23.01.2015 Views

sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 25(4)

sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 25(4)

sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 25(4)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

tective action of the latter, which inhibited the development of pathogenic organisms<br />

and pests. Three preparations, which offered complex protection of the crops, were<br />

tested in the present study: Sarfun and Funaben to control plant diseases and Super<br />

Homai to control diseases and pests. In comparison with the control plots, the plots<br />

where the above preparations had been applied revealed much weaker negative effects<br />

on the growth and development of pea plants caused mainly by such diseases<br />

as cochyta blight (Ascochita pinodest) and fungal diseases evoked by Fusarium spp.<br />

Less severe damage was caused by plant pests, including pea moth (Laspeyresia<br />

nigricana Steph), pea beetle (Bruchus pisorum L.), weevils (Sitona L.) and pea<br />

aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris).<br />

As mentioned before, the volume of protein yield depended on the seed yield<br />

mass and its relative protein content. The effect of the seed dressing preparations<br />

consisted mainly in raising the seed yield, whereas the modification of the relative<br />

protein content in seeds, albeit unid<strong>ir</strong>ectional (the largest change occurred when<br />

Super Homai had been applied) was statistically non-significant.<br />

While analysing the potential capability of the cultivars to accumulate protein in<br />

seeds, it appeared to be the highest for the field cultivar ‘Eurika’, followed by two<br />

edible varieties ‘Brylant’ and ‘Wenus’. The lowest protein mass per plot area unit<br />

was determined for the field cultivar ‘Marych’, which was attributed to the lowest<br />

total yield of seeds, as the relative protein content in the seeds of this cultivar was the<br />

highest among the four pea varieties (Tables 4, 5).<br />

Table 4 Yield of pea seed in relationship to the seed dressing chemicals. Baùcyny,<br />

2004–2006<br />

4 lentelë. Þ<strong>ir</strong>niø sëklø apdorojimo cheminiais preparatais poveikis sëklø derliui.<br />

Baùcyny, 2004–2006 m.<br />

Seed dressing chemicals<br />

Sëklø apdorojimas cheminiais<br />

preparatais<br />

No seed dressing chemicals<br />

Cultivar<br />

Veislë<br />

‘Brylant’ ‘Wenus’ ‘Marych’ ‘Eurika’<br />

t ha -1<br />

Mean<br />

Vidurkis<br />

Sëklos neapdorotos 3.51 3.35 2.87 3.73 3.36<br />

Sarfun / Funaben 4.18 4.<strong>25</strong> 3.30 4.39 4.03<br />

Super Homai 4.59 4.57 3.64 4.73 4.38<br />

Mean / Vidurkis 4.09 4.06 3.27 4.28<br />

LSD (p = 0.05) for: cultivar – n.s. (not significant differences); seed dressing chemicals – n.s.;<br />

interaction of cultivar and seed dressing chemicals – n.s. / R 05<br />

: sk<strong>ir</strong>tumai tarp veisliø,<br />

tarp sëklø apdorojimo cheminiais preparatais, tarp veisliø <strong>ir</strong> apdorojimo cheminiais<br />

preparatais sàveikos neesminiai.<br />

327

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!