988). Effect of planting density on yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under Thrace conditions. (MSc Thesis), Trakya University, Institute of Science, Edirne, Türkiye. (In Turkish)

9. Sayılgan, Ç. and Kocatürk, M. (2019). Evaluation of summer planting yield performance of registered and local chickpea varieties suitable for coastal and transition zones in the Western Mediterranean Region. Derim, 36(2):207-216.
10. Şehirali, S. (1988). Edible Grain Legumes. Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture Publications. 1089, Ankara, Türkiye. (In Turkish)
11. Sfayhi, D. and Kharrat, M. (2011). Physicochemical and cooking characteristics of Tunisian chickpea varieties. Global Science Books, 1: 68-72.
12. Takil, E. and Kayan, N. (2023). Phenological and morphological response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) rhizobia and azotobacter inoculation. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 20(2): 230-242.
13. Topçu, M. and Akçura, M. (2022). Investigation of yield and yield components of some chickpea varieties. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 10(1): 191-198.
14. Tsehaye, A., Fikre, A. and Bantayhu, B (2020). Genetic variability and association of traits for desi type chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) advanced lines under potential environment in North Gondar, Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 6: 1806668. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1806668
15. Ülgen, N. and Yurtsever, N. (1995). Türkiye fertilizer and fertilization guide, General Directorate of Rural Services, Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute directorate publications, General Pub., 209, Technical Pub., 66, 4th Edit., Ankara, Türkiye. (In Turkish)
16. Wordofa, S. B. (2015). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) fabaceae landrace diversity in Ethiopia. (PhD Thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
17. Yurtseven, G., İkincikarakaya, S. Ü. and Bulguer, S. (2025). Effect of organo mineral fertilizer application on yield and yield components of some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties under Ankara conditions. Erciyes Journal of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, 8(1): 1-10.