Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) protein, starch, and ash concentrations as affected by cultivar and environment

Abstract

Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) is an important crop in the Northern Great Plains of the USA and Canada. Information on dry pea quality as affected by cultivars and environments is limited. This experiment determined the effects of dry pea cultivars and environments on protein, starch, and ash concentrations. Six dry pea cultivars (‘Arcadia’, ‘Bridger’, ‘CDC Striker’, ‘Cruiser’, ‘Montech 4152’, and ‘SW Midas’) were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with four replications in 22 environments. The results showed that cultivar × environment interaction effects were highly significant on protein, starch, and ash concentration (p < 0.0001). These interaction means, calculated on a dry matter basis, ranged from 145 to 278 g kg−1 seed for protein, 439 to 617 g kg−1 seed for starch, and 10.5 to 31.9 g kg−1 seed for ash. The differences among environmental means were substantial compared with cultivar means. When averaged over environments, ‘CDC Striker’, ‘Arcadia’, and ‘Montech 4152’ produced greater mean protein, starch, and ash concentrations, respectively, than the other cultivars. None of these cultivars simultaneously outperformed the others for protein, starch, and ash concentrations. This may indicate the need to develop cultivars with outstanding qualities across environments to receive satisfy premium end-user quality requirements.

The Effect of Potassium and Sulfur Fertilization on Seed Quality of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.)

“…As our studies show, the main factor determining faba bean quality was the year of study. This finding is in line with other studies [48][49][50][51]. Some authors reported that water deficiency leads to an increased CP content in faba bean seeds [52,53].…”

“…A negative correlation was also observed between CP and SY. A negative relationship between SY and CP content was already described in earlier studies [38,51,52]. However, our studies also indicate that the determination coefficient R 2 value of the obtained dependencies relied on the time of harvest to a very small degree.…”

Pea proteins: Variation, composition, genetics, and functional properties

“…(2017) and Mohammed et al. (2018) reported protein contents of 15.9%–25.1% and 14.5%–27.8%, respectively. In both studies, growing environment was the major contributor to the variation in protein content.…”

“…Varietal differences can contribute to protein variability in pea (Hood‐Niefer et al., 2012; Mohammed et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2008). The varietal effect could be due to genetic mechanisms that directly affect proteins per se or genes that affect other traits that could contribute to protein variation indirectly (Ellis et al., 2011).…”

“…The nutritional value and functional properties of pea protein are dependent on the quantity and quality of the protein (Lu et al., 2020), which are affected by genetic factors (Jha et al., 2013; Mohammed et al., 2018; Tzitzikas et al., 2006), growing environment conditions (Bourgeois et al., 2009, 2011), and processing conditions (Lu et al., 2020; and references therein). Multiple gene families are known to affect the content and composition of pea protein (Bourgeois et al., 2011), and different starch biosynthesis genes also influence protein content indirectly (Ellis et al., 2011).…”