Evaluation of yield and some morpho-physiological characteristics of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes under different irrigation regimes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• HabibAllah Rahimi ¹
• Hamid Reza Eshghizadeh ¹
• Jamshid Razmjoo ¹
• Morteza Zahedi ¹
• Adel Ghadiri ²
• Marzieh Asadi ¹

¹ Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

² Markazi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Arak, Iran

10.22067/ijpr.v14i1.2206-1026

Abstract

Introduction
The pulses, including pinto bean have a great contribution to human nutrition by having a significant   protein content. Moreover, drought is one of the most important environmental stresses that negatively affects plant growth and development stages and consequently grain yield. In general, the most important effects of drought stress are the disruption of the photosynthetic apparatus, the reduction of stomatal conductance, premature leaf senescence and ultimately, the reduction of yield and yield components. However, the response of different plant genotypes to drought stress is different. About 60 percent of bean production in developing countries is done under drought stress. Iran is a country with a warm and dry climate that more than 85 percent of it located in arid and semi-arid regions. Therefore, the cultivation of pinto beans in Iran is carried out under drought stress conditions and we need to find a way to increase yield under drought stress conditions. One of the strategies to against drought stress is the introduction of tolerant and compatible plants. Accordingly, it is important to evaluate and select drought tolerant genotypes based on the traits that directly affect crop yield potential. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate 18 pinto bean genotypes under different irrigation regims.
 
Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted in 2019 at Bean Research and Training Campus Farm, Khomein, using a 3-replicate split plot RCBD. The irrigation regimes as main plot consisted 50 (I₁), 70 (I₂) and 110 (I₃) of cumulative evaporation using a standard class "A" evaporation pan.18 pinto bean genotypes (KS21336, KS-21359, KS-21331, KS21293, KS-920054, KS-21284, KS-21374, KS-21195, KS-21318, KS-21168, KS-21373, KS-21158, KS-21359, KS -21486, KS-21488, KS-21573, Ghaffar and Sadri) were considered as subplot. The grains of each genotype were planted in six rows with a length of three meters. Irrigation treatments were applied about 30 days after planting. Pest, disease and weed control were performed according to conventional methods during the growing period. Plants were harvested from each experimental unit at physiological maturity stage and leaf area index, leaf relative water content, plant height, grains per plant and in pod, pods number per plant, 100 grains weight, biological yield, grain yield and harvest index traits were recorded. In addition, the drought tolerance index was calculated to identify the tolerant genotypes of pinto beans. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using the GLM procedure in SAS (version 9.1; Cary, North Carolina, USA). The least significant difference test (LSD) was used to assess the significance of differences in treatment means at the 5 percent probability level.
 
Results and Discussion
Irrigation regimes caused a significant reduction in leaf area index, leaf relative water content, pods number per plant, grains number per pod, grains per plant, 100 grain weight, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index at I₂ (27, 7, 25, 17, 37, 4, 6, 30 and 11 percent, respectively) and at I₃ (41, 10, 45, 34, 60, 14, 23, 30 and 40 percent, respectively). In general, the rate of decreases was greater with increasing water stress intensity. Therefore, it can be concluded that drought stress negatively impacts plant growth and yield, with the severity of the stress playing a significant role. Drought stress can result in reduced photosynthesis, metabolic disturbances, and even plant mortality. Among the genotypes studied, KS-21318 exhibited the highest grain yield, followed by Ghaffar and KS-21158, respectively. Under normal irrigation conditions, grain yield demonstrated a positive and significant correlation with the number of grains per pod. In the I3 irrigation regime, characterized by severe stress, grain yield showed positive and significant correlations with the number of pods per plant, number of grains per pod, and number of seeds per pod. The pinto bean genotypes examined exhibited notable variations in leaf area index, plant height, number of grains per pod, number of pods per plant, grain yield, harvest index (HI), and drought tolerance index under both mild and severe stress conditions. The highest and lowest harvest index in I₃ irrigation regime (severe stress) belonged to KS-21318 and Ghaffar genotypes. Among the studied genotypes, the highest and lowest mild drought tolerance index belonged to Ghaffar (1.17) and KS-21486 (0.387) genotype, respectively. As well as, the highest and lowest severe drought stress tolerances belonged to Ghaffar (1.12) and KS-21486 (0.373) genotype, respectively.
 
Conclusion
Correlation coefficients between traits showed that in order to breed pinto beans in terms of seed yield, the number of pods per plant, the number of seeds per pod and thenumber of seeds per plant should be considered. Among the studied genotypes, according to drought tolerance index in terms of grain yield, Ghaffar genotype was identified as drought tolerant genotype. In general, there was a significant variation among the studied genotypes in response to different levels of irrigation and this can be used to breed and select pinto bean for drought tolerance. 

Keywords

• Drought
• Food security
• Grain yield
• Production stability
• Tolerant genotype

Main Subjects

• Agronomy
• Response to biotic and abiotic stresses

---

References

1. Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., and Adams, M.W. 1991. Plant traits and yield stability of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars under drought stress. The Journal of Agricultural Science 117(2): 213-219.
2. Ahmed, F.E., and Suliman, A.S.H. 2010. Effect of water stress applied at different stages of growth on seed yield and water-use efficiency of cowpea. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 1(4): 534-540.
3. Amini, S., Ghobadi, C., and Yamchi, A. 2015. Proline accumulation and osmotic stress: an and nitrogen fertilizer effects on relative water content, membrane stability index, chlorophyll andsome other traits of lentils (Lens culinaris) under hydroponics conditions. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences 3: 103-109.
4. Amiri Deh Ahmadi, S.R., Parsa, M., Nezami, A., and Ganjali, A. 2010. The effect of drought stress at different growth stages on growth indices of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in greenhouse conditions. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 1(2): 84-69. (In Persian).
5. Asadi, B., Dorri, H.R., and Ghadiri, A. 2011. Evaluation of cheetah bean genotypes to drought stress based on stress tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Seed and Plant Production 4: 27(1): 615-630. (In Persian).
6. Bayat, A.A., Sephri, A., Ahmadvand, G., and Dorri, H.R. 2010. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield component of cheetah bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 12(1): 42-54. (In Persian).
7. Borujerdnia, M., Bihamta, M.R., Alami Saeed, Kh., and Abdusi, V. 2016. Effect of drought stress on proline content, soluble carbohydrates, electrolyte leakage and relative water content of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Iranian Journal of Crop Physiology 29: 41-23. (In Persian).
8. Brevedan, R., and Egli, B. 2003. Short periods of water stress during seed filling, leaf senescence and yield of soybean. Crop Sciences 43: 2083-2088.
9. Davoodi, S., Rahemi-Karizaki, A., Nakhzari-Moghadam, A., and Gholamalipour Alamdari, E. 2017. Evaluation of response of yield, yield components and harvest index of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to terminal drought stress. Crop Science Research in Arid Regions 1(2): 155-165. (In Persian).
10. Delfan, S., Bihamta, M.R., Hosein zade, A., and Sabokdast, M. 2018. Genetic Diversity in Bean Genotypes (Phaseolus vulgaris) under Drought Stress Conditions. Journal of Crop Breeding 10(26): 104-119. (In Persian).
11. Earl, H.J., and Davis, R.F. 2003. Effect of drought stress on leaf and whole canopy radiation use efficiency and yield of maize. Agronomy Journal 95: 688-696.
12. Emadi, N., Jahanbin, Sh., and Baluchi, H.R. 2013. The effect of drought stress and plant density on yield and some physiological characteristics of cheetah beans. Iranian  Journal of Crop production and processing 3(8): 36-25. (In Persian).
13. Faramarzi, A., Jamshidi, S., and Salehi, M. 2008. Study of drought stress at different growthstages on yield and yield components of threeChitti bean cultivars. Abstracts of 10^th Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding, August18-20. Karaj- Iran. p. 465. (In Persian).
14. Frahm, M.A., Rosas, J.C., Mayek-Perez, N., Lopez-Salinas, E., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., and Kelly, J.D. 2004. Breeding beans for resistance to terminal drought in the lowland tropics. Euphytica 136 (2): 223-232.
15. Galeshi, S., and Bayat Tork, Z. 2005. Investigation of the effect of dehydration stress after pollination on seed strength of two wheat cultivars. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 12(6): 71-63. (In Persian).
16. Jaleel, C.A., Manivannan, P., Wahid, A., Farooq, M., Al-Juburi, J., Somasundaram, R., and Panneerselvam, R. 2009. Drought stress in plants: A review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11(1): 100-105.
17. Jing, Y., and Huang, 2001. Osmoticadjustment root growth associatedwheat drought reconditioningenhanced heat tolerance in Kentuckybluegrass. Crop Sciences 41(4): 1168-1173.
18. Hosseinian, S., and Majnoon Hosseini, N. 2014. Analysis of correlation coefficients between grain yield and yield components in cowpea genotypes under normal and drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 45: 575-583. (In Persian).
19. Koohi-Dehkordi, H., and Khoddambashi, M. Effect of different humidity conditionson traits related to seed yield on common beangenotypes. Abstracts of 10^th Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding, August18-20. Karaj- Iran. p. 468. (In Persian).
20. Moradi, A., Ahmadi, A., and Hosseinzadeh, A.H. 2008. Agronomic-physiological response of mung bean (Parto cultivar) to severe and mild drought stress in vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 45: 671-659. (In Persian).
21. Morosan, M., Al Hassan, M., Naranjo, M.A., López-Gresa, M.P., Boscaiu, M., and Vicente, O. Comparative analysis of drought responses in Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) and P. coccineus (runner bean) cultivars. The EuroBiotech Journal 1(3): 247-252.
22. Nilsen, E.T., and Orcutt, D.M. 1996. The Physiology of Plants under Stress. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
23. Padilla-Ramírez, J.S., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Acosta-Díaz, E., Mayek-Pérez, N., and Kelly, J.D. 2005. Partitioning and partitioning rate to seed yield in drought-stressed and non-stressed dry bean genotypes. In: Annual Report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative, Vol, 48, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University.
24. Ramirez Builes, V.H., Porch, T.G., and Harmsen, E.W. 2011. Genotypic differences in water use efficiency of common bean under drought stress. Agronomy Journal 103(4): 1206-1215.
25. Rezaei, A., and Kamgar Haghighi, A.A. 2009. The effect of moisture stress at different stages of growth on the yield of cowpea. Soil and Water Sciences 1: 124-117. (In Persian).
26. Rosales-Serna, R., Kohashi-Shibata, J., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Trejo-Lopez, 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.
27. Sadeghipour, O., and Aghaei, P. 2012. Response of common bean to exogenous application of salicylic acid under water stress conditions. Environmental Biology 6: 1160-1168.
28. Samarah, N.H. 2005. Effects of drought stress on growth and yield of barley. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 25(1): 145-149.
29. Saxena, N.., Sethi, S.C., Krishnamurty, L., and Haware, M.P. 1995. Hysiological approaches to genetic enhancement of drought resistance in chickpea. In: International Congress on Integrated Studies on Drought Tolerance of Higher Plants, August 29-30. Montpellier, France.
30. Shenkut, A.A., and Brick, M.A. 2003. Traits associated with dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) productivity under diverse soil moisture environments. Euphytica 133 (3): 339-347.
31. Silva, M.D.A., Jifon, J.L., Da Silva, J.A., and Sharma, V. 2007. Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 19(3): 193-201.
32. Szilagyi, L. 2003. Influence of drought on seed yield components in common bean, Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology 11: 320-330.
33. Tesfaye, K., Walker, S., and Tsubo, M. 2006. Radiation interception and radiation use efficiency of three grain legume under water deficit conditions in semi-arid environment. European Journal of Agronomy 25(1): 60-70.
34. Turkan, I., Bor, M., Ozdemir, F., and Koca, H. 2005. Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought- tolerant acutifolius Gray and drought- sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Sciences 168: 223-231.
35. Wakrim, R., Wahabi, S., Tahi, H., Aganchich, B., and Serraj, R. 2005.Comparative effect of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation(RDI) on water relation and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Journals 106: 275-287.
36. Zabet, M., Hosein zade, A.H., Ahmadi, A., and Khialparast, F. 2003. Effect of water stress on different traits and determination of the best water stress index in mung bean (Vigna radiata). Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 34: 889-898. (In Persian).
37. Zobayed, S.M.A., Afreen, F., and Kozai, T. 2007. Phytochemical and physiological changes in the leaves of St. Johns wort plants under a water stress condition. Environmental and Experimental Botany Journals 59: 109-116.