Volume 18, Issue 6 (2016)
JAST 2016, 18(6): 1621-1634 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sayar M S, Han Y. Forage Yield Performance of Forage Pea (Pisum sativum spp. arvense L.) Genotypes and Assessments Using GGE Biplot Analysis. JAST 2016; 18 (6) :1621-1634
URL: http://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-7105-en.html
URL: http://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-7105-en.html
1- Crop and Animal Production Department, Bismil Vocational Training School, Dicle University, P. O. Box: 21500, Bismil, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
2- GAP International Agricultural Research and Training Center, P. O. Box: 21100, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
2- GAP International Agricultural Research and Training Center, P. O. Box: 21100, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
Abstract: (4223 Views)
This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of forage pea (Pisum sativum spp. arvense L.) genotypes, in terms of fresh forage yield and associated traits, when grown on the Kiziltepe Plain, Mardin, Turkey. Field trials were performed during the 2007-08 and 2009-2010 growing seasons. The experiments were arranged according to randomized block design with three replications. The following trait ranges were reported: Days to 50% flowering: 147.5-162.5 days, Natural plant height and Main Stem Height: 45.58-72.75 cm, Main stem height: 52.52-100.42 cm, Main stem numbers per plant: 1.275-1.658 stems plant-1, Main stem thickness: 2.913-3.703 mm, Fresh forage yield: 10.43-23.83 t ha-1 and Dry matter yield: 2.525-5.891 t ha-1. GGE (i.e., G+GE) biplot analysis showed that the two growing seasons were markedly different,stemming exclusively from differences in rainfall amounts between the two growing seasons. Results of this study showed that the lines 88P00-1-4-9-661 (1) and P101 (6), and cultivar Kirazli (9) were superior in terms of fresh forage yield, dry matter yield, natural plant height and days to 50% flowering traits. At the same time, PC2 scores of these genotypes were found near to zero, so, they were identified as stable genotypes for the investigated traits. In conclusion, in terms of forage yield, these three forage pea genotypes are recommended for the Kiziltepe Plain growing conditions.
Keywords: Biplot analysis, Dry matter yield, Forage yield components, Genotype×year interaction, Kiziltepe Plain
Article Type: Research Paper |
Subject:
Plant Breeding
Received: 2015/03/3 | Accepted: 2015/10/7 | Published: 2016/11/1
Received: 2015/03/3 | Accepted: 2015/10/7 | Published: 2016/11/1
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |