Effects of deficit irrigation on yield and yield components of pinto bean genotypes in Shahrekord

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 6, Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2017, Pages 113-126   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v8i1.49118

Authors

Hedayat Karimzadeh^{* 1}; Ahmad Nezami¹; Mohammad Kafi²; Mahmoudreza Tadayon³

¹Ferdowsi

²reading

³Shiraz

Abstract

Introduction
Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is one of the most important bean types in Iran. Cultivation area of pinto bean is about 50% of total bean cultivation area and more than half of grain bean production belongs to this type of bean. Drought is the most important environmental stresses that affects agricultural production in arid and semiarid areas and reduces crop productions. According to FAO reports, 90% of cultivation area in Iran is under arid and semi-arid conditions, so water deficit severely affects crop quantity and quality of most crop. About 60% of bean cultivation area in the world are faced with drought. Bean yield loss due to drought stress depends on severity and duration of stress and genetic variations of genotypes. Bean yield components such as grain weight, grain number per plant and pod number per plant decrease by drought stress. According to the 15 bean genotypes evaluation in favorable moisture conditions and water deficit, there were significantly differences between genotypes for most of yield related traits. Due to limited water resources in the Iran, evaluation of bean genotypes under water stress is important. So this study was conducted to evaluate the changes in yield and yield components of pinto bean genotypes under deficit irrigation conditions.

Material and Methods
An experiment as split plot in randomized complete block design base was conducted for evaluation of effect of deficit irrigation at three levels (supply of 100, 80 and 60 percent of crop water requirement as main plot) on pinto bean genotypes in five levels (Taylor, Sadri, C.O.S.16, KS21193(Koosha193) and KS21486 as sub plot) in Shahrekord university. Before planting, seeds were disinfected with Benomyl fungicide. Then planting was conducted in 30 plant m-2 density.Crop water requirements calculated by Penman-Monteith equation amended by FAO. Irrigation treatments was applied at beginning of V4 stage (unfolding of third trifoliate leaf) and continued in the growing season. At the end of experiment one square meter of each plot harvested and yield and yield components were measured. Data were analyzed in SAS software (version 9.1). Slicing method was used for interaction mean comparison.

Results&Discussion
The effects of irrigation regime, genotype and the interaction of irrigation regime and genotype on unfertile pod number, unfertile pod weight, Fertile pod number, fertile pod per plant, grain number, grain weight, biological yield, grain yield and harvest index were significant.
COS16 had the greatest fertile pod number and weight per unit area in supply of 100% of crop water requirement condition. Sadri and KS21486 had the highest and lowest percentage of reduction in the number of fertile pods per unit areain supply of 80% of crop water requirement conditionrespectively. Supply of 100 and 80 percent of water requirement conditions COS16 resulted in greatest grain number m-2. But this genotype did not produce grain by supply of 60% of water requirement condition.
Reducing the amount of irrigation water reduced grain weight differently. KS21486 showed 12.8% and 26.5% reduction in grain weight in supply of 80 and 60 percent of crop water requirement conditions, respectively. While COS16 showed 47.1% and 100% reduction in grain weight in supply of 80 and 60 percent of crop water requirement conditions, respectively.Reducing the amount of irrigation water reduced genotypes grain yield. Grain yield of KS21486 decreased by 20.5% and 55.4% in supply of 80% and 60% of crop water requirement conditions, respectively. While KS21193 showed 68.5% and 93.2% grain yield reduction in 80% and 60% of crop water requirement condition, respectively. The highest seed yield by supply of 100 and 80% of plant water requirement condition was observed in C.O.S.16 (594.6 and 289.2 g.m-2 respectively), while C.O.S.16 in supply of 60% of plant water requirement did not produce seed. In supply of 60 percent of plant water requirement condition KS21486 had highest seed yield (109.5 g.m-2).

Conclusion
Grain number is more sensitive than grain weight to water deficit condition. Grain number reduced with greater intensity rather than grain weight reduction. In optimum irrigation and moderate water deficit condition C.O.S16 and in severe water deficit condition KS21486 produced more grain than the other genotypes.

Keywords

Drought stress; Harvest index; Pod; Seed weight

References

1. Agricultural Statistics. 2013. Ministry of Agriculture Press. 167 pages.

2. Alizadeh, A. 2008. Water, Soil and Plant Relationship. Imam Reza University Press. Eighth Edition. 484 pages. In Persian.

3. Andrew, K.B., Hammer,G.L.,and Henzell, R.G. 2000. Does maintaining green leaf area in sorghum improve yield under drought? II. Dry matter production and yield. Crop Science 40: 1037-1048.

4. Bayat, A., Sepehri,A., Ahmadvand,A.G.,and Dorri, H. R.2010. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield components of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 12(1):42-54. (In Persian with English Summary).

5. Bonfil, D.J., Goren, O., Mufradi, I., Lichtenzveig, J. & Abbo, S. 2007. Development of early-flowering Kabuli chickpea with compound and simple leaves. Plant Breeding 126: 125-129.

6. Boutraa, T., and Sanders, F.E. 2001. Influence of water stress on grain yield and vegetative growth of two cultivars of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 187(4): 251-257.

7. Ehdaie, B., and Waines, J.G. 1993. Water requirement and transpiration efficiency of primitive wheats: A model for their use. pp. 187-197. In: A.B. Damania (Ed.) Biodiversity and Wheat Improvement. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.

8. Farshadfar, E., Ghannadha, M., Zahravi, M., and Sutka, J. 2001. Genetic analysis of drought tolerance in wheat. Plant Breeding 114: 542-544.

9. Frahm, M.A., Rosas,J.C., Mayek-Perez, N., Lopez-Salinas, E.J., Acosta-Gallegos, A.,and Kelly, J.D. 2004. Breeding beans for resistance to terminal drought in the lowland tropics. Euphytica 136(2): 223-232.

10. Habibi, Gh.R.,and Bihamta,M.R. 2005. Study of seed yield and some associate characteristics in pinto bean under reduced irrigation. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 74:34-46. (In Persian).

11. Isik, M., O¨nceler, Z., Cakir, S., and Altay, F. 2005. Effect of different irrigation regimes on the yield and yield components of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Acta Agronomica Sinica 52(4): 381-389.

12. Lak, M.R., ghanbari, A.A., Dori, H.R.,and Ghadiri, A. 2009. Effect of planting date onseed yield and fusarium root rotdisease severity in Chitti bean in Khomein. Seed and Plant Production Journal 25(2): 275-286. (In Persian with English Summary).

13. Lesznya´k, M., Hunyadi-Borbe´ly, E.,and Csajbo´k, J. 2008. The role of nutrient-water-supply and the cultivation in the yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Cereal Research Community 36: 1079-1082.

14. Mart´ınez, J.P., Silva, H., Ledent, J.F., and Pinto, M. 2007.Effect of drought stress on the osmotic adjustment, cell wall elasticity and cell volume of six cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy 26: 30-38.

15. Mun˜oz-Perea, C.G., Allen, R.G., Westermann, D.T., and Wright, J.L. 2007. Water use efficiency among dry bean landraces and cultivars in drought-stressed and non-stressed environments. Euphytica 155: 393-402.

16. Nemeske´ri, E. 1994. Investigation of the adaptability of legumes in the Hungarian climate. In: O.A.Rognli (Ed). Breeding Fodder Crops for Marginal Conditions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 69-80.

17. Padilla-Ramı´rez, J.S., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Acosta-Dı´az, E., Mayek-Pe´rez, N., and Kelly, J.D. 2005. Partitioning and partitioning rate to seed yield in drought-stressed andnon-stressed dry bean genotypes. Annual Report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative 48: 152-153.

18. Porch, T.G., Ramirez,V.H., Santana, D.,and Harmsen, E.W. 2009. Evaluation of common bean for drought tolerance in Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 195: 328-334.

19. Ramirez Builes, V.H., Porch, T.G.,and Harmsen, E.W. 2011. Genotypic differences in water use efficiency ofcommon bean under drought stress.Agronomy Journal 103: 1206-1215.

20. Ramirez-Vallejo, P.,and Kelly, J.D. 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99:127-136.

21. Rosales-Serna, R., Kohashi-Shibata, J., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Trejo-Lo´pez, C., Ortiz-Cereceres, J.,and Kelly, J.D.2004. Biomass distribution, maturity acceleration and yield in drought-stressed common bean cultivars. Field Crops Research 85: 203-211.

22. Rosales-Serna, R., Kohashi-Shibata, J., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Trejo-Lo ´pez, C., Ortiz-Cereceres, J., and Kelly, J.D., 2002. Yield and phenological adjustment in four drought-stressed common bean cultivars. Annual Report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative 45: 198-199.

23. Shenkut, A.A.,and Brick, M.A. 2003. Traits associated with dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) productivity under diverse soil moisture environments. Euphytica 133(3): 339-347.

24. Tera´n, H.,and Singh, S.P. 2002. Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Science 42: 64-70.