scholarly journals Studies susceptibility of peas and field peas cultivars to Ascochyta pinodes (Jones)

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 131-140
Author(s):  
Helena Furgał-Węgrzycka
Keyword(s):  
Field Pea ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Ascochyta Pinodes ◽  
Field Plots

The aim of the work was to find plants resistant to <i>Ascochyta pinodes</i> causing leaf and pod spot-pot of peas and field peas. Fourty five cultivars of peas and field peas and 6 breeding materials were tested in the field in the period 1975-1979 on artificially inoculated field plots. Cultivars: Bartel, Birte, Bodil, Borek, Jubilat, Karo, Meteor, Rondo and Żółty Pomorski were to found be less susceptible. In laboratory and greenhouse conditions pea and field pea cultivars were examined for susceptibility. to pathotypes 3 and 5 of <i>Ascochyta pinodes</i>. The results obtained proved that cultivars: Bartel, Birte, Bodil, Borek, Jubilat, Karo, Meteor, Rondo and Żółty Pomorski to be less susceptible to two pathotypes of <i>Ascochyta pinodes</i>.

Proximate and mineral composition of field peas

1997 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. D. Warkentin ◽  
A. G. Sloan ◽  
S. T. Ali-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Mineral Composition ◽  
Seed Yield ◽  
Total Protein ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Pisum Sativum L ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Pea Seeds ◽  
Proximate And Mineral Composition

Field pea seeds from 10 cultivars grown at two locations in Manitoba in 1986 and 1987 were analyzed for proximate and mineral profiles. Cultivars differed significantly in their level of total protein, crude fat, ADF, and all minerals tested. However, differences were not extremely large and were comparable to European reports. Location-year also had a significant effect on the levels of total protein, ADF, and all minerals tested. In most cases, the warmest location-year produced relatively higher levels of minerals, ash, and total protein, and lower seed yield than the coolest location-year. Key words: Field pea, Pisum sativum L., mineral

Field assessment of partial resistance to mycosphaerella blight in Pisum subspecies accessions

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. L. Conner ◽  
B. D. Gossen ◽  
S. F. Hwang ◽  
K. F. Chang ◽  
K. B. McRae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Resistance ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Mycosphaerella Pinodes ◽  
Detached Leaf ◽  
High Severity ◽  
Field Assessment ◽  
Ascochyta Pinodes ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Production Areas

Conner, R. L., Gossen, B. D., Hwang, S. F., Chang, K. F., McRae, K. B. and Penner, W. C. 2012. Field assessment of partial resistance to mycosphaerella blight in Pisum subspecies accessions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 289–296. Mycosphaerella blight, caused by Mycosphaerella pinodes (Berk. & Bloxam) Vestergr., the teleomorph of Ascochyta pinodes Jones, is an important foliar disease of field pea in the major production areas of the world. Partial resistance to mycosphaerella blight has been reported in some field pea cultivars, but, at best, they are only moderately susceptible. A 3-yr field study was conducted to evaluate the mycosphaerella blight reactions of 28 accessions from a number of subspecies of Pisum sativum L. and one accession of P. fulvum Sibth. A few of the accessions carried mutations for the genes af, tl, and st that affect the morphology of the leaflets, stipules and tendrils. Reactions to mycosphaerella blight were characterized based on the mean of the severity ratings taken on the two final assessment dates before the crop matured and also on the change in mycosphaerella blight severity between these two dates. In many of the accessions, severity ratings were similar to that of the moderately susceptible check cultivar, CDC Peko, while a few had high severity ratings similar to those of the susceptible check cultivars. The accession PI 512079, which has small stipules, branched petioles with many leaflets but no tendrils, had the lowest ratings for mycosphaerella blight severity. Four other accessions exhibited the smallest change in mycosphaerella blight severity at the end of the growing season. Differences in leaf morphology likely influenced the change in disease severity, since all the semi-leafless and leafless accessions had smaller changes in mycosphaerella blight severity than the susceptible check cultivars. In a detached leaf assay with two isolates of Mycosphaerella pinodes (Berk. & Bloxam) Vestergr., the smallest lesions formed on PI 512079, but otherwise the results failed to show a relationship with the observed severity values in the field trials.

scholarly journals Effects of strip intercropping of canola with faba bean, field pea, garlic, or wheat on control of cabbage aphid and crop yield

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (No. 1) ◽  
pp. 59-65
Author(s):  
Mostafa Mollaei ◽  
Seyed Ali Asghar Fathi ◽  
Gadir Nouri-Ganbalani ◽  
Mehdi Hassanpour ◽  
Ali Golizadeh
Keyword(s):  
Faba Bean ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Aphid Population ◽  
Parasitism Rate ◽  
Cabbage Aphid ◽  
Predator Diversity ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Faba Beans ◽  
Strip Intercropping

The impacts of intercropping of canola (Ca) with faba beans (Fb), field peas (Fp), garlic (G), or wheat (Wh) were evaluated on the cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758), natural enemies and canola yields in row ratios of 3Ca : 3Fb, 3Ca : Fp, 3Ca : 3G, and 3Ca : 3Wh in 2018 and 2019. In both years, the lowest aphid population was recorded in 3Ca : 3G. In 2018, the aphid population was significantly (P &lt; 0.05) lower in 3Ca : 3Fp than in the monoculture, while, in 2019, it was lower in the intercrops compared to the monoculture. Furthermore, none of the intercrops, except 3Ca : 3Fb, showed a significant increase in the predator diversity and parasitism rate. The dry seed weight loss was higher in the monoculture and 3Ca : 3Wh than in the other intercrops. Based upon the obtained results, decreasing the density of the cabbage aphid and increasing the canola yield by intercropping canola with the faba bean, the field pea or garlic is possible with this system. The inferences of these outcomes, which are associated with the integrated pest management (IPM) in canola cropping systems, are discussed.

Survival of Pseudomonas syringae pv. pisi in soil and on pea trash and their importance as a source of inoculum for a following field pea crop

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 369 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. J. Hollaway ◽  
T. W. Bretag
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Pseudomonas Syringae ◽  
Field Trial ◽  
Bacterial Blight ◽  
Soil Surface ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Crop Rotations ◽  
Controlled Environment ◽  
Field Peas

Summary. The importance of soil and field pea trash as sources of Pseudomonas syringae pv. pisi for infection of field pea was investigated both in a controlled environment and in the field. Studies of the survival of P. syringae pv. pisi in soil using autoclaved and non-autoclaved soil found that P. syringae pv. pisi is unlikely to survive in soil from one season to the next suggesting that soil is an unlikely source of inoculum in the field. However, Pseudomonas syringae pv. pisiwas able to survive on buried pea trash for at least 29 weeks and on pea trash positioned on the soil surface for at least 78 weeks. In a field trial, the presence of pea trash naturally infected with P. syringae pv. pisi caused significant bacterial blight and reduced grain yield of a field pea crop by 25%. Therefore, pea trash is a potent source of inoculum and crop rotations which include 2 seasons free of field peas should be considered as part of a strategy to control bacterial blight.

QUALITY, YIELD, AND SEED WEIGHT OF GREEN FIELD PEAS UNDER CONDITIONS OF APPLIED SHADE

1981 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. H. GUBBELS
Keyword(s):  
Light Intensity ◽  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Protein Content ◽  
Seed Weight ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Green Color ◽  
Pisum Sativum L ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Very High

Field studies were conducted in 1973 and 1974 to evaluate the effects of light intensity on the quality and yield of the green field pea (Pisum sativum L.) ’Triumph’. The treatments included a control with no shading (80 klx) and shading with one (31 klx) or two (9 klx) layers of screen material for a 3-wk period before maturity. Shading resulted in a significant decrease in seed weight and yield and a significant increase in protein content of the seed. The effect of shading on viscosity of the cooked samples was quadratic, implying that viscosity only decreased at very high levels of shading. Shading also tended to reduce loss of green color in the seed cotyledons.

VARIATION IN PROTEIN CONTENT OF FIELD PEAS

1973 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. T. ÁLI-KHAN ◽  
C. G. YOUNGS
Keyword(s):  
Protein Content ◽  
Seed Size ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Large Protein ◽  
Plant Introductions ◽  
Single Location ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Biuret Method

Protein content was determined by a modified biuret method for 10 field pea cultivars grown for 3 yr at a single location and for 19 cultivars grown for 1 yr at four locations. Significant differences were found among cultivars, locations, and years. Cultivar × location interactions were also significant. The average protein content among cultivars varied from 23.1 to 28.3%, among locations from 24.0 to 26.3%, and among years from 25.8 to 27.4%. Differences in protein content at three positions on single plants were also determined, but were not large. Protein content of individual plants within cultivars varied significantly. Correlations between protein content and yield, maturity, or seed size were not significant. A range of 22–32% protein was found among 506 plant introductions.

Pre-emergence mechanical weed control in field pea (Pisum sativum L.)

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
E N Johnson ◽  
F A Holm
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Seeding Date ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Yield Responses ◽  
Weed Emergence ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control ◽  
Similar Yield

Producers who wish to adopt organic or pesticide-free crop production are seeking alternatives to herbicides. A field experiment was conducted at Scott, SK, from 1999 to 2001 to determine the combination of seeding date (early-May, mid-May, and late-May) and weed management system (shallow-seeded untreated, shallow-seeded with pre-emergence tillage, shallow-seeded herbicide, deep-seeded untreated, deep-seeded with pre-emergence tillage, and deep-seeded herbicide) that would optimize yield of field pea grown without the use of herbicides. The shallow and deep seeded pre-emergence tillage treatments were a 2.5-cm seeding depth followed by two sequential harrow passes and a 7.5-cm seeding depth followed by two sequential rod-weeder passes, respectively. None of the weed management systems had a significant effect on field pea density. The herbicide treatments were the only treatments that had a significant effect on weed density as the application timing was more synchronous with weed emergence than were the tillage treatments. The pre-emergence tillage treatments reduced weed biomass when seeding was delayed until mid-May following weed emergence. Deep seeding followed by pre-emergence rod-weeding was more efficacious in reducing weed fresh weight than shallow seeding followed by pre-emergence harrowing; however, they both provided similar yield responses at the mid-May seeding date. Delayed seeding until late May resulted in a 30 to 35% reduction in field pea yield compared with early or mid-May seeding, respectively. Early-seeded field peas followed by an in-crop herbicide application resulted in the highest field pea yields with the best seeding date by pre-emergence tillage combination achieving 81% of these yields. A strategy for field pea producers who choose not to use herbicides would be to delay seeding until some weeds emerge and seed at a 7.5-cm depth followed by two sequential rod-weeding passes prior to crop emergence. Key words: Field pea, seeding date, seed depth, pre-emergence tillage

Partial resistance to Mycosphaerella pinodes in field pea

2001 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Xue ◽  
T. D. Warkentin
Keyword(s):  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Partial Resistance ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Mycosphaerella Pinodes ◽  
Seed Infection ◽  
Low Area ◽  
Stem Infection ◽  
Progress Curve ◽  
Field Plots

The responses of 335 field pea lines originating from more than 30 countries to mycosphaerella blight caused by Mycosphaerella pinodes were evaluated in inoculated field plots in 1994 and 1995. Seven lines (Baccara, Carneval, Danto, Majoret, Miko, PI273605, and Yellowhead) with low area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) scores were identified. These seven lines, along with the resistant check, Radley, and the susceptible check, 89–195, were further examined for components of partial resistance to the disease in 1996 and 1998. Components evaluated were leaf area with symptoms (LAS), stem area with symptoms (SAS), pod area with symptoms (PAS), and percent seed infection (SI). Differences among pea lines were found in all components. Compared with the susceptible check, Carneval had significantly lower LAS, PAS, and SI in both years and was considered partially resistant to leaf, pod, and seed infection; Danto had significantly lower LAS, SAS, and PAS and was partially resistant to leaf, stem, and pod infection; Yellowhead had significantly lower SAS, PAS, and SI and was partially resistant to stem, pod, and seed infection; Majoret had significantly lower LAS and SAS and was partially resistant to leaf and stem infection; Miko had significantly lower SAS and PAS and was partially resistant to stem and pod infection; PI273605 had significantly lower PAS and SI and was partially resistant to pod and seed infection; and Baccara and Radley had significantly lower SAS and were partially resistant to stem infection only. Plots of Baccara and Yellowhead inoculated with M. pinodes-infected stubble had 10 and 17% reduction in yield, respectively, compared with non-inoculated and fungicide-treated plots and, thus, were considered tolerant to the disease. The remaining lines had yield reductions of 30 to 49%. Key words: Mycosphaerella blight, Mycosphaerella pinodes, Pisum sativum, field pea, partial resistance, disease tolerance

QUALITY, YIELD AND WEIGHT PER SEED OF GREEN FIELD PEAS AS AFFECTED BY SOWING AND HARVEST DATES

1977 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1029-1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. H. GUBBELS
Keyword(s):  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Sowing Date ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Green Color ◽  
Protein Percentage ◽  
Pisum Sativum L ◽  
Harvest Dates ◽  
Field Peas ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cooking Yield

The green field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cv. Delwiche Scotch Green was sown at two dates and harvested at five dates in the field in 1971–1973 to determine the effect on quality, yield and weight per seed. The green color deteriorated with delay in harvesting. Rate of color loss varied from year to year, probably due to rainfall patterns. Differences in protein percentage due to sowing date varied from year to year, resulting in no significant difference over the 3-yr period. Viscosity of peas after cooking, yield and weight per seed were higher in the early than in the later sowing.

scholarly journals Intercropping organic field peas with barley, oats and mustard improves weed control but has variable effects on grain yield and net returns

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Bailey-Elkin ◽  
Michelle K. Carkner ◽  
Martin Entz
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Separate Experiment ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Field Peas

Interest in intercropping semi-leafless field peas (Pisum sativum L.) is increasing as a means of weed control in organic production. We evaluated field pea (cv. CDC Amarillo) grown alone or intercropped with three seeding rates of either barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), mustard (Brassica juncea L.), or oats (Avena sativa L.). A full seeding rate of field pea was used in each instance, resulting in an additive intercropping design. Each crop combination was conducted in a separate experiment, three times over two years (2019 and 2020) in Carman, Manitoba. Measurements included crop and weed biomass production, grain yield and quality, and net return. Intercrops reduced weed biomass at maturity from 17 to 44% with barley and oats being more suppressive than mustard. Intercrops also reduced field pea yield from 6 to 26%, but increased field pea seed mass. Barley at the high seeding rate provided the most weed suppression per unit of field pea yield loss (2.62 kg of weed suppression per kg of field pea yield loss) compared with oat (1.29) and mustard (0.87). Barley and mustard intercrops decreased net return compared to monoculture field pea. Under low weed pressure (1150 kg ha-1 weed biomass at maturity) and earlier seeding, oat intercrops reduced net return. However, under weedy conditions (2649 kg ha-1) and later seeding, field pea-oat intercrops significantly increased net return. In conclusion, while all three intercrop mixtures reduced weed biomass, reductions in field pea yields were observed, and net return benefits were observed only in certain circumstances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document