Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:06:39.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection of Dry Pea (Pisum Sativum) Varieties and their Performance by Comparison with Barley and Wheat in Mediterranean Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

A. Hadjicristodoulou
A. Hadjicristodoulou
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The possibility of growing dry peas in the semi-arid areas of Mediterranean countries was assessed by comparing dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties with the highest yielding barley and durum wheat varieties under rainfed conditions and with supplementary irrigation in Cyprus. The yield of barley cv. Kantara was greater than that of the best pea variety selected, PS 210713, especially under the driest conditions, but the differences between cereals and dry pea varieties were smaller when grown in areas where there was more rain or where supplementary irrigation was supplied. The protein content of the dry seeds and straw of the peas was higher than those of the cereals. It is concluded that selected varieties of dry peas could be grown in dry Mediterranean areas, particularly in rotation with barley or wheat.

Pisum sativum L. para zonas mediterráneas

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 477 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Keatinge, J. D. H., Chapanian, N. & Saxena, M. C. (1988). Effect of improved management of legumes in a legume-cereal rotation on field estimates of crop nitrogen uptake and symbiotic nitrogen fixation in Northern Syria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110:651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, R. S. & Saxena, M. S. (1992). Pea international adaptation trials. In Annual Report for 1992, 257–258. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Muehlbauer, F. J., Short, R. W. & Kraft, J. M. (1983). Description and Culture of Dry Peas. USDA,ARM-W-37/Dec. 1983.Pullman:Washington State University.Google Scholar
Papastylianou, J. (1988). The role of legumes in agricultural production in Cyprus. In Nitrogen Fixation by Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 55–63 (Eds Beck, D. P. and Materon, L. A.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhof Publishers.Google Scholar
Parry, M. L. & Parry, C. J. (1993). Agricultural geography of barley. In Agrometeorology of Rainfed Barley based Farming Systems, 15–31 (Eds Jones, M., Mathys, G. and Rijks, D.). Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Poole, M. L. & Fisher, H. M. (1971). Field Peas, a Crop for the Cereal Growing Areas. Bulletin No. 3799. Western Australian Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Pullan, M. R. & Hebblethwaite, P. D. (1992). Standing ability in dry peas as affected by plant population density. European Journal of Agronomy 1(3): 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupela, O. P. & Saxena, M. C. (1987). Nodulation and nitrogen fixation in chickpea. In The Chickpea, 191–206 (Eds Saxena, M. C. and Singh, K. B.). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar