Yield and quality of forage type pea lines of contrasting leaf types

European Journal of Agronomy

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 85-94

  Uzun, A ^a   Bilgili, U ^a   Sincik, M ^a   Filya, I ^a   Acikgoz, E ^a  

^a ULUDAG UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Dry matter digestibility; Evapotranspiration; Leafed; Pea; Pisum sativum L.; Semi leafless; Yield

Indexed keywords

DIGESTIBILITY; EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; FORAGE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RAINFED AGRICULTURE; YIELD;

BURSA [TURKEY]; EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; TURKEY; WORLD;

AVES; MELEAGRIS GALLOPAVO; PISUM; PISUM SATIVUM;

EID: 10344241515     PISSN: 11610301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2004.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Acikgoz E. Cold tolerance and its association with seedling morphology and chemical composition in annual forage legumes. Part I. Field peas (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir). Plant Breed. 88:1982;118-126
2. Acikgoz E., Rumbaugh M.D. Variation in seedling traits of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:1979;511-513
3. Acikgoz E., Katkat V., Omeroglu S., Okan B. Mineral elements and amino acid concentrations in field pea and common vetch herbages and seeds. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 55:1985;179-185
4. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 2002. FAO Irrigation and Drenaige, Paper No. 56. Crop Evapotranspiration, Rome, p. 300.
5. Armstrong E.L., Pate J.S. Field pea crop in SW Australia. Part I. Patterns of growth, biomass production and photosynthetic performance in genotypes of contrasting morphology. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 45:1994;1347-1362
6. Bhargava, P.K., Orskov, E.R., 1987. Manual for the Use of Nylon Bag Technique in the Evaluation of Feedstuffs. The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB, Scotland, UK, pp. 1-25.
7. Biarnes-Dumoulin V., Denis J.B., Lejeune-Henaut I., Eteve G. Interpeting yield instability in pea using genotypic and environmental covarates. Crop Sci. 36:1996;115-120
8. Biederbeck V.O., Boudman O.T. Water use by annual green manure legumes in dryland cropping system. Agron. J. 86:1994;543-549
9. Bourdillon, A., 1999. Advantages and constraints of grain legume for the feed market. In: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Grain Legumes, Valladolid, Spain, 1988, p. 5; Paris, France, p. 510.
10. Davies, D.R., Berry, G.J., Heath, M.C., Dawkins, T.C.K., 1985. Pea (Pisum sativum L.). In: Summerfield, R.J., Roberts, E.H. (Eds.), Grain Legume Crops. Collins, London, pp. 147-198 (Chapter 5).
11. Dumoulin V., Ney B., Eteve G. Variability of seed and plant development in pea. Crop Sci. 34:1994;992-998
12. Egli E.G., Leggett J.E. Dry matter accumulation patterns in determinate and indeterminate soybeans. Crop Sci. 13:1973;220-222
13. Evers G.M. Seedling growth comparison of arrowleaf, crimson, rose and subterranean clovers. Crop Sci. 39:1999;433-440
14. Goldman I.L., Gritton E.T., Plannery P.J. Evaluation of the Afila-tendriled Acacia (afaf-tactac) pea foliage type under high competition. Crop Sci. 32:1992;855-861
15. Hauggaard-Nielsen H., Jensen E.S. Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crops Res. 28:2001;185-196
16. Heath M.C., Hebblethwaite P.D. A basis for improving dryied pea crop. Outlook Agric. 13:1984;195-202
17. Heath, M.C., Hebblethwaite, P.D., 1985. Agronomic problems associated with the pea crop. In: Heblethwaite, P.D., Heath, M.C., Dawkins, T.C.K. (Eds.), The Pea Crop. Butterworths, London, pp. 19-26.
18. Heath, M.C., Hebblethwaite, P.D., 1992. Agronomy and physiology of leafed, leafless and semi-leafless peas. Part II. Plant density, standing ability and disease considerations. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Grain Legumes, 1-3 June 1992, Angers, France, pp. 215-216.
19. Heneise H.K., Murray G.A. Effect of row spacing on yield of spring planted Austrian winter field pea. Agron. J. 72:1980;369-371
20. Kilgore-Norwquest L., Sneller C.H. Effect of stem termination on soybean traits in Southern U.S. production system. Crop Sci. 40:2000;83-90
21. Klebesadel L.J. Chemical composition and yield of oats and peas seperated from a forage mixture at successive stages of growth. Agron. J. 61:1969;713-716
22. Madsen J., Hvelplund T. Protein degradation in the Rumen. A comparison between in vivo, Nylon bag, in vitro and buffer measurements. Acta Agric. Scand. Suppl. 25:1985;103-124
23. Martin I., Tenorio J.L., Ayerbe I. Yield, growth and water-use of conventional and semi-leafless peas in semiarid environments. Crop Sci. 34:1994;1576-1583
24. McKenzie D.B., Sponer D. White lupin: an alternative to pea in oat-legume forage mixtures grown in New Foundland. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:1999;43-47
25. Meadley J.T., Milbourne G.M. The growth of vining peas. Part III: Effect of shading on abscission of flowers and pods. J. Agric. Sci. 77:1971;103-108
26. Mehrez A.Z., Orskov E.R. A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the Rumen. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 88:1977;645-650
27. Monti, L.M., 1983. Natural and induced variability in peas for protein production. In: Thompson, R., Casey, R. (Eds.). Perspectives for Peas and Lupins as Protein Crops. Martinus Nijhoff Publications, pp. 23-39.
28. Murray G.A., Swensen J.B. Seed yield of Austrian winter field peas intercropped with winter cereals. Agron. J. 77:1985;913-916
29. Murray G.A., Auld D.L. Effects of seeding rate, row spacing and seed size on chickpea yield and seed size. J. Appl. Seed Produc. 5:1987;10-19
30. Ney B., Duthion C., Fontaine E. Timing of reproductive abortions in relation to cell division, water content and growth of pea seeds. Crop Sci. 34:1993;141-146
31. Nonnecke I.L., Adedipe N.O., Ormrod D.P. Temperature and humidity effects on the growth and yield of pea cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 51:1971;479-484
32. Rauber R., Schmidtke K., Kimpel-Freund H. Competition and yield advantage in mixtures of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and oats (Avena sativa L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 185:2000;33-47
33. Rauber R., Schmidtke K., Kimpel-Freund H. The performance of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and its role in determining yield advantages in mixed stands of pea and oat (Avena sativa L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 187:2001;137-144
34. Saharia P., Thakuria K. Response of Dwarf pea varieties to different sowing dates and row spacings. Indian J. Agron. 33:1988;405-408
35. Semere T., Froud-Williams R.J. The effect of pea cultivar and water stress on root and shoot competition between vegetative plants of maize and pea. J. Appl. Ecol. 38:2001;137-145
36. Silim S.N., Heblethwaite P.D., Jones C. Irrigation and water use in leafless peas (Pisum sativum). J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 119:1985;211-222
37. Sponer D., Todd A.G., McKenzie D.B. Pea and soybean performance in New Foundland. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:2001;723-726
38. Stelling D. Problems of breeding for improved standing ability in dried Peas (Pisum sativum L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 163:1989;21-32
39. Stelling D. Performance of morphologically divergent plant types in dried peas (Pisum sativum). J. Agric. Sci. 123:1994;357-361
40. Stelling D. Dry peas (Pisum sativum L.) grown in mixtures with faba beans (Vicia faba L.). A rewarding cultivation alternative. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 179:1997;65-74
41. Uzun A., Acikgoz E. Effect of sowing season and seeding rate on the morphological traits and yields in pea cultivars of differing leaf types. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 181:1998;215-222
42. Willox J.R., Sediyama T. Interrelationships among height, lodging and yield in determinate and indeterminate soybeans. Euphytica. 30:1981;323-326