SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1

Effect of Humic Acid Applications on the Yield Components in Chickpea

ALİ KAHRAMAN
Pages
218–222
DOI
—
🏛️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)

There is a big demand for following studies still that are based on different varieties and application doses of fertilizers to improvement of yield and yield related parameters.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Chickpea is one of the most important legumes as human food over world.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using of humic acid based fertilizers has been increased for the last decade in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is a big demand for following studies still that are based on different varieties and application doses of fertilizers to improvement of yield and yield related parameters.
🔬Design:Experimental Field Trial
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Cicer arietinum · correlation · fertilize

Özet

Chickpea is one of the most important legumes as human food over world. Using of humic acid based fertilizers has been increased for the last decade in Turkey. Therefore, a field trial was planned according to randomized blocks design in 2013 with 3 replications under Konya ecological conditions to evaluate effect of humic acid doses (0.0-conrol, 6.0-dose 1, 9.0-dose 2 and 12 kg da-1-dose 3) on yield and yield related important characteristics of chickpea variety "Çağatay" were determined. Following ranges were obtained; 29.56 (dose 3) - 41.44 (dose 2) for pod/plant, 82.09% (control) - 89.66% (dose 3) for fertile pod, 38.33cm (control) - 54.44cm (dose 1) for plant height, 13.67cm (control) - 16.61cm (dose 1) for first pod height, 2.33 (control) - 3.00 (dose 2) for main branch/plant, 183.16 (control) - 245.53 kg da-1 (dose 2) for seed yield and 417.23g (dose 3) - 449.90g (dose 1) for thousand seed weight. Variance analysis showed significance (p<0.01) for pod/plant, plant height and seed yield. In general, present study showed an increasing tendency on the yield related parameters in Çağatay variety by application dose of 6.0 kg da-1 and 9.0 kg da-1 humic acid while increased dose caused to reduce in yield. There is a big demand for following studies still that are based on different varieties and application doses of fertilizers to improvement of yield and yield related parameters.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAHRAMAN, A. (2017). Effect of Humic Acid Applications on the Yield Components in Chickpea. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1, 218–222. https://ajindex.com/articles/224533

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Akçin A (1988). Yemeklik Tane Baklagiller (Academic Press in Turkish). University of Selcuk, Publication No: 43, Faculty of Agriculture, Publication No: 8, 377pp, Konya. Anoymous (2016a). www.faostat.org (Access date: 20.02.2016). Anoymous (2016b). http://tr.climate-data.org/location/497828/ (Access date: 20.02.2016).
  2. Aydoğan A (2012). Determination of yield and quality traits of normal and simple leaved kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars and lines. Ankara University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, PhD Thesis, Ankara.
  3. Azkan N, Kaçar O, Doğangüzel E, Sincik M and Çöplü N (1999). Bursa ekolojik koşullarında farklı ekim zamanlarının nohut hat ve çeşitlerinde verim ve verim öğeleri üzerine etkisi. Türkiye 3.Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi, 15-18 Kasım 1999, 3: 318-323,
  4. Adana. Bayrak H (2010). Determining agricultural, technological and nutritional characteristics of local populations and varieties of chickpea cultivated in Konya ecology. Selcuk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, PhD Thesis, Konya. Bozoglu H and Gulumser A (2000). Determination of genotype x environment interactions of some agronomic characters in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Turk J. Agric. For., 24: 211–220.
  5. Bozoglu H, Peksen E, Peksen A and Gulumser A (2007). Determination of the yield performance and harvesting periods of fifteen pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars sown in autumn and spring. Pak. J. Bot., 39 (6): 2017-2025.
  6. Ceran F and Onder M (2015). Determination of some agricultural characteristics on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars that are sown at different periods. Selcuk Journal of Agricultural Sciences, in press. Ceyhan E, Harmankaya M and Avcı MA (2008). Effects of sowing dates and cultivars on protein and mineral contents of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Asian Journal of Chemistry, 20 (7): 5601-5613.
  7. Ceyhan E, Önder M, Kahraman A, Topak R, Ateş MK, Karadaş S and Avcı MA (2012). Effects of drought on yield and some yield components of chickpea. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, (6) 6: 33-37. Çiftçi V and Türk Z (1998 ). Güneydoğu Anadolu koşullarında ekim zamanının nohutta verim ve verim öğelerine etkisi. Doğu Anadolu Kongresi, 14-18 Eylül 1998, 1. Cilt: 483-487.
  8. Erdin F and Kulaz H (2014). Van–Gevaş ekolojik koşullarında bazı nohut (Cicer arietinum L.) çeşitlerinin ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, Special Issue 1: 910-914.
  9. Eser D, Geçit HH, Emeklier H