Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes

Esvet AÇIKGÖZ, (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarla Bitkileri Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
Mehmet SİNCİK, (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarla Bitkileri Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
Gary WIETGREFE, (Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA)
Mustafa SÜRMEN, (Iğdır Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarla Bitkileri Bölümü, Iğdır, Türkiye)
Semiha ÇEÇEN, (Batı Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü, Antalya, Türkiye)
Tamer YAVUZ, (Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarla Bitkileri Bölümü, Kırşehir, Türkiye)
Cengiz ERDURMUŞ, (Batı Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü, Antalya, Türkiye)
Abdurrahim Tanju GÖKSOY (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarla Bitkileri Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
5 0
Yıl: 2013 Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 22 - 32 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes

Öz:
Three different soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] cultivars (A-3127, Derry, and Yemsoy) were evaluated for dry matter (DM) yield, plant components, and crop growth rate (CGR) at different row spacings and harvesting stages in 3 locations with Mediterranean- type climate in a split-split plot design with 3 replications in 2009 and 2010. In addition, crude protein (CP), crude protein yield (CPY), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), total digestible nutrients (TDN), and relative feed value (RFV) of harvested forage soybeans were determined at the Bursa (Turkey) location. Increased row spacings significantly reduced DM yield at all locations. Combined over other main effects, the 25-cm row spacing produced 35% more DM yield than the 75-cm row spacing. Row spacings greatly affected DM yield at the R5 and particularly the R7 stage, but this effect was minimal at the R1 stage. The forage-type cultivar Derry produced significantly higher DM yield in all locations, particularly at the R5 and R7 stages. The constituent components of DM were similar at different row spacings of soybean cultivars. In general, the CGR decreased from 25-cm row spacing to 75-cm row spacing in all locations, and the CGR of the cultivars varied significantly according to harvest period, row spacing, and location. Derry had a significantly higher CGR than the other cultivars in the Antalya and Bursa locations. Quality characteristics of soybean forage were not significantly affected by row spacing and showed little effect by cultivar. Harvest stage significantly affected CP, ADF, NDF, TDN, and RFV concentrations of soybean forage. It was concluded that in Mediterranean environments forage-type soybeans (i.e. Derry) can be seeded in narrow rows (25 cm) at high plant population (100 kg ha 1) and offer the most DM yield when harvested at later R stages (e.g., R7) rather than at the early reproductive stage.
Anahtar Kelime: fodder crops Glycine (Fabaceae) growth rate genotypes crop quality Mediterranean climate crop growth stage cultivars harvesting date crop yield row spacing crude protein dry matter accumulation yield components Glycine max fibre content soyabeans

Konular: Orman Mühendisliği
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abdul-Baki A, Morse RD, Devine TE, Teasdale JR (1997) Broccoli production in forage soybean and foxtail millet cover crop mulches. Hortic Sci 32: 836–839.
  • Acikgoz E, Sincik M, Oz M, Albayrak S, Wietgrefe G, Turan ZM, Goksoy AT, Bilgili U, Karasu A, Tongel O, Canbolat O (2007) Forage soybean performance in Mediterranean environments. Field Crop Res 103: 239–247.
  • Altinok S,Erdoğdu I,Rajcan I (2004) Morphology, forage and seed yield of soybean cultivars of different maturity grown as a forage crop in Turkey. Can J Plant Sci 84: 181–186.
  • Aydin N, Mut Z, Mut H, Ayan I (2010) Effect of autumn and spring sowing dates on hay yield and quality of oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes. J Anim Vet Adv 9: 1539–1545.
  • Blount AR, Wright DL, Sprenkel RK, Hewitt TD, Hiebsch CK, Myer RO (2003) Forage Soybeans for Grazing, Hay and Silage. University of Florida IFAS Extension, AG184.
  • Board JE, Harville BG (1992) Explanations for greater light interception in narrow-row vs wide-row soybean. Crop Sci 32: 198–202.
  • Bullock D, Khan S, Rayburn A (1998) Soybean yield response to narrow rows is largely due to enhanced early growth. Crop Sci 38: 1011–1016.
  • Coffey KP, Granade GV, Moyer JL (1995) Nutrient content of silages made from whole-plant soybeans. Prof Anim Sci 11: 74–80.
  • CSIRO (2004) Soybean Research for a Growing Industry: Soybean in Australia. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO Plant Industry, Victoria, Australia. Darmosarkoro W, Harbur MM, Buxton DR, Moore KJ, Devine TE, Anderson IC (2001) Growth, development, and yield of soybean lines developed for forage. Agron J 93: 1028–1034.
  • De Bruin JL, Pedersen P (2008) Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean yield. Agron J 100: 704–710.
  • De Bruin JL, Pedersen P (2009) Growth, yield, and yield component changes among old and new soybean cultivars. Agron J 101: 124–130.
  • Devine TE, Hatley EO (1998) Registration of ‘Donegal’ forage soybean. Crop Sci 38: 1719–1720.
  • Elmore RW (1998) Soybean cultivar responses to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J Prod Agric 11: 326–331.
  • Hintz RW, Albrecht KA (1994) Dry matter partitioning and forage nutritive value of soybean plant components. Agron J 86: 59– 62.
  • Hintz RW, Albrecht KA, Oplinger ES (1992) Yield and quality of soybean forage as affected by cultivar and management practices. Agron J 84: 795–798.
  • Joachim H, Jung G (1997) Analysis of forage fiber and cell walls in ruminant nutrition. J Nutr 127: 810–813.
  • Jordan DL (2010) Impact of High-Input Production Practices on Soybean Yield. MSc Thesis. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture. Available at http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ gradschool_theses/36.
  • Koivisto JM, Devine TE, Lane GPF, Sawyer CA, Brown HJ (2003) Forage soybeans [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in the United Kingdom: test of new cultivars. Agronomie 23: 287–291.
  • Linn JG, Martin NP (1999) Forage quality tests and interpretations. University of Minnesota Ext. Ser. Publ. FO-02637, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA.
  • McPeake R, Robwerg R, Self C, Long D (2010) Establishing wildlife food plots, University of Arkansas, Ext. Ser. Publ. FSA9092- PD-12-10RV, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  • Munoz AE, Holt EC, Weaver RW (1983) Yield and quality of soybean hay as influenced by stage of growth and plant density. Agron J 75: 147–148.
  • Nayigihugu V, Kellogg W, Longer D, Johnson Z, Anschutz K (2000) Performance and ensiling characteristics of tall growing soybean lines used for forage. Anim. Sci. Dep. Rep. 470.
  • Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, pp. 142–147.
  • Oplinger ES, Philbrook BD (1992) Soybean planting date, row width, and seeding rate response in three tillage systems. J Prod Agric 5: 94–99.
  • Osborne SL, Riedell WE (2006) Soybean growth response to low rates of nitrogen applied at plantings in the Northern Great Plains. J Plant Nutr 29: 985–1002.
  • Pederson P (2004) Soybean growth and development. Iowa State University Ext. Publ. PM-1945. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
  • Pedersen P, Lauer JG (2004) Soybean growth and development in
  • various management systems and planting dates. Crop Sci 44: 508–515.
  • Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N (1978) Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J Anim Sci 47: 747–759.
  • Saitoh K, Hirata K, Kashiwagi Y (2007) Effect of row-spacing and planting density on podding and yield performance of early soybean cultivar ‘Enrei’ with reference to raceme order. Jpn J Crop Sci 76: 204–211.
  • Savoy BR, Cothren JT, Shumway CR (1992) Soybean biomass accumulation and leaf area index in early-season production environments. Agron J 84: 956–959.
  • Seiter S, Altemose CE, Davis MH (2004) Forage soybean yield and quality responses to plant density and row distance. Agron J 96: 966–970.
  • Sheaffer CC, Orf JH, Devine TE, Jewett JG (2001) Yield and quality of forage soybean. Agron J 93: 99–106
APA Acikgoz E, SİNCİK M, WIETGREFE G, Sürmen M, ÇEÇEN S, YAVUZ T, ERDURMUŞ C, Göksoy A (2013). Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. , 22 - 32.
Chicago Acikgoz Esvet,SİNCİK Mehmet,WIETGREFE Gary,Sürmen Mustafa,ÇEÇEN Semiha,YAVUZ Tamer,ERDURMUŞ CENGİZ,Göksoy Abdurrahim Tanju Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. (2013): 22 - 32.
MLA Acikgoz Esvet,SİNCİK Mehmet,WIETGREFE Gary,Sürmen Mustafa,ÇEÇEN Semiha,YAVUZ Tamer,ERDURMUŞ CENGİZ,Göksoy Abdurrahim Tanju Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. , 2013, ss.22 - 32.
AMA Acikgoz E,SİNCİK M,WIETGREFE G,Sürmen M,ÇEÇEN S,YAVUZ T,ERDURMUŞ C,Göksoy A Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. . 2013; 22 - 32.
Vancouver Acikgoz E,SİNCİK M,WIETGREFE G,Sürmen M,ÇEÇEN S,YAVUZ T,ERDURMUŞ C,Göksoy A Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. . 2013; 22 - 32.
IEEE Acikgoz E,SİNCİK M,WIETGREFE G,Sürmen M,ÇEÇEN S,YAVUZ T,ERDURMUŞ C,Göksoy A "Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes." , ss.22 - 32, 2013.
ISNAD Acikgoz, Esvet vd. "Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes". (2013), 22-32.
APA Acikgoz E, SİNCİK M, WIETGREFE G, Sürmen M, ÇEÇEN S, YAVUZ T, ERDURMUŞ C, Göksoy A (2013). Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37(1), 22 - 32.
Chicago Acikgoz Esvet,SİNCİK Mehmet,WIETGREFE Gary,Sürmen Mustafa,ÇEÇEN Semiha,YAVUZ Tamer,ERDURMUŞ CENGİZ,Göksoy Abdurrahim Tanju Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 37, no.1 (2013): 22 - 32.
MLA Acikgoz Esvet,SİNCİK Mehmet,WIETGREFE Gary,Sürmen Mustafa,ÇEÇEN Semiha,YAVUZ Tamer,ERDURMUŞ CENGİZ,Göksoy Abdurrahim Tanju Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, vol.37, no.1, 2013, ss.22 - 32.
AMA Acikgoz E,SİNCİK M,WIETGREFE G,Sürmen M,ÇEÇEN S,YAVUZ T,ERDURMUŞ C,Göksoy A Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2013; 37(1): 22 - 32.
Vancouver Acikgoz E,SİNCİK M,WIETGREFE G,Sürmen M,ÇEÇEN S,YAVUZ T,ERDURMUŞ C,Göksoy A Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2013; 37(1): 22 - 32.
IEEE Acikgoz E,SİNCİK M,WIETGREFE G,Sürmen M,ÇEÇEN S,YAVUZ T,ERDURMUŞ C,Göksoy A "Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes." Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37, ss.22 - 32, 2013.
ISNAD Acikgoz, Esvet vd. "Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes". Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 37/1 (2013), 22-32.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
17-04-2024 0:44

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları