TILLAGE  MANAGEMENT  EFFECTS  ON  PEA  YIELD  AND  CHEMICAL  COMPOSITION  OF  PEA  SEEDS

Andrzej Woźniak; Dorota Gawęda

doi:10.24326/asphc.2019.1.15

Vol. 18 No. 1 (2019)

Articles

TILLAGE MANAGEMENT EFFECTS ON PEA YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF PEA SEEDS

Andrzej Woźniak⁺⁻
Dorota Gawęda⁺⁻

pdf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/asphc.2019.1.15
Submitted: 22 February 2019
Published: 22.02.2019

Abstract

Productivity of plants is determined by multiple factors that directly affect one another, therefore yield variability may be high and difficult to predict. Most often, however, a lower crop yield is achieved in the notillage system than in the ploughing system. An exact field experiment was undertaken to determine the yield and chemical composition of pea seeds sown under conditions of: 1) conventional tillage – CT (shallow ploughing and harrowing after the harvest of previous crop, pre-winter ploughing in winter); 2) reduced tillage – RT (stubble cultivator after the harvest of previous crop); and 3) herbicide tillage – HT (only glyphosate after the harvest of previous crop). A cultivation unit was applied on all plots in the springtime. Pea seed yield was higher by 14.1% in the CT than in the RT system and by 50.5% than in the HT system. The CT system was increasing the plant number m^–2, number of pods and seeds m^–2, seed mass per plant, and 1000 seeds mass, compared to the other systems. Protein content of seeds was at a similar level in all analyzed tillage systems, but was affected by the study year. In turn, the mineral composition of seeds was determined by both tillage system and study year. The seeds harvested from CT plots contained more phosphorus and iron, those from RT plots – more calcium and zinc, whereas those from HT plots – more phytate-P, potassium, magnesium, and copper, compared to the seeds from the other plots.

References

Amarakoon, D., Thavarajah, D., Mcphee, K., Thavarajah, P. (2012). Iron-, zinc-, and magnesium-rich field peas (Pisum sativum L.) with naturally low phytic acid: A potential food-based solution to global micronutrient malnutrition. J. Food. Compos. Anal., 27, 8–13.
Carr, P.M., Martin, G.B., Horsley, R.D. (2009). Impact of tillage on field pea following spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci., 89, 281–288.
De Vita, P., Di Paolo, E., Fecondo, G., Di Fonzo, N., Pisante, M. (2007). No-tillage and conventional tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality, and soil moisture content in Southern Italy. Soil Till. Res., 92, 69–78.
Doré, T., Meynard, J.M., Sebillotte, M. (1998). The role of grain number, nitrogen nutrition and stem number in limiting pea crop (Pisum sativum) yields under agricultural conditions. Eur. J. Agron., 8, 29–37.
Dragičević, V.D., Sredojević, S.D., Perić, V.A., Nišavić, A.R., Srebrić, M.B. (2011). Validation study of a rapid colorimetric method for the determination of phytic acid and inorganic phosphorus from seeds. Acta Period. Technol., 42, 11–21.
Gruber, S., Pekrun, C., Möhring, J., Claupein, W. (2012). Long-term yield and weed response to conservation and stubble tillage in SW Germany. Soil Till. Res., 121, 49–56.
Hack, H., Bleiholder, H., Buhr, L., Meier, U., Schnock-Fricke, U., Weber, E., Witzenberger, A. (1992). Einheitliche Codierung der phänologischen Entwicklungsstadien mono- und dikotyler Pflanzen – Erweiterte BBCH-Skala, Allgemein. Nachrichtenbl. Deut. Pflanzenschutzd., 44, 265–270.
Hemmat, A., Eskandari, I. (2004). Tillage system effect upon productivity of a dryland winter wheat-chickpea rotation in the northwest region of Iran. Soil Till. Res., 78, 69–81.
IUSS Working Group WRB (2015). World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome.
Kumar, V., Sinha, A.K., Makkar, H.P.S., Becker, K. (2010). Dietary roles of phytate and phytase in human nutrition: A review. Food Chem., 120, 945–959.
Latta, M., Skin, M. (1980). A simple and rapid colorimetric method for phytate determination. J. Agric. Food Chem., 28, 1313–1315.
Loewus, F. (2002). Biosynthesis of phytate in food grains and seeds. In: Food phytates, Reddy, N.R., Sathe, S.K. (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, 53–61.
Małecka-Jankowiak, I., Blecharczyk, A., Swędrzyńska, D., Sawinska, Z., Piechota, T. (2016). The effect of long-term tillage systems on some soil properties and yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Agricultura, 15, 37–50.
Morris, N.L., Miller, P.C.H., Orson, J.H., Froud-Williams, R.J. (2010). The adoption of non-inversion tillage systems in the United Kingdom and the agronomic impact on soil, crops and the environment: a review. Soil Till. Res., 108, 1–15.
Rusu, T. (2014). Energy efficiency and soil conservation in conventional, minimum tillage and no-tillage. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 2, 42–49.
Sandberg, A.S. (2002). Bioavailability of minerals in legumes. Brit. J. Nutr., 88(3), 281–285.
Simon, A., Rusu, T., Chetan, C. (2016). Influence of soil tillage systems on some characteristics morpho-productive and yields to pea. Agro Life Sci. J., 5, 194–198.
Tavajjoh, M., Yasrebi, J., Karimian, N., Olama, V. (2011). Phytic acid concentration and phytic acid: zinc molar ratio in wheat cultivars and bread flours, Fars Province, Iran. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 13, 743–755.
Wang, N., Hatcher, D.W., Warkentin, T.D., Toews, R. (2010). Effect of cultivar and environment on physicochemical and cooking characteristics of field pea (Pisum sativum). Food Chem., 118, 109–115.
Woźniak, A. (2013). The yielding of pea (Pisum sativum L.) under different tillage conditions. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus, 12, 133–141.
Woźniak, A., Soroka, M., Stępniowska, A., Makarski, B. (2014). Chemical composition of pea (Pisum sativum L.) seeds depending on tillage systems. J. Elementol., 19, 1143–1152.
Yeboah, S., Zhang, R., Cai, L., Li, L., Xie, J., Luo, Z., Liu, J., Wu, J. (2016). Tillage effect on soil organic carbon, microbial biomass carbon and crop yield in spring wheat-field pea rotation. Plant Soil Environ., 62, 279–285.