Research Article

Effects of conventional and ridge planting methods at different plant densities on yield and yield components in chickpea

Volume: 62 Number: 1 March 14, 2025
TR EN

Effects of conventional and ridge planting methods at different plant densities on yield and yield components in chickpea

Abstract

Objective: This study was carried out to determine the applicability of the ridge sowing method and the appropriate sowing density for chickpeas on existing ridges after cotton under rain-dependent conditions. Material and Methods: The trials were carried out at split randomized block design with three replications. Two planting methods (ridge planting and conventional planting), and five planting density (30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 seed per square meter) were discussed as application issues. Results: It was determined that ridge planting method was better than conventional planting method in terms of investigated characters as days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, plant height, first pod height, primary branches plant-1 and anthracnose disease value in the study. It was seen that seed yields were affected less from environmental climate changes for ridge planting method, and anthracnose disease value occurred at lower ratio compared to conventional planting. It was determined that the convenient planting density of chickpea was 40 seed per square meter for conventional planting and 45 seed for ridge planting in the economic analysis. Conclusion: The average yield of the conventional planting method after cotton using the appropriate planting density (2081.7 kg ha-1) was found to be 6.2% higher than the yield of the ridge planting method (1960.0 kg ha-1). However, in the economic analysis, it was determined that ridge planting was 9.2% more profitable than the conventional planting method in terms of net income.

Keywords

Chickpea , planting density , planting method , ridge planting , yield

References

  1. Akçin, A., 1988. Yemeklik Dane Baklagiller. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No: 8, Konya, 98 s.
  2. Akdağ, C., 1985. Ekim Sıklığının Tokat Yöresinde Üç Nohut (Cicer arietinum L.) Çeşidinde Verim ve Verim Unsurlarına Etkileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Çukurova Üniversitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarla Bitkileri Ana Bilim Dalı, (Unpublished) Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Adana, Demirbaş No: 280, 163 s.
  3. Akdağ, C., 2001. Tokat’ta Yüksek Verim Sağlayacak Nohut Çeşitleri ile Ekim Zamanlarının Belirlenmesi. Gazi Osmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No: 59, Araştırma Serisi No: 19, Tokat.
  4. Anonymous, 2013. Meteoroloji 15. Bölge Müdürlüğü. (Web page: https://diyarbakir.mgm.gov.tr/) (Date accessed: Kasım 2017).
  5. Anonymous, 2022. Bitkisel Üretim İstatistikleri, 2022. (Web page: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Bitkisel-Uretim-Istatistikleri-2022-45504) (Date accessed: September 2022).
  6. Aykas, E., H. Yalçın & E. Çakır, 2005. Koruyucu toprak işleme yöntemleri ve doğrudan ekim. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 42 (3):195-205.
  7. Aykut Tonk, F., E. İlker, Ö. Tatar, A. Reçber & M. Tosun, 2011. Farklı yağış miktarı ve dağılımlarının ekmeklik buğday verimi üzerine etkileri. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 48 (2): 127- 132.
  8. Banjara, T.R., G.P. Pali, B.K. Tigga, S. Kumar & A. Shori, 2017. Effect of different tillage practices on growth, yield and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under rainfed condition of Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6 (2): 1464-1470.
  9. Bozoğlu, H., 1995. Kuru Fasulyede (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Bazı Tarımsal Özelliklerinin Genotip × Çevre interaksiyonu ve Kalıtım Derecelerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Arastırma. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, (Unpublished) Doktora Tezi, Samsun, 109 s.
  10. Brandon, N., J. Russell, J. Brady, T. Clark & R. Jettner, 1998. Crop Updates 1998: Pulses. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, 130 pp.
APA
Erdemci, İ., Yaşar, M., & Koç, M. (2025). Effects of conventional and ridge planting methods at different plant densities on yield and yield components in chickpea. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 62(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.1491122