Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Legume Research, volume 40 issue 6 (december 2017) : 1038-1045

Prediction of dry matter accumulation in bitter vetch

Ufuk Karadavut, Adil Bakoglu, Halit Tutar, Kagan Kokten, Hava Seyma Yilmaz
1Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bingol, Turkey
  • Submitted09-03-2017|

  • Accepted07-10-2017|

  • First Online 18-11-2017|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-356

Cite article:- Karadavut Ufuk, Bakoglu Adil, Tutar Halit, Kokten Kagan, Yilmaz Seyma Hava (2017). Prediction of dry matter accumulation in bitter vetch. Legume Research. 40(6): 1038-1045. doi: 10.18805/LR-356.
This study was carried out in Bingol province on eastern Anatolian Region between 2013 and 2015. In this study, we obtained 14 bitter vetch genotypes from different sources. The experiment was carried our in three replications in randomized block design. Each plant was weekly measured for 6 weeks starting from germination. For each plant, plant height, fresh and dry stem weight, fresh and dry leaf weights were determined. Logistic, Richards and Weibull growth models were fitted to describe the growth pattern of the genotypes. The best fitting model criteria used were coefficient of determination and mean squared. Richards’s growth model was found to best fit the data for most of the genotypes. Logistic model was the worst fit. In Turkey, climate and soil properties have very large variations. For this, local genotypes showed large variation according to plating areas. YEREL LICE genotype showed more stable and it is the height identified all growth models than other local genotypes. However, IFVE 2923 SEL and IFVE 2977 SEL 2802 these genotypes gave positive results in different environmental conditions.
  1. Behr, V., Hornick, J.L., Cabaraux, J.F., Alvarez, A., and Istasse, L., (2001). Growth patterns of Belgian Blue replacement heifers and growing males in commercial farms. Livestock Production Science, 71(2-3): 121-130.
  2. Brown, J.E., Fitzhung, H.A., and Cartwright, T.C., (1976). A comparison of nonlinear models for describing weight-age relationships in cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 42(4): 810-818.
  3. Dölarslan, M., Gül, E., (2012). Salinity in terms of Soil Plant Relationships. Turkish Scientific Review Magazine, 5(2): 56-59.
  4. Ekiz, H., (1988). Comparison of some agronomic traits in Bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.) lines. Ankara Univ. Agri. Fac. Pub. No: 1098. Scientific research and reviews: 196. 
  5. Ekiz, H., Özkaynak, Ý., (1984). Research on important morphological, biological and agricultural characters of some bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.) cultivated in Turkey. Ankara University Institute of Science and Technology Publication No: TB. 5, Ankara.
  6. Fekeduleng, D., Mac Siurtain, M.P., Colbert, J.J., (1999). Parameter estimation of nonlinear growth models in forestry. Silva Fennica, 33(4): 327-336.
  7. Hunt, R., (1982). Plant Growth Curves. The functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. Edward Arnold Ltd., London.
  8. Karadavut, U., Palta, Ç., Kökten, K., Bakoðlu, A., (2010). Comparative study on some non-linear growth models for describing leaf growth of maize. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 12(2): 227-230.
  9. Karakullukçu, E., and Adak, M.S., (2008). Determination of Salt Tolerances of Some Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Varieties. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 14(4): 313-319.
  10. Keatinge, J.D.H., Asghar, A., Khan, B.R., Abd El Moneim, A.M., and Ahmad, S., 1991. Germoplasm evaluation of annual sown forage legumes under environmental conditions marginal for crop growth in the highlands of West Asia. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 166(1): 48-57. 
  11. Orcutt, D.M. and Nilsen, E.T., (1996). The physiology of Plants Under Stress: Soil and Biotic Factors. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp: 177-237, New York.
  12. Rabie, G.H., and Almadini, A.M., (2005). Role of bioinoculants in development of salt tolerance of Vicia faba plants under salinity stress. African Journal of Biotechnology, 4(3): 210-222.
  13. Sandland, R.L. and Mc Gilchrist, C.A., (1979). Stochastic Growth Curve Analysis. Biometrics, 35: 255-271.
  14. Schepers, A.W., Thibault, J., Lacroix, C., (2000). Comparison of simple neural network and nonlinear regression models for description modelling of Lactobacillus helveticus growth in pH-controlled batch cultures. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 26(5-6): 431-445.
  15. Serin, Y., Tan, M., Çelebi, H.B., (1997). Identification of the appropriate bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.) lines to Erzurum region. Field Crops Central Research Institute Magazine, 6(2): 13-22.
  16. Toon, P.G., Haines, R.J., Dieters, M.J., (1990). Relationship between seed weight, germination and seedling height growth in Pinus caribae Morele. var. hondurensis Barre and Golfri. Seed Science and Technology, 19: 389-402.
  17. Villegas, D., Aparicio, N., Blanco, R., Royo, C., (2001). Biomass accumulation and main stem elongation of durum wheat grown under Mediterranean conditions. Annals of Botany, 88(4): 617-627.
  18. Willan, R.L., (1985). A guide to forest seed handling with special reference to the Tropics. FAO Forestry Paper, 20-2. FAO, Rome.
  19. Yakit, S., and Tuna, L., (2006). The effects of Ca, Mg and K on stress parameters in corn plant (Zea mays L.) under salt stress. Mugla University Institute of Science Biology, Mugla.
  20. Yildizbakan, A., (2005). Mathematical models of growth in trees and comparison of these models. Çukurova University, Institute of Science, Department of Animal Science, Master Thesis, Adana.
  21. Zhu, J.K., (2001). Plant Salt Tolerance. Trends in Plant Science 6(2): 66-71.

Editorial Board

View all (0)