EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT SEEDING RATES ON FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY COMPONENTS IN PEA

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of seeding rate on yield and quality components in forage pea cultivars. Four pea cultivars (Ulubatli, Kirazli, Golyazi and Urunlu) and five seeding rates (75, 100, 125, 150 and 175 viable seeds m-2 ) were used in this study. Field experiments were carried out from 2009 to 2011 during the winter growth period at Uludag University, Faculty of Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Application Center in Bursa province, Turkey. The experimental design was a randomized complete block desing with three replications. Dry matter yield, crude protein ratio and yield, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, total digestible nutrients and relative feed values were determined. Significant differences were found among the pea cultivars and seeding rates in all measured characteristics in both years. The highest dry matter yield was obtained from the Kirazli cultivar at 125 seed m-2 . The digestibility of the Golyazi cultivar was higher than the other cultivars. On the other hand, the digestibility of the forage decreased as the seeding rate increased.

Keywords

• cultivars,dry matter yield,pea,Pisum sativum,seeding rates

References

1. Acikgoz, E., A. Ustun, I. Gul, E. Anlarsal, A. S. Tekeli, I. Nizam, R. Avcıoglu, H. Geren, S. Cakmakci, B. Aydinoglu, C. Yucel, M. Avci, Z. Acar, I. Ayan, A. Uzun,U. Bilgili, M. Sincik and M. Yavuz. 2009. Genotype × environment interaction and stability analysis for drymatter and seed yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Spanish J. Agric. Res. 7(1): 96-106.
2. Acikgoz, E., M. Sincik, G. Wietgrefe, M. Surmen, S. Cecen, T. Yavuz, C. Erdurmus and A.T. Goksoy. 2013. Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turk. J. Agric. For. 37: 22-32.
3. Albayrak, S., M. Turk, O. Yuksel and M. Yilmaz. 2011. Forage yield and the quality of perennial legume-grass mixtures under rainfed conditions. Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj. 39(1): 114-118.
4. Albayrak, S. and M. Turk. 2013. Changes in the forage yield and quality of legume-grass mixtures throughout a vegetation period. Turk. J. Agric. For. 37: 139-147.
5. Al-Rifaee, M., M.A. Turk and A.R.M. Tawaha. 2004. Effect of seed size and plant population density on yield and yield components of local faba bean (Vicia faba L. Major). Int. J. Agri. Biol. 6(2): 294–299.
6. Armstrong, E.L., P.W. Matthews, N.A. Fettell, D.J. Holding, L.G. Gaynor, C.J. Lisle and B.R. Cullis. 2008. Effects of plant density on the yield of field pea and faba bean varieties across southern and central NSW preliminary findings. Proceedings of 14th Agronomy Confer. 21-25 September. Adelaide, South Australia.
7. Auskalnis, A. and V. Dovydaitis. 1998. The dependence of pea crop density and producticity on seed rate and sowing time on the light loam. Zemdirbyste Mokslo Daebai. 63: 143-155. Ayaz, S., B.A. McKenzie, G.D. Hill and D.L. McNeil. 2004. Variability in yield of four grain legume species in a subhumid temperate environment I. Yields and harvest index. J. Agr. Sci. 142: 9-19.
8. Baswana, K.S. and B.S. Saharan. 1993. Effect of row spacing and seed rate on pod yield of garden pea. Haryana J. Agron. 9: 93-95.

9. Berti, M. and S. Zwinger. 2011. Cool-season annual forages for hay in North Dakota. Forage Focus-Hay. p. 1-2.
10. Biswas, D., M. Haque and M. Rahman. 2012. Influence of plant population density on growthand yield of two black gram varieties. Pakistan J. Agr. 1(2-3): 83-85.
11. Braithwaite, R.A.I. 1982. Bodie bean responses to changes in plant density. Agron. J. 74: 593-596.
12. Davies, D.E., G.J. Berry, M.C. Heath and T.C.K. Dawkins. 1985. Pea (Pisum sativum L.). In: Grain Legume Crops. Ch. 5, ed. Summerfield, R.J. and Roberts, William Collins E.H., 147-198, Sons & Co. Ltd. London.
13. Dwivedi, R.K., V.K. Singh, S.K. Choudhary, R.B.S. Sangar and R.P. Bajpai. 1998. Response of table pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars to sowing dates and seed rate under northern zone of chhattisgarh. M.P. Orissa J. Hort. 26: 23-25.
14. Heath, M.C. and P.D. Hebblethwaite. 1987. Precision drilling combining peas (Pisum sativum L.) of contrasting leaf types at varying densities. J. Agric. Sci.108 (2): 425-430.
15. Heath, M.C., C.M. Knott, C.J. Dyer and D. Rogers-Lewis. 1991. Optimum plant densities for three semi-leafless combining pea (Pisum sativum) cultivars under contrasting field conditions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 118: 671-688.
16. Joachim, H. and G. Jung. 1997. Analysis of forage fiber and cell walls in ruminant nutrition. Journal of Nutrition 127: 810- 813.
17. Johnston, A.M., G.W. Clayton, G.P. Lafond, K.N. Harker, T.J. Hogg, E.N. Johnson, W.E. May and J.T. McConnell. 2002. Field pea seeding management. Can. J. Plant Sci. 82: 639- 644.
18. Jovaisiene, E., I. Bakstys and V. Jonusiene. 1998. The dependence of pea crop density and productivity on seed rate and sowing time in Western Lithuania. Zemdirbyste Mokslo Darbai. 63: 156-165.
19. Kadıoglu, S. 2011. The effects of phosphate fertilization and bacteria inoculation on agricultural and morphological characteristics of some different (forage) pea cultivar. 155 p. (Not press Ph. D. Thesis).
20. Kebede, G., G. Assefa, A. Mengistu and F. Feyissa. 2014. Forage nutritive values of vetch species and their accessions grown under nitosol and vertisol conditions in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Livestock Res. Rur. Develop. 26(1): 1-14.
21. Kiraz, A.B. 2011. Determination of relative feed value of some legume hays harvested at flowering stage. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 6(5): 525-530.
22. Knott, C.M. and S.J. Belcher. 1998. Optimum sowing dates and plant populations for winter peas (Pisum sativum). J. Agric. Sci. 131:449-454.
23. Kocer, A. and S. Albayrak. 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turk. J. Field Crops. 17(1): 96-99.
24. Lithourgidis, A.S., I.B. Vasilakoglou, K.V. Dhima, C.A. Dordas and M.D. Yiakoulaki. 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Res. 99: 106-113.
25. Martin, I., J.L. Tenoria and L. Ayerbe. 1994. Yield, growth and water use of conventional and semi leafless peas in semiarid environments. Crop Sci. 34: 1576- 1583.
26. Robinson P., D. Putnam and S. Mueller. 1998. Interpreting your forage test report. Colifornia alfalfa and forage review. 1(2): 1-2.
27. Tan, M., A. Koc and Z. Dumlu Gul. 2012. Morphological characteristics and seed yield of East Anatolian local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Turk. J. Field Crops. 17(1): 24-30.
28. Tan, M., K. Kursun Kırcı and Z. Dumlu Gul. 2014. Effects of row spacing and seeding rate on hay and seed yield of Eastern Anatolian forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotype. Turk. J. Field Crops. 19(1): 96-100.
29. Tawaha, A.M. and M.A. Turk. 2001. Effect of date and rate of sowing on yield and yield componenets of narbon vetch under semi-arid conditions. Acta Agron. Hungarica 49: 103-105.
30. Tekeli, A.S. and E. Ates. 2003. Yield and its components in field pea (Pisum arvense L.) lines. J. Central European Agric. 4(4): 313-317.
31. Timuragaoglu, K.A., A. Genc and S. Altınok. 2004. A research on forage and seed yields of forage pea lines under Ankara conditions. J. Agric. Sci.10(4): 457-461.
32. Townley Smith, L. and A.T. Wright. 1994. Field pea cultivar and weed response to crop seed rate in western Canada. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 74: 387-393.
33. Turk M., S. Albayrak and O. Yuksel. 2011. Effect of seeding rate on the forage yields and quality in pea cultivars of differing leaf types. Turk. J. Field Crops. 16(2): 137-141.
34. Uher D., Z. Stafa, S. Sikora and M. Blazinkov. 2008. Yield and quality of forage type pea lines and wheat mixtures. VII. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop. 523-526.
35. Uzun, A. and E. Acikgoz. 1998. Effect of sowing season and seeding rate on the morphological traits and yield in pea cultivars of differing leaf types. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 181: 215-222.
36. Uzun, A., U. Bilgili, M. Sincik, I. Filya and E. Acikgoz. 2005.Yield and quality of forage type pea lines of contrasting leaf types. Europ. J. Agronomy. 22: 85–94 Uzun, F. 2010. Changes in hay yield and quality of bulbous barley at different phonological stages. Turk. J. Agric For. 34: 1-9
37. Van Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dieatary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3597.
38. Yavuz, M., S. Iptas, V. Ayhan and Y. Karadag. 2009. Forage quality and nutritional problems caused by forage. 5.1. Quality analysis at forage and usage areas of forage. In: Forage General Chapter I, ed. Avcıoğlu, R., Hatipoğlu, R.ve Karadağ, Y., 163-172. T.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Areas General Directorate for Agricultural Production and Development Publication, Izmir.
39. Yavuz, T., M. Sürmen and N. Cankaya. 2011. Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on yield and yield components of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). J. Food Agr. Environ. 9 (1): 369-371.
40. Yılmaz. S., A. Ozel, M. Atak and M. Erayman. 2015. Effects of seeding rates on competition indices of barley and vetch intercropping systems in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turk. J. Agric. For. 39: 135-143