YIELD, QUALITY AND PROFITABILITY OF HUNGARIAN VETCH (Vicia pannonica Crantz) UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS AND SEED RATIOS

Abstract

In this study, Hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica Crantz) ‘HV’ production, under different tillage systems (zero ‘ZT’, reduce ‘RT’ and conventional ‘CT’) and seed ratios (80, 100, 120, 140, 160 kg ha-1) was evaluated in yield, protein content and profitability for forage and seed. This two-year study was conducted in Yozgat-Turkey conditions in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 seasons. The experiments were arranged in split-plot, with the tillage systems as main plots and seed ratios as split-plots. Previous crop was wheat in both years. According to the two-year averages, the tillage systems were ordered statistically as follows: CT=RT=ZT for hay yield, ZT = CT > RT for protein content of hay, RT=ZT=CT for seed yield and ZT>RT=CT for protein content of seed. However the effect of year was significant for the treatments and, although not significant, seed ratio exhibited different effects changing depend on forage or seed harvest. Namely, seed yield was relatively more at the low seed ratios (80-100 kg ha-1) while hay yield was more at the high seed ratios (140-160 kg ha-1). Yield performances and low costs made ZT and RT economically superior than CT in both productions. Considering the yield and economy, ZT has seen as a more suitable system in HV cultivation with the seed ratio of 100 kg ha-1 for seed and 140 kg ha-1 for forage purposes. All these results have showed that HV cultivated with conservation tillage systems, especially with ZT can be competitive by conventional tillage regarding yield, moreover is much better for economically.

Keywords

• Conservational tillage
• hay yield
• Hungarian vetch
• profitability
• seed yield

References

1. Acikgoz, E. 1988. Annual forage legumes in the arid and semi-arid regions of Turkey. In: Nitrogen Fixation by Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture. (Eds.: D.B. Beck and L.A. Materon). Martinus Nijhoff Publ., pp. 47-54.
2. Albayrak, S., M. Turk and O. Yuksel. 2011. Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on Hungarian vetch yield and quality. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 16(1):54-58.
3. Alskaf, K., D.L. Sparkes, S.J. Mooney, S. Sjogersten and P. Wilson. 2020. The uptake of different tillage practices in England. Soil Use Management 36: 27-44.
4. Altikat, S., E. Kus, H.K. Kucukerdem and A. Gulbe. 2018. The Importance of the conservation agriculture for Turkey. Igdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech. 8(2): 73-80.
5. Arvidsson, J., A. Etana and T. Rydberg. 2014. Crop yield in Swedish experiments with shallow tillage and no-tillage 1983–2012. Eur. J. Agron. 52: 307-315.
6. Basaran, U., H. Mut, O. Asci Onal, Z. Acar and I. Ayan. 2011. Variability in forage quality of Turkish grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) landraces. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 16(1): 9-14.
7. Basaran, U., M. Copur Dogrusoz, E. Gulumser and H. Mut. 2019. Using smoke solutions in grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) to improve germination and seedling growth and reduce toxic compound ODAP. Turk J Agric For. 43: 518-526.
8. Bingol, N.T., M. A. Karsli, I. H. Yilmaz and D. Bolat. 2007. The effects of planting time and combination on the nutrient composition and digestible dry matter yield of four mixtures of vetch varieties intercropped with barley. J. of Vet. Animal Sci. 31: 297-302.

9. Busari, M.A., S.S. Kukal, A. Kaur, R. Bhatt and A.A. Dulazi. 2015. Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. Int. Soil and Water Conservation Res. 3(2): 119-129.
10. Chang, C. and C.V. Windwall. 1989. Effect of long-term minimum tillage practices on some physical properties of a chernozemic clay loam. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69: 443-449.
11. Copur Dogrusoz, M., H. Mut, U. Basaran and E. Gulumser. 2019. Performance of legumes-turnip mixtures with different seed rates. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 7(1): 81-86.
12. Derpsch, R. and T. Friedrich. 2009. Development and current status of no-till adoption in the world; Proceedings on CD, 18th Triennial Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization (ISTRO), June 15-19, 2009, Izmir, Turkey.
13. FAO, 2012. Advancement and impact of conservation agriculture/no-till technology adoption in Kazakhstan [Internet]. FAO Information note. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/Importance_Zero_Tillage_Northern_Kazakhstan.pdf, (Accessed June 8, 2020).
14. He, J., N.J. Kuhn, X.M. Zhang and H.W. Li. 2009. Effects of 10 years of conservation tillage on soil properties and productivity in the farming–pastoral of Inner Mongolia, China. Soil Use and Management 25(2): 201-209.
15. Huang, G.B., R. Z. Zhang, G.D. Li, L.L. Li, K.Y. Chan, D.P. Heenan, W. Chen, M.J. Unkovich, M.J. Robertson, B.R. Cullis and W. D. Bellotti. 2008. Productivity and sustainability of a spring wheat-field pea rotation in a semi-arid environment under conventional and conservation tillage systems. Field Crops Res. 107: 43-55.
16. Ileri, O., E. B. Carpici, B. Erbeyi, A. Suleyman and K. Ali. 2018. Effect of sowing methods on silage yield and quality of some corn cultivars grown in second crop season under irrigated condition of central Anatolia, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 23:72-79.
17. Iptas, S. 2002. Effect of row spacing, support plant and mixture ratio on the seed yield and some yield characteristics of Hungarian vetch. J. Agron. and Crop Sci. 118: 357-362.
18. Islam, R. and R. Reeder. 2014. No-till and conservation agriculture in the United States. An example from the David Brandt farm, Carroll, Ohio. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 2: 97-107.
19. Jones, M.J. 2000. Comparasion of conservation tillage systems in barley-cropping systems in Northern Syria. Exp. Agric. 36:195-204.
20. Kabiri, V., F. Raiesi and M.A. Ghazav. 2015. Six years of different tillage systems affected aggregate-associated SOM in a semi-arid loam soil from Central Iran. Soil & Tillage Research 154:113-125.
21. Kassam, A., F. Theodor, F. Shaxson and J. Pretty. 2009. The spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4): 292–320.
22. Khan, S., A. Shah, M. Nawaz and M. Khan. 2017. Impact of different tillage practices on soil physical properties, nitrate leaching and yield attributes of maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 17(1): 240-252.
23. Khorami, S.S., S.A. Kazemeini, S. Afzalinia and M.K. Gathala. 2018. Changes in soil properties and productivity under different tillage practices and wheat genotypes: A short-term study in Iran. Sustainability 10(9):1-17.
24. Krauss, M., R. Ruser, T. Muller, S. Hansen, P. Moder and A. Gattinger. 2017. Impact of reduced tillage on greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon stocks in an organic grass-clover ley – winter wheat cropping sequence. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 239: 324–333.
25. Martinez, E., J. P. Fuentes, V. Pino, P. Silva and E. Acevedo. 2013. Chemical and biological properties as affected by no-tillage and conventional tillage systems in an irrigated Haploxeroll of Central Chile. Soil & Tillage Research 126: 238–245.
26. Mourtzinis, S., D. Marburger, J. Gaska, T. Diallo, J. Lauer and S. Conley. 2017. Corn and soybean yield response to tillage, rotation, and nematicide seed treatment. Crop Sci. 57:1704–1712.
27. Neugschwandtner, R.W., P. Liebhard., H. P. Kaul and H. Wagentrist. 2014. Soil chemical properties as affected by tillage and crop rotation in a long-term field experiment. Plant Soil Environment 60(2): 57–62.
28. Schlegel, A. J., Y Assefa, L. A. Haag, C. R. Tompson and L. R. Stone. 2018. Long-term tillage on yield and water use of grain sorghum and winter wheat. Agron. J. 110:269–280.
29. Tenikecier, H.S., A. Orak, I. Nizam and A.K Demirkan. 2017. Determination of yield and yield components of vetch and cereal mixture and evaluation using by GGE-Biplot analysis. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology 2(6): 3010-3019.
30. Tuik, 2019. Turkey Statistical Institute. Agricultural Statistics Data. Crop Production statistics. (www.tuik.gov.tr) (Accessed July 6, 2020).
31. Unal, S., Z. Mutlu and K.F. Huseyin. 2011. Performances of some winter Hungarian vetch accessıons (Vicia pannonica Crantz.) on the Highlands of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 16(1): 1-8.
32. Uzun, A., U. Bilgili, M. Sancak and E. Acıkgoz. 2004. Effects of seeding rates on yield and yield components of Hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica Crantz.) Turk J Agric For. 28: 179-182.