Determination of Flower, Pod and Seed Characteristics Related to Yield Components in Forage Pea Genotypes

In this study which was carried out during the 2015 summer season in Eskişehir, the flower, pod and seed characters attributed to yield components were investigated in 12 forage pea genotypes. They showed significant differences in terms of agronomic and morphological (flower, pod, and seed) traits. The highest fresh hay yield with 2171 kg/da and plant height with 106.6 cm were obtained from Populasyon-1. Crackerjack had lower values in some flower traits such as, whereas the higher values of pod and seed traits were obtained from cv. Rose. In addition, Population-1 included in the higher value group for standard petal width, keel petal length, calyx tube and teeth lengths, and flower length. Although cluster analysis did not reflect agronomic traits, the clustering resulted in four groups. The first group consisted of Özkaynak 1, 2, and 3 and Taşkent, Töre, and Population-2, which were the standard petal colour violet, light, and dark violet. Population-1 had both violet and white standard petal; however, itwas included in the second group together with white-flowered Ulubatlı and Ürünlü according to cluster analysis. While Rose and Gölyazı were in the third group, Crackerjack was in the fourth group alone. There was a highly significant positive correlationbetween fresh hay yield and both standard petal width and length and flower length. Consequently, a hopeful result for summer growing in Eskişehir condition was obtained from Population-1. It was suggested that some flower characters can be used for pre-selection of yield-related traits in the evaluation of genetic diversity of pea germplasm through morphological trait.

___

Ali Z, Qureshi AS, Ali W, Gulzar H, Nisar M, Ghafoor A. 2007. Evaluation of genetic diversity present in pea (Pisum sativum L.) germplasm based on morphological traits, resistance to powdery mildew and molecular characteristics. Pakistan Journal of Botany,39: 2739-2747.

Cacan E, Kokten K, Bakoglu A, Kaplan M, Bozkurt A. 2019. Evaluation of some forage pea (Pisum arvense L.) lines and cultivars in terms of herbage yield and quality. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(3): 254-262. doi: 10.29050/harranziraat.446423.

Hedge IC. 1970. Pisum L. In: Davis, PH (ed.) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 3, pp. 370. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Demirkol G, Yılmaz N. 2019. Forage pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense L.) landraces reveal morphological and genetic diversities. Turkish Journal of Botany, 43(3): 331-342. doi: 10.3906/bot-1812-12.

Fraser MD, Fychan R, Jones R. 2001. The effects of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage peaand field bean silages. Grass and Forage Science, 56: 218-230. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2494.2001.00268.x.

Gatti I, Espósiton M, Almirón P, Cravero V, Cointry E. 2011. Diversity of pea (Pisum sativum) accessions based on morphological data for sustainable field pea breeding in Argentina. Genetics and Molecular Research 10: 3403-3410. doi: 10.4238/2011.October.31.8.

Kosterin OE, Zaytseva OO, Bogdanova VS, Ambrose M. 2010. New data on three molecular markers from different cellular genomes in Mediterranean accessions reveal new insights into phylogeography of Pisum sativum L. subsp elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 57: 733–739.

Maxted N, Ambrose N. 2000. Peas (Pisum L.) Chapter 10. In: Maxted N and Bennett SJ (eds) Plant Genetic Resources of Legumes in the Mediterranean. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 181–190. ISBN: 0-7923-6707-3.

Maxted N, Hargreaves S, Kell SP, Amri A, Street K, Shehadeh A, Piggin J, Konopka J. 2010. Temperate forage and pulse legume genetic gap analysis.Paper given at XIII OPTIMA Meeting in Antalya, Turkey, 22–26 March 2010.

Muehlbauer FJ, Tullu A. 1997.Pisum sativumL.. In: NewCrop Factsheet, Purdue University, Center for New Crops & Plant Products. Available from: https:// hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ CropFactSheets/pea.html.

Nisar M, Ghafoor A, Ahmad H, Khan M, Qureshi A, Ali H. 2008. Evaluation of genetic diversity of pea germplasm through phenotypic trait analysis. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 40: 2081-2086.

Nisar M, Ghafoor A, Khan M. 2011. Phenotypic variation in the agronomic and morphological traits of Pisum sativum L. germplasm obtained from different parts of the world. Russian Journal of Genetics, 47: 19-25. doi: 10.1134/S102279541012104X.

Oelke EA, Oplinger ES, Hanson CV, Davis DW, Putnam DH, Fuller EI, Rosen CJ. 1991. Dry field pea. Alternative Field Crop Manual, University of Wisconsin-Exension, Cooperative Extension.

Ofga B, Petros Y. 2017. Genetic Variability and association among agronomic characters in selected field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes at Bale Zone, Sinana Research Center, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Genetics and Genomics, 5(6): 63-75. doi: 10.11648/j.ijgg.20170506.11.

Sincik M, Bilgili U, Uzun A, Acikgoz E. 2005. Effect of low temperatures on the germination of different field pea genotypes. Seed Science and Technology, 32(2): 331-339. DOI: 10.15258/sst.2004.32.2.06.

Smith JS, Smith OS. 1989. The description and assessment of distance between inbreed lines of maize, II: The utility of morphological, biochemical and genetic descriptors and a scheme for testing of distinctiveness between inbreed lines. Maydica, 34: 151-161.

Tan M, Koç A, Dumlugül Z. 2012. Morphological characteristics and seed yield of East Anatolian local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 2012, 17(1): 24-30.

Tan M, Koç A, Dumlugül Z, Elkoca E, Gül İ. 2013. Determination of dry matter yield and yield components of local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 19: 289-296.

Tiwari G, Lavanya GR. 2012. Genetic variability, character association and component analysis in F4 generation of field pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense L.). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, 25(2): 173-175.

Umar HMİ, Ur-Rehman S, Bilal M, Naqvi, SAH, Manzoor SA, Ghafoor A, Khalid M, Iqbal MT, Qayyum A, Ahmad F, Irshad MA. 2014. Evaluation of genetic diversity in pea (Pisum sativum) based on morpho-agronomic characteristics for yield and yield associated traits. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 4(5): 321-328.
Türk Tarım - Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2148-127X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Aylık
  • Başlangıç: 2013
  • Yayıncı: Turkish Science and Technology Publishing (TURSTEP)
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Optimization of Enrichment of D-Pinitol in Carob Extract Using Nanofiltration Application Using the Response Surface Methodology

Ahmet HACIOĞLU, Ursula Tania ASSOUMOU ZOUA, Melis YILDIZ, Aslı ARSLAN KULCAN, İbrahim YAVUZ, Mustafa KARHAN

Effect of Dung Cake Biochar and NP Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Carrot (Daucus carota L.) and Selected Soil Physico-Chemical Properties

Kenzemed KASSİE, Kibebew KİBRET, Tadele AMARE

Organic Grape Production and Producer Status in Adıyaman Province; Example of Besni District

Aybuke KAYA, Songül BAY

Pollen Characterization and Physicochemical Analysis of Six Nigerian Honey Samples; Test for Authenticity

Ernest Uzodimma DURUGBO, Gabriel Gbenga DARAMOLA, Desmond Uchenna ABAZUH, M Mba Obasi ODIM

PhenolicCompounds and Antioxidant Activityof Local Cultivar of Apple (Malus domesticaBorkh) in East of Turkey

Gülden GÖKŞEN, Fevzi KELEŞ

Sulu Şartlar İçin Geliştirilen Ekmeklik Buğday Çeşitlerine Optik Sensör ile Azotlu Gübre Tavsiyesi

Ramis DAYIOĞLU, Yaşar KARADUMAN, Erdinç SAVAŞLI, Oğuz ÖNDER, Didem ÖZEN, Suat ÖZDEMİR, Özgür ATEŞ, Melih ÖZSAYIN

The Influence of Microfiltration on Raw Milk Quality

Ceren AKAL, BİRCE TABAN

Analysis of Various DNA Barcodes on the Turkish Protected Designation of Origin Apricot “Iğdır Kayısısı” (Prunus armeniacacv. Şalak)

KAAN HÜRKAN

Effect of Transglutaminase Enzyme on Some Properties of Yogurt Produced from Camel Milk

Selda BULCA, Fahriye ÜMÜT, Atakan KOÇ

Koyunlarda Yeme Zeolit ve Yucca SchidigeraTozu İlavesinin Bazı Karaciğer Enzimlerine (AST, ALT, GGT) Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması

İbrahim DURMUŞ, Oğuz KALE