Forage Yield Performance of Forage Pea (Pisum sativum spp. arvense L.) Genotypes and Assessments Using GGE Biplot Analysis

Authors
M. S. Sayar 1
Y. Han 2
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.
Abstract
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

1. Acikgöz E, Turgut, I. and Ekiz, H. 1986. Variation of Seed Yield and Its Components in Common Vetch under Different Conditions. XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, France, PP. 641-642.
2. Acikgoz, E. 2001. Forage Crops. Lecture Book. 3rd Press, Publication Number: 182: 94-95, Faculty of Agriculture, Uludag University, Bursa.
3. Acikgoz, E., Uzun, A., Bilgili, U. and Sincik, M. 2001. Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Yield and Some Quality Characteristics of Pea Lines Developed with the Crossbreeding between Varieties. National Field Crop Cong., September 17-21, 2001, Tekirdag, Turkey, PP. 73-77.
4. Acikgoz, E., Ustun, A., Gul, I., Anlarsal, A. E., Tekeli, A. S., Nizam, I., Avcioglu, R., Geren, H., Cakmakcı, S. Aydinoglu, B., Yucel, C., Avci, M., Acar, Z., Ayan, I, Uzun, A., Bilgili, U., Sincik, M. and Yavuz, M. 2009. Genotype×Environment İnteraction and Stability Analysis for Dry Matter and Seed Yield in Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Spain J. Agric. Res., 7: 96-106.
5. Ahmadi, J., Vaezi, B., Shaabani, A. and Khademi, K. 2012. Multi-environment Yield Trials of Grass Pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) in Iran Using AMMI and SREG GGE. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 14: 1075-1085.
6. Akbarpour, O., Dehghani, H., Sorkhi, B. and Gauch Jr., H. G. 2014. Evaluation of Genotype×Environment Interaction in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Based on AMMI Model Using Developed SAS Program. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 16: 909-920.
7. Asfaw, A., Gurum, F., Alemayehu, F. and Rezene, Y. 2012. Analysis of Multi-environment Grain Yield Trials in Mung Bean Vigna radiate (L.) Wilczek Based on GGE Bipot in Southern Ethiopia. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 14: 389-398.
8. Bilgili, U. and Acikgoz, E. 1999. A Research on The Important Morphological and Agronomic Characters of Near Izogenic Lines of Forage Pea with Different Leaf Forms. 3rd National Field Crop Cong., November 15-18, 1999, Adana, Turkey, PP. 96-101.
9. Bilgili, U., Uzun, A., Sincik, M., Yavuz, Y., Aydınoglu, B., Cakmakcı, S., Geren, H., Avcıoglu, R., Nizam, I., Tekeli, A. S., Gül, I. Anlarsal, A. E., Yücel, C., M. Avcı, Z. Acar, Ayan, I., Ustun, A. and Acıkgöz, E. 2010. Forage Yield and Lodging Traits in Peas (Pisum sativum L.) with Different Leaf Types. Turk. J. Field Crop., 15: 50-53.
10. Cakmakcı, S. and Cecen, S. 1999. The Possibilities at Entering Crop Rotation System of Certain Annual Legume Plants in Antalya. Turk. J. Agric. For., 23: 119-123.
11. Cecen, S., Oten, M. and Erdurmus, C. 2005. Evaluation of Some Annual Forage Legumes as Second Crop in the Coastal Region of West Mediterranean Belt of Turkey. J. Agric. Fac. Akdeniz Univ., 18(3): 331-336.
12. Firincioglu, H. K., Unal, S., Pank, Z. and Beniwal, S. P. S. 2012. Growth and Development of Narbon Vetch (Vicia narbonensis L.) Genotypes in the Semi-Arid Central Turkey. Spain J. Agric. Res., 10(2): 430-442.
13. Gabriel, K. R. 1971. The Biplot Graphic Display of Matrices with Application to Principal Component Analysis. Biometrika, 58: 453-467.
14. Ilker, E., Aykut Tonk, F., Caylak, O., Tosun, M. and Ozmen, I. 2009. Assessment of Genotype×Environment İnteractions for Grain Yield in Maize Hybrids Using AMMI and GGE Biplot Analyses. Turk. J. Field Crop., 14(2): 123-135.
15. Kaya, Y., Akcura, M. and Taner, S. 2006. GGE Biplot Analysis of Multi Environment Yield Trials in Bread Wheat. Turk. J. Agric. For., 30: 325-337.
16. Karadag, Y. and Buyukburc, U. 2004. Effect of Different Seed Ratios on Forage and Seed Yield of Some Common Vetch Cultivars Under Tokat-Kazova Conditions. Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi- J. Agric. Sci., 10(2): 149-157.
17. Kendal, E. 2013. Effects of Geneotype×Environment Interaction on Yield and Quality Criteria of Some Durum Wheat Cultivars. PhD. Thesis, Institute of Science and Technology, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey, 187 PP.
18. Mortazavian, S. M. M., Nikkhah, H. R., Hassani, F. A., Sharif-al-Hosseini, M., Taheri, M. and Mahlooji, M. 2014. GGE Biplot and AMMI Analysis of Yield Performance of Barley Genotypes Across Different Environments in Iran. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 16: 609-622.
19. Murray, G. A. and Swensen, J. B. 1985. Seed yield of Austrian Winter Field Peas Intercropped with Winter Cereals. Agron. J., 77: 913-916.
20. SAS Institute. 2002. JMP Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 707 PP.
21. Sayar, M. S. and Anlarsal, A. E. 2008. A Research on Determination of Yield and Some Yield Components of Forage Pea ( Pisum arvense L.) Cultivars and Lines in Diyarbakir Ecological Condotions. J. Sci. Eng. Inst. Nat. App. Sci. Cukurova Univ., 19(4): 78-88.
22. Sayar, M. S., Anlarsal, A. E., Başbag, M., Gul, I. and Acikgoz, E. 2009. The Determination of Yield and Yield components of Some Forage Pea (Pisum arvanse L.) Lines in Diyarbakir Conditions. 8th National Field Crop Cong., October 19-22, Hatay, Turkey, PP. 646-650.
23. Sayar, M. S., Anlarsal, A. E. and Başbag, M. 2010. Current Situation, Problems and Solutions for Cultivation of Forage Crops in the Southeastern Anatolian Region. J. Agric. Fac. HRU, 14(2): 59-67.
24. Sayar, M. S., Anlarsal, A. E., Acıkgöz, E. and Başbag, M. 2011. Determination of Forage Yield, Its Affecting Components and Relationships Among Traits of Some Forage Pea (Pisum arvense L.) Genotypes in Hazro Ecological Conditions. 9th National Field Crop Cong., September 12-15, Bursa Turkey, 3: 1716-1721.
25. Sayar, M. S., Anlarsal, A. E. and Başbag, M. 2013. Genotype–environment Interactions and Stability Analysis for Dry-Matter Yield and Seed Yield in Hungarian Vetch (Vicia pannonica CRANTZ.). Turk. J. Field Crop., 18(2): 238-246.
26. Sayar, M. S. 2014. Determination of Forage Yield Performance and The Possibilities at Entering Crop Rotation System for Some Annual Forage Legumes Species in Ecological Conditions of Cınar District. Dicle University J. Ins. Nat. Appl. Sci. 3(1): 19-28.
27. Sayar, M. S. and Han, Y. 2014. Determination of Forage Yield Performance of Some Promising Narbon Netch (Vicia narbonensis L.) Lines under Rainfed Conditions in Southeastern Turkey. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi-J. Agric. Sci., 20: 376-386.
28. Sayar, M. S. and Han, Y. 2015. Determination of Seed Yield and Yield Components of Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) Lines and Evaluations Using GGE Biplot Analysis Method. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi-J. Agric. Sci., 21: 78-92.
29. Seker, H. and Serin, Y. 2004. Explanation of The Relationships Between Seed Yield and Some Morphological Traits in Smooth Bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) by Path Analysis. Eur. J. Argon., 21: 1-6.
30. SRCC. 2001. Technical Instruction for Registration Trials in Annual Forage Legumes Species. Publication of Seed Registration and Certification Centre, Ankara, Turkey, 36 PP.
31. Steel, G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2 Edition, McGraw-Hill Publ. Company, New York.
32. Tan, M., Koc, A. and Dumlu Gul, Z. 2012. Morphological Characteristics and Seed Yield of East Anatolian Local Forage Pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) Ecotypes. Turk. J. Field Crop., 17(1): 24-30.
33. Tekeli, A. S. and Ates, E. 2003. Yield and Its Components in Field pea (Pisum arvense L.). J. Cent. Eur. Agric., 4: 313-318.
34. Timuragaoglu, K. A., Genc, A. and Altınok, S. 2004. A Research on Forage and Seed Yields of Forage Pea Lines under Ankara Conditions. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi-J. Agric. Sci., 10: 457-461.
35. Uzun, A., Gun, H. and Acıkgoz, E. 2012. Yield and Quality Characteristics of Some Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Varieties Harvested at Different Growing Stages. J. Agric. Fac. Uludag Univ., 26(1): 27-38.
36. VSN International. 2011. GenStat for Windows 14th Edition. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK. Web Page: GenStat.co.uk.
37. Yan, W., Cornelius, P. L., Crossa, J. and Hunt, L. A. 2001. Two Types of GGE Biplots for Analysis of Multi-environment Trial data. Crop Sci., 41: 565-663.
38. Yan, W. 2002. Singular Value Partitioning for Biplot Analysis of Multi-environment Trial Data. Argon. J., 94: 990–996.
39. Yan, W. and Kang, M. S. 2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists, and Agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 288 PP.
40. Yan, W. and Tinker, N. A. 2006. Biplot Analysis of Multi-Environment Trial Data: Principles and Applications. Can. J. Plant Sci., 86: 623–645.
41. Yan, W., Kang, M. S. Manjit, B., Woodsc, S. and Corneliusd, P. L. 2007. GGE Biplot vs. AMMI Analysis of Genotype-by-Environment Data. Crop Sci., 47( 2): 643-653.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 18, Issue 6
November and December 2016
Pages 1621-1634