Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
seed dressing chemicals it is necessary to know what response they can cause in<br />
seeds of various crops. This study did not reveal any negative impact of the chemicals<br />
applied on seed quality, vigour or emergence.<br />
Conclusions. 1. The analysis of the climatic conditions and seed dressing chemicals<br />
contained in the present study, on the content and yield of total protein in<br />
seeds of several pea cultivars enables us to draw the following conclusions:<br />
2. Changeable weather conditions significantly influenced the content and yield<br />
of total protein in seed of four pea cultivars examined. The accumulation of protein<br />
in seeds and increase in the seed mass obtained per surface area unit were favoured<br />
by higher temperature during the vegetative season, moderate rainfall and, as a result,<br />
more sunlight.<br />
3. Inhibition of fungal diseases and infestation by plant pests caused by the<br />
application of seed dressing resulted mainly in a considerable increase in the seed<br />
mass per surface area unit. This fact, along with the statistically non-significant<br />
effect of the seed dressing chemicals applied on the relative protein content, meant<br />
that a considerable increase in the mass of protein per surface area unit was obtained<br />
versus the control plots.<br />
4. Four pea cultivars tested showed statistically conf<strong>ir</strong>med variation in the capability<br />
to accumulate protein. Two field cultivars, ‘Eurika’ and ‘Marych’, showed<br />
particularly high potential for protein accumulation, although in the former cultivar it<br />
consisted mainly of its ability to accumulate relatively high quantities of protein in<br />
seed mass.<br />
Gauta 2006-11-09<br />
Parengta spausdinti 2006-12-11<br />
References<br />
1. Alvino A., Leone A. Response to low soil water potential in pea genotypes (Pisum<br />
sativum L.) with different leaf morphology // Scientia Hort. 1993. Vol. 53. P. 21–34.<br />
2. Andrzejewska J., Wiatr K., Pilarczyk W. Wartoúã gospodarcza wybranych odmian<br />
grochu siewnego (Pisum sativum L.) na glebach kompleksu ýytniego bardzo dobrego //<br />
Acta Sci. Pol., Agricultura. 2002. T. 1(1). P. 59–72.<br />
3. Fougereus J. A., Dore T. Water stress during reproductive stages affects see and<br />
yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Crop. Sci. 1997. 37(4) s. P. 1247–1<strong>25</strong>2.<br />
4. Jasiñska Z., Kotecki A. Roúliny stràczkowe. PWN, Warszawa, 1994.<br />
5. Kotecki A. Wpùyw ukùadu warunków wilgotnoúciowych i termicznych na plonowanie<br />
grochu siewnego odmiany Kaliski // Zesz. Nauk. AR we Wrocùawiu, Rolnictwo,<br />
1990. T. LII. S. 69–82.<br />
6. Kulig B., Pisulewska E., Zióùek W., Antoniewicz A. Wpùyw sposobu zbioru na<br />
plonowanie i jakoúã biaùka nasion dwóch odmian grochu siewnego // Zesz. Probl. Pos.<br />
Nauk Rol. 1997. Z. 446. S. 147–152.<br />
7. Lampart – Szczapa E. Nasiona roúlin stràczkowych w ýywieniu czùowieka wartoúã<br />
biologiczna i technologiczna // Zesz. Probl. Pos. Nauk Roln. 1997. Z. 446. S. 61–81.<br />
8. Martyniak S. Oddziaùywanie chemicznych zapraw nasiennych na efektywnoúã<br />
szczepienia roúlin stràczkowych bakteriami symbiotycznymi / Post. w Ochr. Roúl. Poznañ,<br />
2001. T. 41.<br />
329
Change language