Effects of Different Phosphorus Rates on Forage Yield and Quality of Forage Soybean Cultivars under Çanakkale Conditions

Öz

This study was conducted during the 2021 and 2022 growing seasons in Sarıcaeli Village, Çanakkale Province, Türkiye, to determine the effects of different phosphorus application rates on yield and selected forage quality characteristics of two forage soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars, Yemsoy and Yeşilsoy. The experiment was established as a split-plot design with four replications, where cultivars were assigned to the main plots and phosphorus rates (0, 5, 10, and 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹) to the subplots. Plant height, dry forage yield, crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) contents were evaluated. The results revealed that cultivar and phosphorus application significantly affected plant height. The highest two-year average plant height was obtained from Yeşilsoy (125.79 cm) and the 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ treatment (123.94 cm). Significant effects of cultivar and phosphorus rate on dry forage yield were observed in 2021, whereas the highest two-year average dry forage yield (916.77 kg da⁻¹) was recorded from the 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ application. In contrast, phosphorus rates did not significantly influence crude protein, crude ash, NDF, ADF, or ADL contents. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between cultivars for most forage quality traits. The findings indicated that phosphorus fertilization positively influenced plant growth and biomass production in forage soybean, while its effects on forage quality characteristics remained limited. Under the ecological conditions of Çanakkale, the Yeşilsoy cultivar exhibited superior performance in terms of growth and forage yield, and the application of 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ appeared to be the most suitable phosphorus level for forage production.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Forage soybean
• Glycian max L.
• Fertilizer
• Hay yield
• Hay quality

Çanakkale Koşullarında Farklı Fosfor Dozlarının Yemlik Soya Çeşitlerinde Ot Verimi ve Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırma, farklı fosfor dozlarının Yemsoy ve Yeşilsoy yemlik soya [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] çeşitlerinde verim ve bazı yem kalite özellikleri üzerine etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla 2021 ve 2022 yetiştirme sezonlarında Çanakkale ili Sarıcaeli Köyü’nde yürütülmüştür. Araştırma, bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre dört tekerrürlü olarak kurulmuş, ana parsellere çeşitler, alt parsellere ise 0, 5, 10 ve 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ fosfor dozları yerleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada bitki boyu, kuru ot verimi, ham protein (HP), ham kül (HK), nötral deterjan lif (NDF), asit deterjan lif (ADF) ve asit deterjan lignin (ADL) oranları incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre bitki boyu bakımından çeşit ve fosfor dozu etkileri önemli bulunmuş, en yüksek iki yıllık ortalama bitki boyu 125,79 cm ile Yeşilsoy çeşidinde ve 123,94 cm ile 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ uygulamasında elde edilmiştir. Kuru ot verimi bakımından 2021 yılında çeşit ve fosfor dozu etkileri önemli bulunurken, iki yıllık ortalamalarda en yüksek kuru ot verimi 916,77 kg da⁻¹ ile 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ uygulamasında belirlenmiştir. Ham protein, ham kül, NDF, ADF ve ADL oranları bakımından ise çeşitler ve fosfor dozları arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli farklılıklar belirlenmemiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, fosfor uygulamalarının yemlik soyada bitki büyümesi ve biyokütle üretimini olumlu yönde etkilediğini, buna karşın yem kalite özellikleri üzerinde sınırlı etkiler oluşturduğunu göstermiştir. Çanakkale koşullarında yemlik soya yetiştiriciliğinde Yeşilsoy çeşidinin daha yüksek verim potansiyeline sahip olduğu ve 15 kg P₂O₅ da⁻¹ uygulamasının verim açısından avantaj sağladığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yemlik soya
• Glycina max L.
• Gübreleme
• Ot verimi
• Ot Kalitesi

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgöz, E. (2001). Yem Bitkileri. Uludağ Üniversitesi Güçlendirme Vakfı. Yayın No: 182. Bursa.
2. Açıkgöz, E., Sincik, M., Wietgrefe, G., Surmen, M., Cecen, S., Yavuz, T., Erdurmus, C., & Goksoy, A.T. (2007). Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 193: 53–59.
3. AOAC. (2005). Official methods of analysis. (18th Edition). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington. VA. USA.
4. Bellaloui, N., Bruns, H.A., Abbas, H.K., Mengistu, A., Fisher, D.K., & Reddy, K.N. (2015). Agricultural practices altered seed protein, oil, fatty acids, sugars and minerals in soybean. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 6: 113–127.
5. Buxton, D.R., & Redfearn, D.D. (1997). Plant limitations to fiber digestion and utilization. Journal of Nutrition, 127: 814S–818S.
6. Chen, M., Xin, L., Jiang, L., Dong, R., Siddique, K.H.M., & He, J. (2023). Legume crops use a phosphorus-mobilising strategy to adapt to low plant-available phosphorus in acidic soil in southwest China. Plant, Soil and Environment, 69(10), 471-479.
7. Devine, T.E., & Hatley, E.O. (1998). Registration of ‘Donegal’ forage soybean. Crop Science 38: 1719.
8. Fageria, N.K., Moreira, A., & Coelho, A.M. (2011). Yield and yield components of upland rice as influenced by nitrogen sources. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 34: 361–370.

9. Framec, J., Charlton, J.F.L., & Laidlaw, A.S., (1998). Temperate Forage Legumes. CAB International. Wallingford. UK.
10. Grant, C.A., Flaten, D.N., Tomasiewicz, D.J., & Sheppard, S.C. (2001). The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 81: 211–224.
11. Hanoğlu Oral, H., & Gökkuş, A. (2021). Evaluation of total roughage production and its sufficiency for livestock in Turkey. J. the Institute of Science and Technology, 11(3), 2423-2433.
12. Hintz, R.W., & Albrecht, K.A. (1991). Prediction of alfalfa chemical composition from maturity and plant morphology. Crop Science, 31: 1561–1565.
13. Ma, S., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., Guo, M., Liu, B., Wang, Z., Cui, Y., Wang, C., Li, D., & Shi, Y. (2024). Roughage quality determines the production performance of post-weaned Hu sheep via altering ruminal fermentation, morphology, microbiota, and the global methylome landscape of the rumen wall. Frontiers in microbiomes, 2, 1272625, doi: 10.3389/frmbi.2023.1272625
14. Marschner, P. (2012). Marschner’s mineral nutrition of higher plants. 3rd Edition. Academic Press. London.
15. Moncada, K.M., & Sheaffer, C.C. (2010). Forage soybean yield and quality responses to harvest timing and row spacing. Agronomy Journal, 102: 821–826.
16. Rotundo, J.L., & Westgate, M.E. (2009). Meta-analysis of environmental effects on soybean seed composition. Field Crops Research, 110: 147–156.
17. Salvagiotti, F., Cassman, K.G., Specht, J.E., Walters, D.T., Weiss, A., & Dobermann, A. (2008). Nitrogen uptake. fixation and response to fertilizer N in soybean. Field Crops Research, 108: 1–13.
18. Sheaffer, C.C., & Moncada, K.M. (2012). Introduction to agronomy: Food. crops and environment. Delmar Cengage Learning. New York.
19. Soya, H., Avcıoğlu, R., & Geren, H. (2004). Yembitkileri (İkinci Baskı). Hasad Yayıncılık Ltd. Şti. İstanbul, 223s.
20. Steel, R.G.D.. & Torrie. J.H.. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics: A Biometrical approach. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill. New York.
21. TTSM. (2008). Milli Çeşit Listesi. Tohumluk Tescil ve Sertifikasyon Merkezi Müdürlüğü. Ankara.
22. Van Soest, P.J. (1994). Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd Edition. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. NY.
23. Van Soest, P.J.,Robertson, J.B., & Lewis, B.A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber. neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583–3597.
24. Vance, C.P., Uhde-Stone. C., & Allan, D.L. (2003). Phosphorus acquisition and use: critical adaptations by plants for securing a nonrenewable resource. New Phytologist, 157: 423–447.
25. Wilson, R. F. (2004). Seed composition. In H. R. Boerma & J. E. Specht (Eds.), Soybeans: Improvement, production, and uses (3rd ed., pp. 621–677). American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.