Photosynthesis, yielding and quality of pea seeds depending on the row spacing and sowing density

• Autorzy: Tobiasz-Salach Renata E. , Jańczak-Pieniążek Marta , Migut Dagmara , Bobrecka-Jamro Dorota , Stadnik Barbara , Kačániová Miroslava

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/jwld.2022.143730

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Pea is one of the most important legumes grown in the world. The seeds are used for food production and animal feed. The problem with its cultivation is the low yield and sensitivity to the course of the weather. The important factor is to determine the optimal sowing rate and row spacing, especially for new cultivars of pea. Therefore, research was undertaken to assess the effect of row spacing and sowing density on selected physiological parameters, yielding, and structural elements of peas cv. ‘Batuta’ in Poland. The results of the research showed that the row spacing and sowing density determine the values of plant physiological parameters, yield of pea seeds and protein content. The increase in plant density in the canopy caused a decrease in the measured parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence, such as maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (F_v/F_m) and maximum quantum yield of primary photochemistry (F_v/F₀) and performance index (PI). The leaf area index (LAI) was lower with a wider row spacing. Row spacing and plant density determined yield of pea seeds, number of pods and seeds per plant and weight of seeds per plant. Wider row spacing resulted in a decrease in the protein content in seeds, while an increase in sowing density from 70 to 110 m² caused its increase. The course of the weather during the vegetation period of plants significantly influenced the obtained results.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Pisum sativum L.; photosynthesis efficiency; protein content; row spacing; sowing density

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo ITP
• Czasopismo: Journal of Water and Land Development
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Special Issue
• Strony: 146--155
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 53 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Tobiasz-Salach Renata E.

• University of Rzeszow, Department of Crop Production, Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9894-4012

autor

Jańczak-Pieniążek Marta

• University of Rzeszow, Department of Crop Production, Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-7974

autor

Migut Dagmara

• University of Rzeszow, Department of Crop Production, Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2382-7353

autor

Bobrecka-Jamro Dorota

• University of Rzeszow, Department of Crop Production, Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-0911

autor

Stadnik Barbara

• University of Rzeszow, Department of Crop Production, Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9408-9733

autor

Kačániová Miroslava

• Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Department of Fruit Science, Viticulture and Enology, Nitra, Slovakia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4460-0222

Bibliografia

• ALLAKHVERDIEV S.I., MURATA N. 2004. Environmental stress inhibits the synthesis de novo of proteins involved in the photodamage-repair cycle of Photosystem II in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 Biochimica et Biophysica Acta – Bioenergetics. Vol. 1657(1) p. 23–32. DOI 10.1016/j.bbabio.2004.03.003.
• AL-RIFAEE M., TURK M.A., TAWAHA A.R.M.A. 2004. Effect of seed size and plant population density on yield and yield components of local faba bean (Vicia faba L. Major). International Journal of Agriculture & Biology. Vol. 6(2) p. 294–299.
• ARMSTRONG E.L., MATTHEWS P.W., FETTELL N.A., HOLDING D.J., GAYNOR L.G., LISLE C.J., CULLIS B.R. 2008. Effects of plant density on the yield of field pea and faba bean varieties across southern and central NSW preliminary findings. In: Global issues, paddock action. Ed. M.J. Unkovich. Proceedings of 14th Agronomy Confererence. 21–25.09.2008. Adelaide, South Australia. Australian Society of Agronomy pp. 4.
• BARDARO N., MARCOTRIGIANO A.R., BRACUTO V., MAZZEO R., RICCIARDI F., LOTTI C., PAVAN S., RICCIARDI L. 2016. Genetic analysis of resistance to Orobanche crenata (Forsk.) in a pea (Pisum sativum L.) low-strigolactone line [online]. Journal of Plant Pathology. Vol. 98(3) p. 671–675. [Access 15.04.2022] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44280520
• BAUERLE W.L., WESTON D.J., BOWDEN J.D., DUDLEY J.B., TOLER J.E. 2004. Leaf absorptance of photosynthetic active radiation in relation to chlorophyll meter estimates among woody plant species. Scientia Horticulturae. Vol. 101 p. 169–178.
• BHUTIA T.R., SHIVANI , SAURABH K. 2017. Evaluation of different varietes of pea (Pisum sativum L.) for yield and quality under late sown conditions in the Eastern region. Crop Research. Vol. 52(4 & 5) p. 176–179. DOI 10.5958/2454-1761.2017.00014.6.
• BISWAS D., HAQUE M., RAHMAN M. 2012. Influence of plant population density on growth and yield of two black gram varieties. Journal of Agronomy. Vol. 1(2–3) p. 83–85.
• BOROS L. 2016. Groch siewny: charakterystyka odmian i elementy agrotechniki [Pea seeds: characteristics of varieties and elements of agrotechnics]. Agroserwis. Nr 3 p. 35.
• BOWMAN W.D. 1989. The relationship between leaf water status, gas exchange, and spectral reflectance in cotton leaves. Remote Sensing of Environment. Vol. 30(1) p. 249–255. DOI 10.1016/0034-4257(89)90066-7.
• CARTER G.A, KNAP A.K. 2001. Leaf optical properties in higher plants: Linking spectral characteristics to stress and chlorophyll concentrations. American Journal of Botany. Vol. 88 p. 677–684. DOI 10.2307/2657068.
• FAN Y., CHEN J., WANG Z., TAN T., LI S., LI J., ..., YANG F. 2019. Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) seedlings response to shading: Leaf structure, photosynthesis and proteomic analysis. BMC Plant Biology. Vol. 19, 34. DOI 10.1186/s12870-019-1633-1.
• GENTY B., BRIANTAIS J.M., BAKER N.R. 1989. The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. Vol. 990 p. 87–92. DOI 10.1016/S0304-4165(89)80016-9.
• GRABOWSKA K., BANASZKIEWICZ B. 2009. Wpływ temperatury powietrza i opadów atmosferycznych na plonowanie grochu siewnego w środkowej Polsce [Effect of air temperature and atmospheric precipitation on yielding of sowing pea in central Poland]. Acta Agrophysica. Vol. 13 p. 113–120.
• GUGAŁA M., ZARZECKA K. 2009. Wpływ gęstości siewu i sposobów pielęgnacji na plonowanie grochu siewnego (Pisum sativum L.) [The influence of sowing rate and weed control methods on the yielding of field pea (Pisum sativum L.)]. Fragmenta Agronomica. Vol. 26 p. 64–71.
• HUSSAIN S., IQBAL N., BRESTIC M., RAZA M.A., PANG T., LANGHAM D.R., ..., YANG W. 2019. Changes in morphology, chlorophyll fluorescencje performance and Rubisco activity of soybean in response to foliar application of ionic titanium under normal light and shade environment. Science of the Total Environment. Vol. 658 p. 626–637. DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.182.
• IUSS Working Group WRB 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. Word Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. Word Soil Resources Reports. No. 106 pp. 192.
• JOHNSTON A.M., CLAYTON G.W., LAFOND G.P., HARKER K.N., HOGG T.J., JOHNSON E.N., MAY V., MCCONNELL J.T. 2002. Field pea seeding management. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. Vol. 82 p. 639–644. DOI 10.4141/P02-001.
• KALAJI M.H., PIETKIEWICZ S. 2004. Some physiological indices to be exploited as a crucial tool in plant breeding. Plant Breeding and Seed Science. Vol. 49 p. 19–39.
• KARKANIS A., NTATSI G., KONTOPOULOU C H ., PRISTERI A., BILALIS D., SAVVAS D. 2016. Field pea in European cropping systems: Adaptability, biological nitrogen fixation, and cultivation practices. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca. Vol. 44 (2) p. 325–336. DOI 10.15835/nbha44210618.
• KNIPLING E.B. 1970. Physical and physiological basis for the reflectance of visible and near-infrared radiation from vegetation. Remote Sensing of Environment. Vol. 1 p. 155–159. DOI 10.1016/S0034-4257(70)80021-9.
• KOSEV V., PACHEV I., MIKIĆ A. 2013. Assessing the breeding value of nine spring field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars. Plant Breeding and Seed Science. Vol. 68 p. 55–64. DOI 10.2478/v10129-011-0080-4.
• KRIZMANIĆ G., TUCAK M., BRKIĆ M., MARKOVIĆ M., JOVANOVIĆ V., CUPIĆ T. 2020. The impact of plant density on the seed yield and the spring field pea’s yield component. Poljoprivreda. Vol. 26(1) p. 25–31. DOI 10.18047/poljo.26.1.4.
• MAŁECKA-JANKOWIAK I., BLECHARCZYK A., SWĘDRZYŃSKA D., SAWIŃSKA Z., PIECHOTA T. 2016. The effect of long-term tillage systems on some soil properties and yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Sect. Agricultura. Vol. 15(1) p. 37–50.
• MAO L.Z., LU H.F., WANG Q., CAI M.M. 2007. Comparative photosynthesis characteristics of Calycanthus chinensis and Chimonanthus praecox. Photosynthetica. Vol. 45(4) p. 601–605. DOI 10.1007/s11099-007-0103-4.
• MARTIN I., TENORIO J., AYERBE L. 1993. Yield, growth and water use of conventional and semi-leafless peas semiarid environments. Crop Science. Vol. 34 p. 1576–1583. DOI 10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400060029x.
• MAXWELL K., JOHNSON G.N. 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence – a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany. Vol. 51, 345 p. 659–668. DOI 10.1093/jexbot/51.345.659.
• MCMURRAY L.S., DAVIDSON J.A., LINES M.D., LEONFORTE M.A., SALAM U. 2011. Combining management and breeding advances to improve field pea (Pisum sativum L.) grain yields under changing climatic conditions in south-eastern Australia. Euphytica. Vol. 180 p. 69–88. DOI 10.1007/s10681-011-0362-9.
• MURCHIE E., LAWSON T. 2013. Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: A guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. Journal of Experimental Botany. Vol. 13 p. 3983–3998. DOI 10.1093/jxb/ert208.
• NEMESKÉRI E., MOLNÁR K., VÍGH R. 2015. Relationships between stomatal behaviour, spectral traits, and water use and productivity of green peas (Pisum sativum L.) in dry seasons. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. Vol. 37, 34. DOI 10.1007/s11738-015-1776-0.
• PHILLIPS D.A. 1980. Efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legumes. Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 31 p. 29–49. DOI 10.1146/annurev.pp.31.060180.000333.
• PN-EN ISO 20483: 2014-02 wersja polska. Ziarno zbóż i nasiona roślin strączkowych – Oznaczanie zawartości azotu i przeliczanie na zawartość białka – Metoda Kjeldahla [Cereal grains and pulses – Determination of nitrogen content and conversion to protein – Kjeldahl method].
• PODLEŚNY J. 2009. Wpływ struktury przestrzennej łanu na wzrost, rozwój i plonowanie wąsolistnej odmiany grochu siewnego [The effect of spatial structure of stand on growth, development and yielding of pea]. Fragmenta Agronomica. Vol. 26 p. 140–149.
• POSTMA J.A., HECHT V.L., HIKOSAKA K., NORD E.A., PONS T.L., POORTER H. 2021. Dividing the pie: A quantitative review on plant density responses. Plant, Cell & Environment. Vol. 44 p. 1072–1094. DOI 10.1111/pce.13968.
• PRUSIŃSKI J. 2022. Effect of row spacing and plant density on the yield of Faba bean L. under very differentiated humidity conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 14(1) p. 1–10. DOI 10.5539/jas.v14n1p1.
• PRUSIŃSKI J., BOROWSKA M. 2022. Effect of planting density and row spacing on the yielding and morphological features of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Agronomy. Vol. 12, 715. DOI 10.3390/agronomy12030715.
• RASAEI A., GHOBADI M.-E. 2012. Effect of supplemental irrigation and plant density on yield and yield components of peas (Pisum sativum L.) in Kermanshah region. African Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 7(15) p. 2353–2358. DOI 10.5897/AJAR11.1559.
• RICHARD B., BUSSIÈRE F., LANGRUME C., ROUAULT F., JUMEL S., FAIVRE R., TIVOLI B. 2013. Effect of pea canopy architecture on microclimate and consequences on ascochyta blight infection under field conditions. European Journal of Plant Pathology. Vol. 135 p. 509–524. DOI 10.1007/s10658-012-0132-0.
• RUTKOWSKI A., HEJDYSZ M., KACZMAREK S., MIKUŁA R., KASPROWICZ-POTOCKA M., ZAWORSKA A. 2015. Możliwości wykorzystania roślin strączkowych w żywieniu zwierząt monogastrycznych. Wersja uzupełniona i poprawiona [Possibilities of using legumes in the nutrition of monogastric animals. Updated and revised version]. Warszawa. FAPA. ISBN 978-83-62282-84-5 pp. 83.
• SALTER J., WILLIAMS J.B. 2015. The effect of irrigation on pea crops grown at different plant densities. Journal of Horticultural Sciences. Vol. 42 p. 59–66. DOI 10.1080/00221589.1967.11514193.
• SHAUKAT S.A., AHMAD Z., CHOUDRY Y.A., SHAUKAT S.K. 2012. Effect of different sowing dates and row spacing on the growth, seed yield, and quality of off-season pea (Pisum sativum L. cv. Climax) under temperate conditions of Rawalakot Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Scientific Journal of Agricultural. Vol. 1(5) p. 117–125.
• SKOWERA B. 2014. Zmiany warunków hydrotermicznych na obszarze Polski (1971−2010) [Changes in hydrothermal conditions in the Polish area (1971−2010)]. Fragmenta Agronomica. Vol. 31(2) p. 74–87.
• SMULIKOWSKA S., RUTKOWSKI A. 2005. Zalecenia żywieniowe i wartość pokarmowa pasz – normy żywienia drobiu [Nutritional recommendations and nutritional value of feed – poultry nutrition standards]. Ed. 4th . Jabłonna. IFiŻZ PAN. ISBN 8391709779 pp. 156.
• SPIES J.M., WARKENTIN T., SHIRTLIFFE S.J. 2010. Basal branching in field pea cultivars and yield-density relationships. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. Vol. 90 p. 679–690. DOI 10.4141/CJPS09195.
• STRASSER R.J., TSIMILLI-MICHAEL M., SRIVASTAVA A. 2004. Analysis of the chlorophyll a fluorescence transient. In: Chlorophyll a fluorescence. Eds. G.C. Papageorgiou, Govindjee. Ser. Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration. AIPH. Vol. 19. Dordrecht. Springer p. 321–362. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-3218-9_12.
• TAN M., KOC A., DUMLU GUL Z. 2012. Morphological characteristics and seed yield of East Anatolian local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes [online]. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. Vol. 17(1) p. 24–30.[Access 10.05.2022]. Available at: https://www.field-crops.org/assets/pdf/product512cbc43287a3.pdf
• TAYEH N., AUBERT G., PILET-NAYEL M.-L., LEJEUNE-HÉNAUT I., WARKENTIN T.D., BURSTIN J. 2015. Genomic tools in pea breeding programs: status and perspectives. Frontiers in Plant Science. Vol. 6, 1037. DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.01037.
• TERASHIMA I., HANBA Y.T., TAZOE Y., VYAS P., YANO S. 2006. Irradiance and phenotype: Comparative eco-development of sun and shade leaves in relation to photosynthetic CO 2 diffusion. Journal of Experimental Botany. Vol. 57(2) p. 343–54. DOI 10.1093/jxb/erj014.
• TÜRK M., ALBAYRAK S., YÜKSEL O. 2011. Effect of seeding rate on the forage yields and quality in pea cultivars of different leaf types. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. Vol. 16 p. 137–141. DOI 10.17557/tjfc.312335.
• UZUN A., BARIS B., ACIKGOZ E. 2017. Effects of different seeding rates on forage yield and quality components in pea. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. Vol. 22(1) p. 126–133. DOI 10.17557/tjfc.312335.
• VALLADARES F., NIINEMETS Ü. 2008. Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. Vol. 39 p. 237–257. DOI 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173506.
• YANG F., FENG L., LIU Q., WU X., FAN Y., RAZA M.A., CHENG Y., CHEN J., WANG X., YONG T. 2018. Effect of interactions between light intensity and red-to-far-red ratio on the photosynthesis of soybean leaves under shade condition. Environmental and Experimental Botany. Vol. 150 p. 79–87. DOI 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.03.008.
• YANG F., HUANG S., GAO R.C., LIU W.G., YONG T.W., WANG X.C., WU X. L., YANG W.Y. 2014. Growth of soybean seedlings in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red:far-red ratio. Field Crops Research. Vol. 155 p. 245–253. DOI 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.08.011.
• YUKSEL O., TURK M. 2019. The effects of phosphorus fertilization and harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin. Vol. 28(5) p. 4165–4170.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).