Submitted:
17 July 2025
Posted:
18 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
| Forage Pea Cultivar | Thousand Seed Weight (g) | Pre-Storage Seed Moisture (%) | Post-Storage Seed Moisture (%) |
| Uysal | 160.80 | 13.4 | 12.6 |
| Özkaynak | 141.60 | 11.4 | 13.2 |
| Taşkent | 146.40 | 11.0 | 10.6 |
| Kurtbey | 194.60 | 10.6 | 10.4 |
| Ürünlü | 123.38 | 11.6 | 13.8 |
| Nany | 118.00 | 11.7 | 10.8 |
2.1. Climatic Characteristics of the Research Area
| Month |
Avg. Temp (°C) 2021–2022 |
Avg. Temp (°C) 1991–2022 |
Total Precip. (mm) 2021–2022 |
Total Precip. (mm) 1991–2022 |
Relative Humidity (%) 2021–2022 | Relative Humidity (%) 1991–2022 |
| October | 18.0 | 17.8 | 50.4 | 51.8 | 67 | 64 |
| November | 12.0 | 12.1 | 86.8 | 88.9 | 76 | 73 |
| December | 8.0 | 8.1 | 135.4 | 138.2 | 81 | 80 |
| January | 7.0 | 6.6 | 127.2 | 129.0 | 82 | 79 |
| February | 7.0 | 7.9 | 105.4 | 107.7 | 77 | 75 |
| March | 10.0 | 10.5 | 77.1 | 78.4 | 73 | 70 |
| April | 15.0 | 15.1 | 53.6 | 55.5 | 68 | 65 |
| May | 20.0 | 20.3 | 38.5 | 39.3 | 59 | 57 |
| Mean | 12.0 | 12.3 | 84.3 | 86.1 | 73 | 70 |
2.2. Plant Material and Seed Preparation
2.3. Experimental Design
- Stage I: Initial laboratory analyses conducted without storage treatment.
- Stage II: Post-storage assessments after seeds were kept for three months under room temperature and controlled storage (5 °C, 60% RH).
2.4. Laboratory Tests
2.4.1. Standard Germination Test

2.4.2. Electrical Conductivity Test
2.5. Field Emergence Test


2.6. Measured Traits
- Germination Speed (%): Percentage of seedlings emerged by day 5.
- Germination Percentage (%): Percentage of normal seedlings by day 8.
- Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm/g): Index of seed membrane integrity.
- Field Emergence (%): Ratio of emerged seedlings in field plots.
- Plant Height (cm): Measured from soil surface to plant apex in 10 randomly selected plants per plot.
- Days to Flowering (days): Days from sowing until flowering reached a specific threshold.
- Green Forage Yield (kg/da): Based on 4 m² harvested area per plot, extrapolated to per decare (da).
- Dry Matter Yield (kg/da): 500 g subsample dried at 70 °C for 48 hours until constant weight, extrapolated.
- Seed Moisture Content (%): Measured with an electronic seed moisture tester.
- Thousand Seed Weight (g): Calculated from the mean weight of four samples of 100 seeds × 10.


2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Electrial Conductivity Test Results (µs cm¯¹g¯¹)

3.2. Germination Rate of Forage Pea Cultivars Results

3.3. Germination Power (%) Results

3.4. Field Emergence Rates (%) Results

4. Agronomic Evaluation of Forage Pea Varieties Under Different Storage Conditions
4.1. Plant Height
4.2. Days to Flowering
4.3. Green Forage Yield
4.4. Dry Forage Yield
4.5. Effect of Storage Conditions on Plant Height and Flowering
4.6. Forage Yield Performance
4.7. Implications for Agronomic Practice
|
Varieties |
Plant Height |
Flowering Time |
Green Forage |
Dry Forage |
||||||||
| Room (cm) | Cold (cm) | Avg. | Room (days) | Cold (days) | Avg. | Room (kg/da) | Cold (kg/da) | Avg. | Room (kg/da) | Cold (kg/da) | Avg. | |
| Nany | 100 f | 104 cd | 102 c | 146.33 a | 145 | 145.66 a | 1186.2 | 1524.4 | 1355.3 | 306.5 | 429.5 | 368.0 |
| Özkaynak | 113 a | 114.6 a | 113.8 a | 138.33 b | 136.33 | 137.33 b | 1159.1 | 1488.9 | 1323.9 | 296.4 | 405.7 | 351.0 |
| Uysal | 101.2 ef | 103 de | 102.2 c | 136 c | 132 | 134.00 c | 1252.9 | 1382.2 | 1317.5 | 306.5 | 401.1 | 353.8 |
| Taşkent | 106.3 bc | 108 b | 107.2 b | 134 c | 131 | 132.50 d | 1105.8 | 1591.1 | 1348.4 | 279.8 | 441.5 | 360.6 |
| Ürünlü | 100 f | 101.6 def | 100.8 c | 127 d | 123.33 | 125.16 e | 1276.2 | 1524.4 | 1400.3 | 312.4 | 411.0 | 361.7 |
| Kurtbey | 88 h | 92 g | 90 d | 122.0 e | 120.33 | 121.33 f | 1157.8 | 1448.9 | 1303.3 | 286.1 | 403.6 | 344.8 |
| Average | 101.36 b | 103.53 a | 134.00 a | 131.33 b | 1189.6 b | 1493.3 a | 297.9 b | 415.4 a | ||||
| LSD(Variety) | 2.53 | 3.35 | Not Sig. | Not Sig. | ||||||||
| LSD(VxS) | 1.84 | Not Sig. | Not Sig. | Not Sig. | ||||||||
| CV(%) | 1.39 | 0.81 | 12.61 | 10.60 | ||||||||
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gülümser, E., Mut, H., Başaran, U., & Çopur Doğrusöz, M. Determination of the quality characteristics of silages obtained by mixing pea and oat at different ratios. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 2021, 11, 763–770. [CrossRef]
- TURKSTAT. Crop Production Statistics. Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT): Ankara, Türkiye, 2023. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Tarim-111 (accessed on 12 April 2023).
- TAGEM. Forage Crop Production, Current Status and Measures to Be Taken within the Scope of Climate Change – Workshop Final Report; General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM): Ankara, Türkiye, 2023; pp. 9–10. [Google Scholar]
- Açıkgöz, E., vd. (1985). Mineral elementsand amino acid concentrations in field pea and common vetch herbage sand seeds. J. Agronomy and Crop Sci., 55: 179-185.
- McKenzie, D.B. and D. Sponer. (1999). White Lupin: An alternativetopea in oatlegumeforagemixturesgrown in newfoundland. Can. J. PlantSci., 79: 43-47.
- Manga, İ.; Acar, Z.; Ayan, İ. Legume Forage Crops; Lecture Notes No: 274, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayıs University: Samsun, Türkiye, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, V. , Finch, B., Souza, J., Watkins, P., & Arnall, B. (2022). Soil sampling depth impact on phosphorus yield response prediction in winter wheat. Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 7(1), e20067. [CrossRef]
- Finch-Savage, W. E. , & Bassel, G. W. (2016). Seed vigour and crop establishment: extending performance beyond adaptation. Journal of Experimental Botany. [CrossRef]
- Lv, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, J., & Hu, Y. (2016). Quantitative proteomic analysis of wheat seeds during artificial ageing and priming using isobaric tandem mass tag labeling. PLoS ONE, 11, e0162851. [CrossRef]
- Powell, A. A. (2022). Aerated hydration treatment for seed invigoration: mechanisms and applications. In Seed Improvement by Selection and Invigoration (pp. 126–133). Piracicaba: Sci. Agric.
- Tao, Q. , Chen, D. ( 203, 116–126. [CrossRef]
- Ellis, R. H. , & Roberts, E. H. (1980). Improved equations for the prediction of seed longevity. H. ( 45(1), 13–30. [CrossRef]
- Wiebach, J. , Nagel, M., Börner, A., Altmann, T., & Riewe, D. Age-dependent loss of seed viability is associated with increased lipid oxidation and hydrolysis. Plant, Cell & Environment 2020, 43, 303–314. [Google Scholar]
- Zinsmeister, J., Leprince, O., & Buitink, J. (2020). Molecular and environmental factors regulating seed longevity. Biochemical Journal, 477(2), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20190165 researchgate.net+3pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+3pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+3.
- Chen, S.-C. , Wu, L.-M., Wang, B., & Dickie, J. B. Macroevolutionary patterns in seed component mass and different evolutionary trajectories across seed desiccation responses. New Phytologist 2020, 228, 770–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turkish State Meteorological Service (TSMS), 2023.
- ISTA (International Seed Testing Association). (2022). International Rules for Seed Testing. Bassersdorf, Switzerland: ISTA.
- Zhang, H. Liu, Y., Yang, J., Wang, Y., & Du, Y. Effects of storage conditions on seed vigor and membrane permeability in legume species. Seed Science and Technology 2021, 49, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bewley, J.D.; Bradford, K.J.; Hilhorst, H.W.M.; Nonogaki, H. Seeds: Physiology of Development, Germination and Dormancy, 3rd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Copeland, L.O. , & McDonald, M.B. (2001). Principles of Seed Science and Technology (4th ed.). Springer Science+Business Media.
- Demir, İ.; Ellis, R.H. Changes in seed quality during seed development and maturation in tomato. Seed Sci. Res. 1992, 2, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cicek, N.; Tilki, F. Effects of storage temperature and duration on seed germination of Ulmus glabra Huds. Seed Sci. Technol. 2007, 35, 524–528. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, R.H.; Roberts, E.H. Improved equations for the prediction of seed longevity. Ann. Bot. 1980, 45, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avcı, S.; Doğan, M.; Kahrıman, F. Bazı yem bezelyesi çeşitlerinde farklı tohum renklerinin çimlenme özelliklerine etkisi. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 2020, 7, 67. [Google Scholar]
- Mokhtari, N.; Kızılgeçi, F. Yem bezelyesinde çinko ve bor uygulamalarının çimlenme ve fide gelişimi üzerine etkileri. Çukurova J. Agric. Food Sci. 2022, 37, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
- Demirkol, G.; Albayrak, S.; Kocaman, E. Tuz stresinin yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense) çimlenmesi ve gelişimi üzerine etkileri. Int. Anatolia Acad. Online J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 7, 354–359. [Google Scholar]
- Mokhtari, N.; Kızılgeçi, F. Bor uygulamalarının soya fasulyesinde çimlenme ve fide gelişimi üzerine etkisi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Univ. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2021, 12, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, R.; Jones, T. The effects of storage temperature on seed viability and vigor. J. Seed Sci. 2017, 39, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, M.D.; İpek, A.; Öztürk, A. Influence of seed storage conditions on germination and emergence in leguminous crops. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2020, 44, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacisalihoglu, G.; Armstrong, P.R.; Settles, A.M. Prediction of germination and seed vigor using machine learning and near-infrared spectroscopy. Seed Sci. Technol. 2010, 38, 60–72. [Google Scholar]
- Basbag, M.; Aydin, A.; Güler, M. The effect of different storage conditions on seed quality in legume species. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009, 7, 460–463. [Google Scholar]
- Maqbool, M.M.; Shahid, M.; Sarwar, N. Yield and phenological response of vetch genotypes under rainfed conditions. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 52, 899–904. [Google Scholar]
- Açıkgöz, E.; Akbaş, M.E.; Mert, M. Effect of seed quality on field emergence and forage yield in vetch cultivars. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2003, 27, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
- Kayisoglu, B.; Sade, B. Influence of seed storage conditions on forage quality and yield of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Legume Res. 2015, 38, 641–647. [Google Scholar]
- Sade, B.; Kaya, B.; Onal-Ascioglu, R. Genotype × environment interaction for yield and quality traits in vetch (Vicia spp.) under different agro-ecological conditions. Euphytica 2016, 210, 135–145. [Google Scholar]
- Acar, Z.; Ayan, I.; Mut, H. The importance of vetch species for sustainable forage production in dry areas. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 24, 365–374. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).