Identification of suitable Bean genotypes under water stress conditions in Azarbaijan region

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 14, Volume 9, Issue 1, June 2019, Pages 192-203   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v9i1.48258

Authors

Hassan Monirifar^{* 1}; Vahid Rezazadeh Ghoshghara²; Hamid Reza Dorri³

¹Horticulture & Crops Research Department, East Azarbaijan Agricultural & Natural Resources Research & Education, Center, AREEO, Tabriz, Iran

²Tabriz Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

³Instructor of Markazi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Common bean is the most important food legume and is an important source of calories, protein, dietary fiber, and minerals. In addition, common bean provides an essential source of protein for more than 300 million people worldwide. Drought is the major constraint to common bean production, resulting in significant yield reductions of 60% of global bean production areas. In addition, competition among crops for production area in certain regions has resulted in a shift of dry bean production to more marginal zones associated with increased abiotic stresses such as water stress and heat. Robust drought tolerance is conferred by traits that result in stable yield in the presence of water stress, as opposed to mechanisms of escape, such as early maturity. The evaluation and selection for drought tolerance should therefore be focused on the selection of traits that directly affect yield under stress conditions. The objective of this study was recognition of the reaction of bean genotypes and identifies tolerant genotypes to water stress in East Azarbaijan region, Iran.
 
Materials & Methods
The experiment was carried out during 2011 cropping season in Azarshahr- East Azarbaijan, Iran. The experimental site was located at 1370 m asl and with sandy loam soil receives an annual average rainfall of 300 mm. Plant material consisted of nine genotypes of red, white and wax bean were provided from Khomein national bean research center. Genotypes were evaluated separately in a randomized complete block design under irrigation and water stress conditions. Each genotype was planted on a plot made of five rows of 3 m length with a row-to-row distance of 0.5 m and a plant-to-plant spacing of 5 cm. Irrigations in normal and drought stress conditions were applied after 70 and 100 mm evaporation from class A pan. Days to flowering and to maturity, plant height, shoot diameter, seeds in plant and in pod, pods in plant, 100 seed weight and seed yield traits were recorded. For identifying suitable bean genotypes, multiple drought tolerance and sensitivity indices were calculated. Orthogonal comparisons were used to compare bean genotypes for seed yield based on their colors in normal irrigation and water stress condition. Because irrigation effect was significant in combined analysis, so analysis of variance was performed separately for each set of experiment.
 
Results & Discussion
Analysis of variance showed that there were significant differences among genotypes in both irrigation conditions for all traits. Water stress led bean genotypes to mature 12 days earlier and the greatest reduction was found 22 days in wax bean genotypes. The plant height reduction under water stress condition in both groups of bean was roughly equal. Orthogonal comparison of bean genotypes for seed yield based on their colors in normal irrigation and water stress condition showed wax bean genotypes were the best in two conditions and had more yield. The results showed that water stress decreased the yield of genotypes up to 47 percent. The response of bean genotypes was different for water stress and lowest and highest yield loss was observed for wax and white beans genotypes, respectively. Correlation coefficients between the normal irrigation and water stress condition were positive and highly significant for seed yield. The presence of strong correlation between yields of water stress and non-stress conditions indicated that genotypes which were performed under non-stress conditions also performed under water stress growing conditions. The results showed suitable bean genotypes can be identified with considering yield of genotypes in both conditions. Drought tolerance indices namely geometric mean (GMP), stress tolerance (STI) and arithmetic mean (MP) were better than others indices for tolerant bean genotype selecting.
 
Conclusion
Drought stress decreased yield and its components in bean genotype, but the reaction of genotypes were different. The findings suggesting that, selection based on the absolute performance of the genotypes across environments is more successful than selecting across the minimum yield decrease under stress with respect to favorable condition. In water stress condition, wax bean genotypes were better than red and white bean genotypes. Between wax bean genotypes, genotypes GO140 was the superior and can be considered as best for similar climate conditions. 

Keywords

Orthogonal comparison; Red bean; Wax bean; White bean

References

1. Abebe, A., Brik, M.A., and Kirkby, R.A. 1998. Comparisons of selection indices to identity productive dry bean lines under diverse environmental conditions. Field Crops Research 58:15-23.
2. Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., and Adams, M.W. 1991. Plant traits and yield stability of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars under drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science 117: 213-
3. Beebe, S., and McClafferty, 2006. Biofortified beans. Available at Web site http:// www. research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/Misc_Crop/beans.pdf (verify ed 18 Apr. 2011). HarvestPlus, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
4. Betran, F.J., Beck, D., Banziger, M., and Edmeades, G.O. 2003. Genetic analysis of inbred and hybrid grain yield under stress and non stress environments in tropical maize. Crop Science Journal 43: 807-817.
5. Blum, A. 1988. Plant Breeding for Stress environments. CRC Press Florida, pp 212.
6. Broughton, W.J., Hernandez, G., Blair, M., Beebe, S., Gepts, P., and Vanderleyden, J. 2003. Beans (Phaseolus ): Model food legumes. Plant Soil 252: 55-128.
7. Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F.W.E., Muzzucotelli, A.M., Mestrangelo, E., Francia, C., and Stanca, A.M. 2008. Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: an integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crop Research 105: 1-4.
8. Costa-Franca, M.G., Thi, A.T., Pimentel, C., Pereyra, R.O., Zuily-Fodil, Y., and Laffray, D. 2000. Differences in growth and water relations among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response to induced drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 43: 227-237.
9. Ebrahimi, M., Bihamta, M.R., Hosein-Zadeh, A., Khialparast, F., and Golbashi, M. 2010. Evaluation response of yield and yield components of white bean genotypes under water stress conditions. Journal of Agricultural Research 8: 347-358 (In Persian with English Summary).
10. Fernandez, G.C. 1992. Effective Selection Criteria for Assessing Plant Stress T pp: 257-270. In: C.G. Kuo (Ed.). Adaptation of Food Crops to Temperature and Water Stress. AVRDC, Shunhua, Taiwan.
11. Fischer, R.A., and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 897-912.
12. Graham, P.H., and Ranalli, P. 1997. Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Field Crops Research 53: 131-146.
13. Habibi, G.R., Bihamta, M.R., Souhani, A.R., and Dorii, H.R. 2008. A study of some morphological characteristics affecting grain yield and yield components in bean under reduced irrigation. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 39(1): 51-62. (In Persian with English Summary).
14. Hu, Y.Y., Zhang, Y.L., Yi, X.P., Zhan, D.X., Luo, H.H., Chow, W.S., and Zhang, W.F. 2013. The relative contribution of non-foliar organs of cotton to yield and related physiological characteristics under water deficit. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 3119 (13): 60568-7.
15. Khaghani, S., Bihamta, M.R., and Changizi, M. 2009. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of white and red beans under normal irrigation and drought stress. Environmental Stress Plant Science 1(2):169-182.
16. Leport, L., Turner, N.C., Davies, S.L., and Siddique, K.H.M. 2006. Variation in pod production and abortion among chickpea cultivars under terminal drought. European Journal of Agronomy 24(3): 236-246.
17. Mohammadi, R., Armion, M., Kahrizi, D., and Amri, A. 2010. Efficiency of screening techniques for evaluating durum wheat genotypes under mild drought conditions. Journal of Plant Production 4(1): 11-24.
18. Munoz-Perea, C.G., Wright, R.A.J., Westermann, D., Teran, H., Dennis, M., Hayes, R., and Singh, S.P. 2005. Drought resistance, water use efficiency and nutrient uptake by old and new dry bean cultivars. Bean Improvement Cooperative, New York, 48: 144-145.
19. Padilla-Ramirez, K.S., Acosta-Gallegos, K.A., Acosta- Diaz, E., Mayek-Perez, N., and Kelly, J.D. 2005. Partitioning and partitioning rate to seed yield in drought stressed and non stressed dry bean genotypes. Bean Improvement Cooperative, New York, 48: 153-153.
20. 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.
21. Rajaram, S., and Van Ginkle, M. 2001. Mexico, 50 Years of International Wheat B In: A.P. Bonjean and W.J. Angus (Eds.). The world Wheat Book, A History of Wheat Breeding, Paris, France. Lavoisier Publishing, 579-604.
22. Ramírez-Vallejo, P., and Kelly, J.D. 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99: 127-
23. Rathjen, A.J. 1994. The biological basis of genotype×environment interaction its definition and management. In: Proceedings of the 7^th Assembly of the Wheat Breeding Society of Australia. Adelaide, Australia.
24. Rezene, Y., Gebeyehu, S., and Zelleke, H. 2013. Morpho-physiological response to post-flowering drought stress in small red Seeded common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris ) genotypes. Journal of Plant Studies 2: 42-53.
25. Rosielle, A.A., and Hamblin, J. 1981. Theoretical aspect of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science 21: 943-946.
26. Schneider, K.A., Rosales-Serna, R., Ibarra-Perez, R., Cazares-Enriquez, B., Acosta- Gallegos, J.A., Ramírez-Vallejo, P., Wassimi, N., and Kelly, J.D. 2004. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Science 37: 43-
27. Singh, S.P. 1995. Selection for water stress tolerance in interracial populations of common bean. Crop Science 35: 118-
28. Singh, S.P., Teran, H., Munoz, G., and Takegami, J.C. 1999. Two cycles of recurrent selection for seed yield in common bean. Crop Science 39:391-397.
29. Singh SP. 2001. Broadening the genetic base of common bean cultivars. Crop Science 41:1659-
30. Shafiee Khorshidi, M., Bihamta, R., Khialparast, F., and Naghvi, M.R. 2013. 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).
31. Teran, H., and Singh, P.S. 2002. Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Science 42: 64-70.
32. Zafarani-Moattar, P., Raey, Y., Ghassemi-Golezani, K., and Mohammadi, S.A. 2012. Effect of limited irrigation on growth and yield of bean cultivars. Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science 21: 85-94. (In Persian with English Summary).