Evaluation of Agronomic Value and Qualitative Indices of Forage Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Cultivars in Regions with Different Climatic Conditions in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Nima Khaledi

Mohamad Rahmani

Farshid Hassani

Ali Shayanfar

Saman Sheidaei

Seed and Plant Certification and Registration Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

10.22067/ijpr.2026.98116.1133

Abstract

Introduction
Global agriculture confronts critical challenges driven by population growth and the scarcity of vital resources, particularly water and soil. In Iran, these pressures are exacerbated by climatic volatility and a reliance on imported protein inputs, rendering the adoption of resilient, low-input forage legumes essential. The pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a promising candidate owing to its genetic diversity, high biomass potential, and soil-improving properties via nitrogen fixation. Nevertheless, the scarcity of improved varieties adapted to Iran's diverse climates constrains its cultivation. Successful production depends on selecting cultivars with robust vegetative growth and delayed physiological maturity to maximize dry matter accumulation. However, these traits are governed by complex interactions between genetic factors and environmental variables, such as temperature and photoperiod. Furthermore, forage quality typically declines with maturity due to lignification. Consequently, a comprehensive multi-environmental evaluation is essential to identify cultivars that achieve an optimal balance of high yield, stability, and nutritional quality. The objective of this study is to address existing knowledge gaps via a rigorous multi-year, multi-location trial that assesses agronomic performance, stability, and forage quality of distinct pea cultivars across the varied agro-ecological zones of Iran.

Materials and Methods
A field experiment was conducted across four representative locations: Karaj (cold semi-arid), Gorgan (humid Caspian), Kermanshah (cold semi-arid Mediterranean), and Parsabad (warm semi-arid temperate) during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 growing seasons. The study utilized a randomized complete block design with four replications to evaluate two imported forage pea cultivars from Turkey, namely Zerre and Gap pembesi, alongside registered cultivars (Arda, Beren and Tashkent). Agronomic management, including irrigation and weed control, was uniformly applied across all treatments in accordance with local recommendations. Evaluated traits included fresh and dry forage yield, plant height, establishment percentage, and phenological characteristics. To assess nutritional quality, random samples of approximately 500 grams were collected from the first harvest. Following drying and milling, qualitative parameters, including crude protein (CP), water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), crude fiber (CF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and total ash content, were analyzed using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS; PerCon Inframatic 8620). Statistical analysis involved a combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) across years and locations using SAS software (version 9.4). Mean comparisons were performed using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at the 5% probability level. Additionally, GGE-biplot analysis was employed to assess cultivar stability and cultivar-by-environment interaction.

Results and Discussion
Analysis of variance revealed significant effects for location, year, cultivar, and their interactions on most traits, highlighting the substantial impact of environmental heterogeneity on forage pea performance. Descriptive statistics showed high variability in yield traits, reflecting considerable genetic diversity and environmental sensitivity. The location effect was particularly pronounced for yield; Gorgan exhibited the highest fresh and dry forage yields due to its favorable humid climate and fertile soil, while Karaj showed the lowest yields, likely due to moisture limitations and heat stress. Kermanshah and Parsabad demonstrated intermediate performance with acceptable stability. Among the cultivars, Gap pembesi distinguished itself with the highest fresh and dry yields, superior plant height, and establishment percentage. Its late-maturing phenotype extended the vegetative period, facilitating greater photosynthetic accumulation. GGE-biplot analysis confirmed its broad adaptability and general superiority. Beren ranked second, driven by vigorous vegetative growth and strong regrowth ability. Conversely, early-maturing cultivars, Tashkent and Arda, produced lower biomass. While their shorter cycle suits regions with constrained growing seasons, their yield potential was lower in this study. Zerre demonstrated a superior nutritional profile, with high CP, optimal WSC, and moderate ADF, resulting in high digestibility. In contrast, Gap pembesi exhibited higher fiber fractions, resulting in lower digestibility compared to Zerre. Tashkent exhibited the lowest nutritional quality. These findings suggest that while late-maturing cultivars like Gap pembesi are ideal for maximizing biomass, cultivars like Zerre offer superior forage quality essential for animal nutrition.

Conclusions
This comprehensive multi-environment study provides key insights into the agronomic and qualitative performance of forage pea cultivars in Iran. The observed substantial cultivar-by-environment interaction dictates the need for region-specific cultivar recommendations. Based on the integration of yield data, stability analysis, and nutritional quality assessments, Gap pembesi is identified as the superior cultivar for general cultivation. Its outstanding biomass yield, plant height, establishment rate, and wide adaptability across different climates position it as a top choice for enhancing domestic forage output. Beren is also recommended as a complementary cultivar, particularly for temperate regions, due to its vigorous vegetative growth and regrowth capacity. However, for farming systems prioritizing forage quality over sheer biomass quantity, Zerre offers a distinct advantage with its high protein content and superior digestibility. Ultimately, decisions regarding cultivar selection must be based on production targets, regional climate, and growing season duration. This study establishes a solid foundation for future breeding programs and extension services by promoting the adoption of high-yielding, stable, and qualitatively superior forage pea cultivars to ensure the sustainability of Iran's livestock sector. This study lays a solid foundation for future breeding programs and extension services, promoting the adoption of high-yielding, stable, and qualitatively superior forage pea cultivars to ensure the sustainability of Iran's livestock sector.

Keywords

Climatic adaptation

Nutritional value

Winter legumes

Yield stability

Subjects

• Agronomy

---

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

Ahmadi, M., Omidi, M., Shahnejat boshehri, A. A., & Amirbakhtiar, N. (2023). Evaluation of yield stability of promising winter rapeseed lines in cold and semi-cold climate of Iran. Journal of Plant Production Research, 30, 67-84. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22069/jopp.2022.20114.2927

Annicchiarico, P. (2002). Defining adaptation strategies and yield stability targets in breeding programmes. In M. S. Kang, (Ed). Quantitative Genetics, Genomics and Plant Breeding, CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 365-383.

Asci, O., Acar, Z., & Arici, Y. K. (2015). Hay yield, quality traits and interspecies competition of forage pea-triticale mixtures harvested at different stages. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 20, 166-173. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.83484

Bakhshi, B., Pouresmaeil, M., & Keshtgar Khajedad, M. (2021). Assessment of agro-morphological traits diversity in cowpea landraces originated from arid and warm regions of Iran. Iranian Journal Pulses Research, 12, 85-103. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/ijpr.v12i2.87704

Bocianowski, J., Księżak, J., & Nowosad, K. (2019). Genotype by environment interaction for seed yield in pea (Pisum sativum L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Euphytica, 215, 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-019-2515-1

Bueckert, R. A., Wagenhoffer, G., Hnatowich, C., & Warkentin, T. D. (2015). Effect of heat and precipitation on pea yield and reproductive performance in the field. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 95, 629-639. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps-2014-342

Çaçan, E., Kökten, K., Bakoğlu, A., Kaplan, M., & Bozkurt, A. (2019). Evaluation of some forage pea (Pisum arvense L.) lines and cultivars in terms of herbage yield and quality. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 23, 254-262. https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.446423

Çatal, M. İ., Çelik, Ş., & Bakoğlu, A. (2024). Investigation of factors affecting fresh herbage yield in pea (Pisum arvense L.). Frontiers in Plant Science, 15, 1482723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1482723

Dadras, A. R., Azimi, M., Khodadadi, M., Aghabeygi, M., Abdolahi, A., & Mohamadi, A. (2020). Investigation the agronomic traits, yield and stability of different pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars in tarom region of Iran using graphical analysis. Journal of Vegetables Sciences, 4, 113-130. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/iuvs.2020.130891.1109

Das, A., Parihar, A. K., Saxena, D., Singh, D., Kushwaha, K. P. S., Chand, R., Bal, R. S., & Gupta, S. (2019). Deciphering genotype-by-environment interaction for targeting test environments and rust resistant genotypes in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00825

FAOSTAT. (2026). FAOSTAT Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division. Retrieved February 26, 2026. From https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCinfo

Georgieva, N., & Kosev, V. (2020). Model of forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivar in conditions of organic production. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 26, 91-95.

Ghasembaghlou, M., Sedghi, M., Seyedsharifi, R., & Farzaneh, S. (2023). The effect of biofertilizer application and different levels of drought stress on yield and forage quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) emaraz cultivar. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 33, 85-96. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2022.50968.2856

Greveniotis, V., Bouloumpasi, E., Zotis, S., Korkovelos, A., & Ipsilandis, C. G. (2022). Stability, the last frontier: forage yield dynamics of peas under two cultivation systems. Plants, 11, 892. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070892

Haile, G. A., Kebede, G. Y., & Eritro. T. A. (2022). Biplot analysis of field pea genotypes by environment interaction and yield stability across eight environments in arsi zone. Asian Journal of Research in Crop Science, 7, 14-23. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrcs/2022/v7i330142

Haliloglu, K., Turkoglu, A., Tan, M., & Poczai, P. (2022). SSR-based molecular identification and population structure analysis for forage pea (Pisum sativum var. Arvense L.) landraces. Genes, 13, 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13061086

Herridge, D. F., Peoples, M. B., & Boddey, R. M. (2008). Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant and Soil, 311, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9668-3

Hu, C., Cun, J., Soliman, A. A., Yang, F., Ghareeb, Z. E., Yuan, X., Yang, T., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Xiang, C., Zhao, L., Liu, C., Luo, G., Zhou, B., Zhu, X., Tang, Y., Wang, R., Yu, H., Yang, X., Wang, Y., Dai, Z., Zheng, A., Li, Q., Xia, X., Chen, X., & He, Y. (2025). Agronomic performance and yield stability of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes in multi-environment trials. BMC Plant Biology, 25, 1670. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-07721-1

Jafari, A., Connolly, V., Frolich, A., & Walsh, E. J. (2003). A note on estimation of quality parameters in perennial ryegrass by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 42, 293-299.

Javanmard, A., Amani Machiani, M., & Eskandari, H. (2019). Evaluation of forage quantity and quality of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) Intercropping system in maragheh rainfed conditions. Journal of Agroecology, 11, 435-452. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v11i2.65105

Kebede, G., Eritro, T. A., & Gutu, D. T. (2024). Genotype × environment interaction and stability analysis of advanced field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes in southeastern Ethiopia. Ecological Genetics and Genomics, 33, 100302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2024.100302

Majidi, M. M., & Arzani, A. (2012). Study of relationship between morphological, agronomic and qualitative traits in sainfoin populations (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop). Journal of Plant Production Research, 16, 159-173. (In Persian).

Mirza, A., & Çopur Doğrusöz, M. (2024). Silage yield and quality of forage peas and Hungarian vetch and triticale binary mixtures. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 38, 434-444. https://doi.org/10.15316/SJAFS.2024.039

Mohammadi, R., Mohammadi, M., Karimizadeh, R., & Amri, A. (2010). Analysis of genotype-by-environment interaction for grain yield of rainfed durum wheat genotypes in warm winter areas of Iran. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology, 13, 267-274. (In Persian).

Neamat Mohammed, T., Jalali Honarmand, S., Eghbal Ghobadi, M., & Rasaei, A. (2021). Effects of exogenous application of plant hormones on yield and physiological characteristics of pea under supplemental irrigation. Journal of Vegetables Sciences, 5, 197-213. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/IUVS.2021.531953.1167

Parissi, Z., Irakli, M., Tigka, E., Papastylianou, P., Dordas, C., Tani, E., Abraham, E. M., Theodoropoulos, A., Kargiotidou, A., Kougiteas, L., Kousta, A., Koskosidis, A., Kostoula, S., Beslemes, D., & Vlachostergios, D. N. (2022). Analysis of genotypic and environmental effects on biomass yield, nutritional and antinutritional factors in common vetch. Agronomy, 12, 1678. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071678

Peoples, M. B., Brockwell, J., Herridge, D. F., Rochester, I. J., Alves, B. J. R., Urquiaga, S., Boddey, R. M., Dakora, F. D., Bhattarai, S., Maskey, S. L., Sampet, C., Rerkasem, B., Khan, D. F., Hauggaard‑Nielsen, H., & Jensen, E. S. (2009). The contributions of nitrogen‑fixing crop legumes to the productivity of agricultural systems. Symbiosis, 48, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179980

Powers, S. E., & Thavarajah, D. (2019). Checking agriculture’s pulse: field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 1489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01489

Rahmani, M., Sheidai, S., Zamanian, M., Moghadam, A., Ahakpaz, F., Ghotbi, V., Rezvani, A., Naderpour, M., Jazayeri Nooshabadi, M. R., Sadeghi, H., Rahjou, V., & Amini, S. (2025). Technical guideline for conducting value for cultivation and use (VCU) tests of forage legume varieties. Seed and Plant Certification and Registration Research Institute, Registration No. 68927, 31 pp. (In Persian)

Razmi, N., Masoudi, B., & Hezarjaribi, E. (2024). Identification of key agronomical traits contributing to the selection of superior lines of soybean in Moghan Plain. Journal of Plant Production Research, 31, 127-145. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22069/jopp.2023.21773.3076

Salehi Sheikhi, M., Nakhzari moghaddam, A., Rahemi karizaki, A., & Mohammad Esmaili, M. (2022). Effect of pea cultivar and replacement and additive intercropping ratios of pea and spinach on yield and competition indices. Journal of Crops Improvement (Journal of Agriculture), 23, 939-952. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2020.302557.2395

Sayar, M. S., & Han, Y. (2016). Forage yield performance of forage pea (Pisum sativum spp. arvense L.) genotypes and assessments using GGE biplot analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 18, 1621-1634.

Şenbek, G., Duran, S. T., İpek, A., & Uzun, A. (2025). Selection of parental forage pea [Pisum sativum (L.)] genotypes based on morphological characterization and SSR markers for crossbreeding. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 72, 7517-7530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-025-02400-4

Shayanfar, A., Sheidaei, S., Ahmadi, H., Mehravar, M., Rahmani, M., Gharakhani, A., Rezaeizad, A., Alizadeh, S., Dinkouh, F., Hamzehzadeh, F., Darabi, H., Abbariki, Z., Nour-Ziyarat, R., Khaledi, N., & Nori, M. (2025). Evaluation of agronomic traits of three forage pea varieties solicited for commercialization in 2022. Seed and Plant Certification and Registration Research Institute, Registration No. 67266, 38 pp. (In Persian)

Sidlauskas, G., & Bernotas, S. (2003). Some factors affecting seed yield of spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Agronomy Research, 1, 229-243.

Sun, X., Cheng, L., Jonker, A., Munidasa, S., & Pacheco, D. (2022). A review: Plant carbohydrate types-the potential impact on ruminant methane emissions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, 880115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.880115

Tarashi, M., Rahemi Karizki, A., Biabani, A., & Salahi Farahi, M. (2020). Land suitability evaluation of Golestan province for planting Pisum sativa based on climatic factors. Iranian Journal Pulses Research, 11, 62-73. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/ijpr.v11i1.70708

Tsialtas, I. T., Baxevanos, D., Vlachostergios, D. N., Dordas, C., & Lithourgidis, A. (2018). Cultivar complementarity for symbiotic nitrogen fixation and water use efficiency in pea-oat intercrops and its effect on forage yield and quality. Field Crops Research, 226, 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.07.005.

Türk, M., & Albayrak, S. (2012). Effect of harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of different leaf types pea cultivar. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17, 111-114.

Weller, J. L., & Ortega, R. (2015). Genetic control of flowering time in legumes. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6, 207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00207

Weller, J. L., Liew, L. C., Hecht, V. F., Rajandran, V., Laurie, R. E., Ridge, S., Wenden, B., Vander Schoor, J. K., Jaminon, O., & Blassiau, C. (2012). A conserved molecular basis for photoperiod adaptation in two temperate legumes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 21158-21163. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207943110

Xu, L., Tang, G., Wu, D., & Zhang, J. (2024). Yield and nutrient composition of forage crops and their effects on soil characteristics of winter fallow paddy in South China. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1292114

Yihunie, T. A., & Gesesse, C. A. (2018). GGE biplot analysis of genotype by environment interaction in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes in northwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology, 21, 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-017-0099-0

Yucel, D. O. (2013). Impact of plant density and yield and yield components of pea (Pisum sativum ssp. sativum) cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 8, 169-174.

Yüksel, O., & Turk, M. (2019). The effects of phosphorus fertilization and harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 28, 4165-4170.