Evaluation of traits and drought tolerance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes under well-watered and drought stress conditions

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 4, Volume 8, Issue 2, December 2017, Pages 69-83   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v8i2.52302

Authors

Fateme Gharajedaghi^* ; Mohammad Reza Bihamta; Seyed Ali Peyghambari; Maryam Rezaeinia

University of Tehran

Abstract

Introduction
Pulse crops with 18-32% protein are the most important source of grain for human food. Protein of food legumes due to the presence of essential amino acids such as Lysine, have high nutritional value. Common beans are half of the beans used in the world, its grains rich in protein and carbohydrates. Common bean is very sensitive to weather conditions and soil quality and its performance even in short periods of stress. About two-thirds of the land under cultivation in Iran is in semi-arid areas, so the varieties with resistance to drought stress are the most important objectives of the breeding programs. Genetic diversity is the base for the selection of genotypes with desirable traits. In addition genetic resources have the fundamental role for agricultural development, as a source of useful genes for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses and the development of genetic adaptation to environmental changes considered that the proper utilization of these varieties can be produced new and more desirable plants.
Materials & Methods
In order to evaluate genotypic and phenotypic variation and determine the relationship between grain yield with other traits in 35 common bean genotypes under normal and drought stress conditions, an experimental design was carried out in a randomized complete block design under two conditions in 2013 at the research field of college of Agriculture and natural resource of University of Tehran in Karaj state with latitude 35° and 56 minutes north and longitude 50° and 58 minutes east and 1112.5 m height above sea level. Treatments consisted of 33 common bean genotypes with three Khomein, Daneshkadeh and Goli Cultivars as control, were selected from the collections of College of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj. Based on 30 years of data, mean annual precipitation of 243 mm and the test run of 47.7 mm rainfall during the growing season was over. Planting was done manually. Each plot consisted of three rows of two meters in length and with a spacing of 50 cm and 10 cm seeds space on the row and depth of planting was about five centimeters. Irrigation took place similar to both conditions at flowering stage, for seven days (Equivalent to 70 mm evaporation) and after the vegetative growth and loss of the risk sufficient to remove the bushes. Irrigation of water stress piece was performed each 11 days (Equivalent to 110 mm evaporation). Harvest was performed when 90% of plants were matured and the seven plants in compliance with marginal effect of each plot were collected to measure traits and then by using the mean yield genotypes per plot in non-stress (Ypi) and stress conditions (Ysi), drought tolerance indices including, Mean Productivity, Geometric Mean Productivity, Harmonic Mean Productivity, Stress Tolerance Index, Stress Susceptibility Index, Tolerance Index, Yield Index, Yield Stability Index, Stress Intensity and yield reduction rate were calculated for each genotype.

Results & Discussion
Results showed that among genotypes in the studied traits there were significant differences which displayed genetic variation among the genotypes. Based on the average of genotypes yield in normal conditions the highest and lowest seed yield pertained genotypes 27 and 12, respectively, and in the stress related to genotypes 32 and 12, respectively. According to the results of phenotypic correlations, stepwise regression, and path analysis in both normal and stress conditions, the traits of seed and pod weight, biological yield, number of seeds per plant, and number of seed per pod were the most important and effective traits affecting yield. The highest diversity was observed for these traits; therefore the selection of these traits can ideally improve the yield. Based on factor analysis, five factors were selected that the total variation were explained 83.76 and 80.79 percent under normal and drought stress conditions, respectively. The first and second factors were named yield and yield component factors. Geometric Mean Productivity, Harmonic Mean and Stress Tolerance Index, indices had the highest significant correlation with yield in both conditions, hence, were introduced as the best indices for screening tolerant genotypes. Based on biplot graph, genotypes 25, 27 and 28 were identified as tolerant genotypes with high yield, whereas genotypes 7, 10, 22 and 23 as drought-sensitive genotypes. Based on indicators STI, GMP, GMP, HRM and performance in normal and stress conditions, using Ward method genotypes were classified in three clusters 21 genotypes in first class, 3 genotypes in cluster II and 11 genotypes were in Cluster III and tolerant genotypes with the highest distance from sensitive genotypes (cluster I) in the third cluster.
Conclusion
Thus, according to genetic distance can be genotypes in breeding programs to produce hybrids with high yield and drought tolerance can be used.

Keywords

Cluster analysis; Common bean; Factor analysis; Tolerance indices

References

1. Adams, M.W. 1982. Plant architecture and yield breeding. Iowa State Journal of Research 56(3): 225-254.

2. Albayrak, S., and Tongel, O. 2006. Path analysis of yield and yield-related traits of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) under different rainfall conditions. Journal of Faculty of Agriculture OMU 21: 27-32.

3. Amini, A., Bihamta, M.R., and Abdmishani, C. 2002. Genetic diversity between difference traits in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Economics and Development 33: 605-615. (In Persian with English Summary).

4. Bennett, J.P., Adams, M.W., and Burga, C. 1997. Pod yield component variation and inter correlation in Phaseolus vulgaris as affected by planting density. Journal of Crop Science 17: 73-75.

5. Blum, A. 1988. Plant Breeding for Stress Environments. CRC Press Florida. 212 pp.

6. Bouslama, M., and Schapaugh, W.T. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1: evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Journal of Crop Science 24: 933-937.

7. Dursum, A. 2007. Variability, heritability and correlation studies in bean genotypes. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(1): 12-16.

8. Ebrahimi, M., Bihamta, M.R., Hosein-Zadeh, A., and Khialparast, F. 2011. Evaluation of relation of grain yield with important agronomic traits of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) using different analyses methods under normal and water stress conditions. Journal of Crops Improvement 13(2): 27-40. (In Persian with English Summary).

9. Fernandez, G.C.J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: C.G. You (Ed.). Adaptation of Food Crop to Temperature and Water Stress. AVRRDC, Hanhua, Taiwan, PP. 257-270.

10. Fischer, R.A., and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars: I. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 895-97.

11. Gavuzzi, P., Rizza, F., Palumbo, M., Campaline, R.G., Ricciardi, G.L., and Borghi, B. 1997. Evaluationof field and laboratory of drought and heat stress in winter cereals. Canadian Journal Plant Science 77: 523-531.

12. Golestani, S.A., and Assad, M.T. 1998. Evaluation of four screening techniques for drought resistance and their relationship to yield reduction ratio in wheat. Euphytica 103: 293-299. (In Persian with English Summary).

13. Kaiser, H.F. 1970. A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika 35: 401-415.

14. Karasu, A., and OZ, M. 2010. A study on coefficient analysis and association between agronomical characters in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 16(2): 203-211.

15. Keshavarznia, R., Mohammadi, B., and Abbasi, A. 2013. Evaluation of genetic diversity of common bean by using morphological traits in under two normal and drought stress condition. Iranian Journal of Crop Science 44(2): 305-315. (In Persian with English Summary).

16. Khaghani, Sh., Bihamta, M.R., Changizi, M., Dori, H.R., Khaghani, Sh., Bakhtiari, A., and Safapour, M. 2009. Compare quantitative and quality traits in white and red bean in common irrigation and drought stress. Journal of Environmental Stress in Plant Science 1(2): 169-181. (In Persian with English Summary).

17. Kristin, A.S., Senra, R.R., Perez, F.I., Enriques, B.C., Gallegos, J.A.A., Vallego, P.R., Wassimi, N., and Kelley, J.D. 1997. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Journal of Crop Science 37: 43-50.

18. Ludlow. M., and Munchow, R.C. 1990. A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yield in water limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43: 107-153.

19. Majnoun Hossini, N. 2008. Grain Legume Prudction. Jahad Daneshgahi Universib of Tehran. 283 pp. (In Persian with English Summary).

20. Manivannan, P., Jaleel, C.A., Kishorekumar, A., Sankar, B., Somasundaram, R., and Panneerselvam, R. 2008. Protection of (Vigna unguiculata L.) Walp. plants from salt stress by paclobutrazol. Colloids and surfaces. Biointerfaces 61(2): 315-318.

21. Mc Clean, P., Kami, J., and Gepts, P. 2004. Genomic and genetic diversity in common bean. In: R.F. Wilson, H.T. Stalker and E.C. Brummer (Eds.). Legume Crop Genomic. AOCS Press, Champaigh. 60-82.

22. Narouie Rad, M., and Aghaie, M. 2008. Genetic variation in some phenological and morphological traits masses of hot and dry lentils. Journal of Agriculture Research and Development 74(4): 40-48. (In Persian with English Summary).

23. Naseh-Ghafoori, I., Bihamta, M.R., Afzali, M., and Dori, H. 2012. Comparison of seed yield and related traits in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties under normal and water deficit conditions. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 3(1): 93-104. (In Persian with English Summary).

24. Rosielle , A.A., and Hambilin, J. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Journal of Crop Science 21: 43-46.

25. Sabokdast, M., and Khyalparast, F. 2007. A study of relationship between grain yield and yield components in common bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural of Resource 11 (42): 123-134. (In Persian with English Summary).

26. Safapour, M., Khaghani, Sh., Amir Abadi, M., Teymori, M., and Bezian, M.K. 2009. Compared the effects of water stress on agronomic traits and phenology of white beans. Findings of Modern Agricultural 4: 367-378. (In Persian with English Summary).

27. Santalla, M., Eseribano, M.R., and Ron, A.M. 1993. Correlations between agronomic and immature pod characters in population of French bean. Abstract Plant Breeding 63(4): 495.

28. Shafiee Khorshidi, M., Bihamta, M.R., Khialparast, F., and Naghavi, M.R. 2012. Comparison of some common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes for drought tolerance. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 44(1): 95-107. (In Persian with English Summary).

29. Sharma, D., and Jodha, N.S. 1984. Pulse production in semi-arid region of India. Proceedings of Pulses Production, Constraints and Opportunities. pp. 241-265.

30. Upadhyaya, H.D., Bramel, P.J., and Singh, S. 2001. Development of a chickpea core collection using geographic distribution and quantitative traits. Journal of Crop Sciences 41: 206-210.