Journals / Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 1

The Effect of PGPRS on Root and Stem Development of Forage Peas in Different Growing Media

Banu Kadıoğlu(DOĞU ANADOLU TARIMSAL ARAŞTIRMA ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0002-9041-5992
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-10
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the research, it was found that 100% cocopeat medium was more suitable for the development of root and stem of the forage pea in different environments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Roughage needs can be met by increasing the area under forage crop cultivation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Study, development of roots and stem forage pea was inoculated with Panteo agglomerans and Pseudomonas putida in 13 media consisting of 100% cocopeat, pumice, green tea waste, vermiculite in different ratios on a weight basis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the research, it was found that 100% cocopeat medium was more suitable for the development of root and stem of the forage pea in different environments.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cocopeat · Green tea waste · Pseudomanas putida

Abstract

Roughage needs can be met by increasing the area under forage crop cultivation. Legume forage crops have a wide distribution and usage area. Expanding the area under forage pea cultivation will be beneficial in alleviating the shortage of quality roughage. High-quality and reliable food or forage crop production can be achieved by maintaining soil health, but soils capable of sustaining crop production are limited and variable. An ideal soil for plant growth must possess physical and chemical properties such as proper drainage, adequate aeration, and available moisture. To achieve these conditions, plant growth-supporting organic and inorganic media and environmentally friendly bacteria are used as soil amendments. The study aimed to examine the effects of PGPRs on root and shoot development, total bacterial count, nitrogen, and crude protein values of forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.), a high-nutrient annual forage legume used for its grains, greens, and dry forage, in thirteen different growing environments, and to determine the most suitable growing medium and bacterial strain. Study, development of roots and stem forage pea was inoculated with Panteo agglomerans and Pseudomonas putida in 13 media consisting of 100% cocopeat, pumice, green tea waste, vermiculite in different ratios on a weight basis. Five plants were planted in each pot and harvested after 60 days. Root and stem dry weights, nitrogen contents, crude protein values and total bacterial count of plants dried at 65°C were determined. As a result of the research, it was found that 100% cocopeat medium was more suitable for the development of root and stem of the forage pea in different environments. Panteo agglomerans strain was more effective than Pseudomanas putida strain on stem dry and wet weight, root and stem length and bacterial count, bacterial applications gave better values compared to the control.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kadıoğlu, B. (2026). The Effect of PGPRS on Root and Stem Development of Forage Peas in Different Growing Media. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science, Volume: 7 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.51801/turkjrfs.1848925

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Bangash N, Khalid A, Mahmood T. & Siddique M T (2013). Screening rhizobacteria containing ACC-deaminase for growth promoting of wheat under water stress. Pak. J. Bot. 45: 91-96.
  2. Baran M. & Köse Ö D E (2023). Microbial fertilizers and their uses. International Congresses of Turkish Science and Technology Publishing. 155-160.
  3. Bhakar A, Singh M, Kumar S, Meena R K, Meena B L, Kumar R. & Meena V K (2021). Growth, productivity and profitability of fodder sorghum and cluster bean as influenced by mixed cropping and nutrient management. Legume Res. 44 (11): 1308-1314.
  4. Bremmer J M. & Mulvaney C S (1982). Nitrogen total methods of soil analysis. chemical and microbiological properties second edition. Agronamy 9 (2): 597-622.
  5. Clark F E (1965). Agar-plate method for total microbial count. methods of soil analiysis. chemical and mikrobiological properties. C.A. Black, D.D. Evans, J.L. White, L, E. Ensminger and F.E. Clark (ed) by Amer. Soc.Agron. Inc, Madison,Wisconsin USA Agron. 9 (2): 1460-1466.
  6. Genstat (2009). Genstat for Windows Introduction. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead İpekeşen S, Biçer BT, Bayrak İ H (2023). Determination of the effect of different sowing dates on growth and yield parameters of some dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6 (3): 482-491.
  7. Kadioglu B. & Canbolat M Y (2018). The effects of different growing mediums on the root development of wheat. 2nd International Conference on Triticale and Wheat Biology, Breeding and Production 25-28. June. 2018. Erzurum/Türkiye.
  8. Kadioglu S & Tan M (2018). Determination of seed yield and some characteristics of some forage pea lines and varieties in Erzurum conditions. Atatürk Univ. J. Agri. Fac. 49 (2): 143-149.
  9. Kadioglu B. &Canbolat M Y (2019a). The effects of different growing mediums on the root and stem development of corn. Eurasian J. Agri. Res. 3 (1): 9-13.
  10. Kadioglu B. & Canbolat M Y (2019b). The effect of some bacteria on wheat and corn growth in different growing environments. J. Soil Sci. & Plant Nutr. 7 (2): 139-148.
  11. Kadioglu S, Kadioglu B. & Koc A (2019). Effect of phosphorous fertilizer and bacterial applications on seed yield of morphologically different forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties. Eurasian J. Agri. Res. 3 (1):14-23.
  12. Kadioglu S, Tan M, Kadioglu B. & Tasgin G (2020). Determination of yield and some characteristics of forage pea genotypes (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) under Erzurum conditions. Atatürk Univ. J. Agri. Fac. 51 (2): 151-158.
  13. Kotan R (2014). Some molecular-level effects of microbial fertilizer applications on various plants, in addition to yield. Microbial Fertilizer Workshop P: 152.
  14. Omrak H (2024). An environmentally friendly alternative to chemical fertilizers: Microbial fertilizers. Agriculture and Forestry Journal. May-June, 2024.
  15. Solmaz Y, Adiloğlu A. & Turan M (2022). Effects of mineral and organic fertilizers microbial encapsulation on some nutrient elements uptake of Wheat. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology 10 (11): 2132-2139.
  16. Şener S. & Duran C N (2020). Effects of different microbial fertilizers on rooting of boysenberry cuttings. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences 33 (3): 309-313.
  17. VESP (2007). Vocational Education and Education System Strengthening Project. Food Technology Determination of Raw Protein in Foods, Ankara
  18. Yan W. & Tinker N A (2016).Biplot analysis of multienvironment trial data: Principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 86: 623–645.
  19. Wollum A G II (1982). Cultural methods for soil microorganizms methods of soil analiysis. chemical and microbiological properties. AL Page (ed.) Amer. Soc. Agron., Inc., Madison, Wisconsin USA. Agron 9. Part 2. Second Edition. pp. 781-801.
  20. Xu S X (2021). Bibliometric analysis of the research characteristics and trends in legume mycorrhiza field. Legume Res. 44 (11): 1301-1307.