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 (2024)

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 43 issue 3 (june 2020) : 432-435

Effect of Planting Times Growth and Yield of White Lupen (Lupinus albus L.)

Dilara Akil1, Mustafa Okant1,*
1Harran University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, Sanliurfa, Turkey.
  • Submitted13-01-2020|

  • Accepted02-05-2020|

  • First Online 18-06-2020|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-549

Cite article:- Akil Dilara, Okant Mustafa (2020). Effect of Planting Times Growth and Yield of White Lupen (Lupinus albus L.) . Legume Research. 43(3): 432-435. doi: 10.18805/LR-549.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different sowing times on growth and yield characters of white lupine (Lupinus albus L.). The experiment was carried out in the Field Crops Experimen Station at Eyyubiye campus of Harran University during 2017-2018 semi-arid season. In the study, four different sowing times (30 October, 15 November, 30 November and 15 December) were evaluated in randomized complete blocks design with 4 replications. The results revealed that the impact of different sowing times on fresh herb and hay yield, 100 seed weight (gr) and seed yield of white lupine plant was statistically significant, but did not impact on crude protein, hay, crude protein in the seed, plant height and number of branches per plant. Overall, the results suggested that white lupen planted at the end of November could successfully be grown in Þanlýurfa  conditions.
Lupine fruits are widely cultivated and evaluated in different ways in Germany, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, South Africa, New Zealand, South America and the southern states of the United States. Generally, lupines show good adaptation in the places, where soybean, broad bean, chickpea, lentil and other legume seeds do not grow (Blanco, 1990). Due to the weak pasture areas in our region (Seydosoglu and Kokten, 2019; Seydosoglu et al., 2019), forage crops are of great importance (Kokten et al., 2018; Kokten et al., 2019). The aims of this study to investigate the impacts of different sowing times on the herb, hay and seed production potentials and yield components of white lupine in Sanliurfa ecological conditions.
This experiment was carried out in the field crops research area of Harran University in Eyyübiye Campus of Þanlýurfa, Turkey in 2017 as winter crop. The lupine (white lupine) seeds (Lupinus albus L.) used in the study, which was the population obtained from the growers who grow white lupine in and around Antalya.     
        
For the analysis of soil, samples were taken from 0-30 cm depth in the experimental field, average contents of organic matter, CaCO3, plant available phosphorus and potassium were 1.23%, 5.40%, 3.60 kg da-1 and 9.3 kg da-1 (da = meters), respectively. Overall, soils were high in lime and potassium contents, whereas poor in organic matter and phosphorus contents. The soil of the experimental area is clay in texture and pH slightly alkaline.
        
During experimental period, the lowest average temperature was 5.5°C in January and the highest average temperature was 33.0°C in June. According to the long terms average temperature values, the lowest average temperature was 5.7°C in January and the highest average temperature was 28.2°C in June. While the amount of rainfall was 17.1 mm in October, 4.5 times higher rainfall was observed in November and December. The plants did not get enough rainfall in spring season. In April and May, which were the flowering and pod set times of crops, rainfall amounts were 49.6 and 25.6 mm, respectively.
        
The research trial was conducted in the growing season of 2017 on the field crops research area of Eyyubiye campus that represents the ecological conditions of the Harran plain in the province of Þanlýurfa. The experiment was carried out in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. The crop was planted as per the different sowing times of October 15, November 15, November 30 and December 15, respectively. Accordingly, each block was consisted of 4 plots with 6 rows. Plot size was 70´20 cm, row length was 5 m and each parcel area was set as 5 × 0.7 × 6 = 21.0 m2. Calculating 15 kg seed per decares; 315 g of each parcel, 53.0 g of white lupine (Lupinus albus L.) seeds were used in each row. In the experiment, the parcels were fertilized with 4 kg pure (available) N and 8 kg pure  (available) P2O5 decares (Okuyucu et al., 2004). In the harvest operations, the first and last rows of each parcel together with the first and last 50 cm portions of each parcel were discarded as border effect and the remaining area (4 ´ 1.4 ´ 2 = 11.2 m2) was determined as harvesting area. The observations and measurements related to the characters to be evaluated were made in this area. Half of the trial plot (2 rows) was harvested for observations of hay yield and the other half (2 rows) was harvested for observations about seed yield. Harvesting of white lupines were performed at the end of flowering and when the lower beans begin to ripen for green grass; while for seed, it was performed when beans get yellowish and ripen.
        
The plant height and the number of branches per plant were determined by taking average measurements of 10 randomly selected plants from each plot between soil surfaces and last bud in cm. The weights of each plot were determined by weighing their green weights in the field conditions. 500 g of green grass samples harvested from each parcel were taken and dried in a oven at 70°C for 48 hours and hay yields of each parcel were determined by weighting dried weed samples. After harvesting plants from each parcel, seeds were dried and 100 seed weight and seed yields were calculated. The yield values determined per plot were converted to yield per decares. Plant samples taken from dry grass were milled in a mill with a sieve diameter of 1 mm and used for analysis. The Kjeldahl method was used to determine the nitrogen (N) content of the samples. The crude protein ratio was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen ratio by 6.25 (AOAC, 1990).
        
The data obtained at the end of the study were evaluated using JMP statistical package program and LSD test was used to determine the significance level of the differences between the means.
Plant characteristics, green grass and hay yields and quality characteristics of lupen sown at different sowing dates under the ecological conditions of the Harran plain of Þanlýurfa province in the winter season of 2017, are presented in Table 1 and 2.
 

Table 1: Growth and yield characters as affected by different sowing times.


 

Table 2: Seed yield and quality parameters of lupen as affected by different sowing times.


 
Plant height (cm)
 
There is no significant difference in average plant height due to different sowing times, the highest plant height of 30.46 cm was found in 30 October sowing crop (Table 1). Various studies conducted on different lupen genotypes in different ecologies reported the  plant height of 38.70-91.70 cm (Okuyucu et al., 2004; Georgieva et al., 2018; Kosev and Vasileva, 2019). The lower height recorded in this study could be due to the low rainfall during the vegetation period  and planting in the autumn.
 
Number of branches (per plant-1)
 
The different sowing times did not influence significantly on the number of branches per plant. However, the maximum number of branches per plant of 2.79 was recorded in the crop December 15 sowing (Table 1).
        
There are different studies on white lupen, which is a one-year legume forage plant from the same family in different ecologies and different genotypes. In Diyarbakýr, Seydoþoðluet_al(2015) in his study reported main stems of the bitter vetch as 1.87- 2.53 pieces plant-1. The variation in the findings of this study and findings of other studies could be to the conditions of upbringing.
 
Green grass yield (kg da-1)
 
Green grass yield of lupine was found to be statistically significant with the sowing at different times. It can be observed that average green grass yield varied between 611.21-1178.57 kg da-1, the highest was observed in October 30 sowing and the lowest was found in October 15 sowing (Table 1).
        
The different studies were conducted with different lupine genotypes in different ecologies and reported different amount of green grass yield vary from 3640-5420 kg da-1  in Brazil (Badina, 1972), 3000-6000 kg da-1 in Russia (Khrenikov, 1972)  and 2193-8448 kg da-1 in Izmir (Okuyucu et al., 2004). The lower yield obtained in the this study than the previous studies might be due to the different genotypes used, soil characteristics and precipitation received during the crop season.
 
Dry hay yield (kg da-1)
 
The dry matter yields were varied statistically significant under different sowing times (Table 1). It was seen that average hay yield varied between 172.65-358.77 kg da-1. The highest hay yield of 358.77 and 323.86 kg da-1) were recorded in 30 November and 30 October parcels.
        
Okuyucu et al., (2004) conducted study in Ýzmir reported that the dry matter yield of lupens was of 288-1057 kg da-1. There are  different studies on white lupen, which is a one-year legume forage plant from the same family. Seydoþoðluet_al(2015) reported that hay yield of pea genotypes was obtained as 330.67-767.38 kg da-1. It is thought that genotype and environment are the reasons of similarities or differences between the results of this study and other studies.
 
Seed yield (kg da-1)
 
As shown in Table 3, the highest seed yields were obtained in 30 November, 15 November and 15 December sowing of 212.57, 209.90 and 208.92 kg da-1, respectively, while the lowest seed yield 185.39 kg da-1 was recorded in 30 October sowing.
        
The study conducted  by Okuyucu et al., (2004) reported the seed yield of 184-280 kg da-1 of lupens in Ýzmir. There are also different studies conducted for seed yield of grass pea, a one-year legume forage plant in the same family of white lupen. Seydoþoðluet_al(2015) found the seed yield of grass pea genotypes ranging from 181.00 to 269.83 kg da-1 in Diyarbakýr. Seed yield is a quantitative character that is highly affected by environmental conditions. High seed yields in southeastern Anatolia conditions may be due to ecological and genotypic differences in experiments.
 
100-seed weight (g)
 
100-seed weight (g) of white lupen varied between 9.43-13.23 g but highest was observed in October 30 sowing (Table 2). There were three different groups among different sowing times for 100 seed weight of white lupen.
        
There were different studies conducted on white lupine, which was one year of legume forage plants and with others in the same family. According to Georgieva et al., (2018), the weight of 1000-seeds of white lupen in Pleven was 174.50-322.18 g. Seydoþoðluet_al(2015) recorded the weight of 1000-seed grass pea was 99.88-141.71 g in Diyarbakir.
        
The reason for the similarity or inconsistency between the results of this study and the findings of other researchers was due to the diffrent sowing times and the locations of studies.
 
The crude protein in dry grass
 
Although, there was no differences in average values of crude protein content of hay with different sowings, numerically, the highest crude protein in hay  was observed of 19.53% in the November 15 planting time. The average crude protein of hay recorded in different sowings was 18.00% (Table 2).
        
The studies conducted on lupen in different ecologies were determined the crude protein content in hay. In France, Gatel (1994) measured the proportion of protein in the vegetable parts of lupine as 17.00-22.27%. Protein content in lupines in Konya was found as 28.0-47.6% (Hakkýet_al2007). The protein differences between genotypes may be due to leaf stem ratio and growth stage. In other words, crude protein of genotypes, which have high leaf ratio, also have higher crude protein (Yucel et al., 2012).
        
The crude protein obtained in this study was lower than the reported by earlier researchers, which may be due to the low amount of rainfall during the vegetation stage and planted in autumn.
 
Seed crude protein (%)
 
Although, the crude protein in seed did not vary due to different sowing times, however, the highest protein content was measured in December 15 sowing plots (34.86%) (Table 2). According to the result of studies carried out with white lupine (Lupinus albus L.) with different genotypes in different ecologies, the protein content in white lupine seeds were found to be ranging from 24.90 to 33.30%. Erbaþ et al., (2005) found the protein content in white lupine seeds in Antalya as 32.20%. Yorgancýlaret_al(2007) measured the protein content in the seed in the local lupen populations in Konya as 32.45%. However, Georgieva et al., (2018) reported the proportion of crude protein in seeds in Plevne between 24.90 and 33.30%.
When the results are evaluated as a whole, it can be suggested that white lupine can be successfully grown in the region on 30 November sowing. Once the low alkaloid lupine varieties are obtained, they can be used safely in human and animal nutrition. Lupine cultivation has some positive advantages such as improvement of soil structure, utilization of phosphorus, which will create an ideal environment for the better growth of plants, its upright form, non-cracking of fruits and having suitable form for machine harvesting. Green grasses of lupens are valuable and delicious. Due to these listed positive characteristics, lupine cultivation needs to be examined in more detail, on that basis the cultivation should be followed for higher production of lupen.
This work was partially supported by University of Harran (Turkey) (Project number 18217).

  1. Abel, H., Sommer, W. and Weiss, J. (2003). Ýnhaltstoffe, futterwert und einsatz von ackerbohnen in der nutztier fütterung, UFOP Praxisinformation.

  2. AOAC. (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists - Official Method of Analysis. 15th. Ed. Washington. DC. USA. pp. 66-88.

  3. Aydýn, B. and Yorgancýlar, M. (2015). Investigation of effects of fe and mn on growth of seedling lupin (Lupinus albus L.) at ýn vivo conditions. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. 2(1):42-52.

  4. Badina, G.V. (1972). Productivity of Forage Lupin Under the Conditions of NorthWestern Zone, Herbage Abstracts. 42 (4): S:392.

  5. Blanco, G.O. (1980). Genetic variability of tarwi (Lupinus mutabilis sweet.) agricultural and nutritional aspects of lupines (34-    49) Lima, Cuzco, Peru.

  6. Erbas, M., Certel, M. and Uslu, M. K. (2005). Some chemical properties of white lupin seeds (Lupinus albus L.). Food Chem. 89:341-345.

  7. Gatel, F. (1994). Protein Quality of Legume Seeds for Nonruminant Animals: A Literature Review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 45(3-4): 317-348.

  8. Georgieva, N. Atalia A., Kosev,V.I., Genov, N. G. and Butnariu, M. (2018). Morphological and biological characteristics of white lupine cultivars (Lupýnus albus l.). Romanian Agricultural Research. 35(35): 20-30.

  9. Hakký, E.Þ., Yorgancýlar, M., Atalay, E., Uyar, S. and Babaoðlu, M. (2007). Determination of genetic variation in local lupen genotypes (Lupinus albus L.) by simple repetitive sequence polymorphism (BTDAP = ISSR) Technique. Journal of Herbal Research. 2: 1-5. 

  10. Khrenikov, A.A. (1972). Cultivation of Fodder Lupin in the Kursk Province, Herbage Abstracts. 42(3): S:239.

  11. Kokten, K, Kaplan, M., Seydosoglu, S., Yýlmaz H.S. and Ucar R. (2018). Determination of herbage yield and quality of some bitter vetch [Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd] genotypes in Bingol ecological conditions. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Research. 5(3): 236-245.

  12. Kokten, K., Kaplan, M., Seydosoglu, S., Tutar, H. and Ozdemir, S. (2019). Determination of seed yield, straw yield and quality of some bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia L. Willd) genotypes in Bingol ecological conditions. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University. 56 (1): 27-33. 

  13. Kosev, V. and Vasileva, V. (2019). Comparatýve býologýcal characterýstýc of whýte lupýn (lupinus albus L.) varýetýes. Genetika. 51(1): 275-285. 10.2298/GENSR1901275K.

  14. Okuyucu, F., Akdemir, H., Kýr, B., Okuyucu, B. R. and Baylan, M. (2004). Untersuchungen fiber den ertrag und den futterwert einiger gelber (Lupinus luteus L.) und blauer (Lupinus angustifolius L.) süsslupinen sowie weisser (Lupinus albus L.) bitterlupinen unter den anbaubedingungen von Odemiþ. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University. 41(3): 89-98.

  15. Sator, C. (1983). In Vitro Breeding of Lupins, Perspectives for Peas and Lupins As Protein Crops, (R Thomson and R Casey, eds.) In Proc. Int. Symp. Protein Production from Legumes in Europe, Sorrento, Italy. pp.79-87.

  16. Seydosoglu, S. and Kokten, K. 2019. Some characters of rangeland vegetation in Batman province. Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science. 23(1): 60-68.

  17. Seydosoglu, S., Cacan, E. and Sevilmis, U. (2019). Determinatýon of botanical composition, yield and pasture quality ratings of ýnfertile pastures ýn kozluk district of Batman province of Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin. 28 (4A): 3388-3394.

  18. Seydoþoðlu, S., Saruhan, V. and Kökten, K., (2015). Researches on determination yield and yield components of some bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia L. Willd) genotypes in ecological conditions of Diyarbakýr. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University. 32 (2): 107-115.

  19. Williams, W. (1979). Studies on the development of lupins for oil and protein. Euphytica. 28: 481-488.

  20. Yorgancýlar, M., Babaoðlu, M., Hakký, E.E. and Atalay, E. (2007). Investigation of lime resistance and genetic kinship relationships of different origin Lupen (Lupinus sp.) Genotypes. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Project No: TOVAG-105O034. Ankara. 

Editorial Board

View all (0)