Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8mwbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-11T22:57:30.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for genotypic differences among elite lines of common bean in the ability to remobilize photosynthate to increase yield under drought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2016

I. M. RAO ,
S. E. BEEBE ,
J. POLANIA ,
M. GRAJALES ,
C. CAJIAO ,
J. RICAURTE ,
R. GARCÍA  and
M. RIVERA
I. M. RAO*
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
S. E. BEEBE
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
J. POLANIA
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
M. GRAJALES
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
C. CAJIAO
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
J. RICAURTE
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
R. GARCÍA
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
M. RIVERA
Affiliation:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: i.rao@cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is the most important food legume for human consumption. Drought stress is the major abiotic stress limitation of bean yields in smallholder farming systems worldwide. The current work aimed to determine the role of enhanced photosynthate mobilization to improve adaptation to intermittent and terminal drought stress and to identify a few key adaptive traits that can be used for developing drought-resistant genotypes. Field studies were conducted over three seasons at Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Palmira, Colombia to determine genotypic differences in adaptation to intermittent (two seasons) and terminal (one season) drought stress compared with irrigated conditions. A set of 36 genotypes, including 33 common bean, two wild bean and one cowpea were evaluated using a 6 × 6 lattice design under irrigated and rainfed field conditions. Three common bean elite lines (NCB 226, SEN 56, SER 125) were identified with superior levels of adaptation to both intermittent and terminal drought stress conditions. The greater performance of these lines under drought stress was associated with their ability to remobilize photosynthate to increase grain yield based on higher values of harvest index, pod harvest index, leaf area index and canopy biomass. Two wild bean germplasm accessions (G 19902, G 24390) showed very poor adaptation to both types of drought stress. One small-seeded black line (NCB 226) was superior in combining greater values of canopy biomass with greater ability to mobilize photosynthates to grain under both types of drought stress. Two small-seeded red lines (SER 78, SER 125) seem to combine the desirable traits of enhanced mobilization of photosynthates to seed with effective use of water through canopy cooling under terminal drought stress. Pod harvest index showed significant positive association with grain yield under both types of drought stress and this trait can be used by breeders as an additional selection method to grain yield in evaluation of breeding populations for both types of drought stress.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 6 , August 2017 , pp. 857 - 875
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Acosta-Gallegos, J. A. & Kohashi-Shibata, J. (1989). Effect of water stress on growth and yield of indeterminate dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars. Field Crops Research 20, 81–90.Google Scholar
Acosta-Gallegos, J. A. & White, J. W. (1995). Phenological plasticity as an adaptation by common bean to rainfed environments. Crop Science 35, 199–204.Google Scholar
Ambachew, D., Mekbib, F., Asfaw, A., Beebe, S. E. & Blair, M. W. (2015). Trait associations in common bean genotypes grown under drought stress and field infestation by BSM bean fly. Crop Journal 3, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amongi, W., Nkaluboi, S. T., Ochwo-Ssemakula, M., Gibson, P. T. & Edema, R. (2014). Development of intermittent drought stress tolerant common bean genotypes in Uganda. African Crop Science Journal 22, 303–315.Google Scholar
Andrade, E. R., Ribeiro, V. N., Azevedo, C. V. G., Chiorato, A. F., Williams, T. C. R. & Cabonell, S. A. M. (2016). Biochemical indicators of drought tolerance in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica 210, 277–289.Google Scholar
Asfaw, A. & Blair, M. W. (2014). Quantification of drought tolerance in Ethiopian common bean varieties. Agricultural Sciences 5, 124–139.Google Scholar
Assefa, T., Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Cuasquer, J. B., Duque, M. C., Rivera, M., Battisti, A. & Lucchin, M. (2013). Pod harvest index as a selection criterion to improve drought resistance in white pea bean. Field Crops Research 148, 24–33.Google Scholar
Assefa, T., Wu, J., Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Marcomin, D. & Claude, R. J. (2015). Improving adaptation to drought stress in small red common bean: phenotypic differences and predicted genotypic effects on grain yield, yield components and harvest index. Euphytica 203, 477–489.Google Scholar
Beebe, S. E. (2012). Common bean breeding in the tropics. Plant Breeding Reviews 36, 357–426.Google Scholar
Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Cajiao, C. & Grajales, M. (2008). Selection for drought resistance in common bean also improves yield in phosphorus limited and favourable environments. Crop Science 48, 582–592.Google Scholar
Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Blair, M. W. & Acosta-Gallegos, J. A. (2013). Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Frontiers in Plant Physiology 4, 35. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00035 Google ScholarPubMed
Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Devi, M. J. & Polania, J. (2014). Common beans, biodiversity, and multiple stresses: challenges of drought resistance in tropical soils. Crop and Pasture Science 65, 667–675.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (2005). Drought resistance, water use efficiency, and yield potential – are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 1159–1168.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (2009). Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Research 112, 119–123.Google Scholar
Castañeda-Saucedo, M. C., Cordova-Tellez, L., Gonzalez-Hernandez, V. A., Delgado-Alvarado, A., Santacruz-Varela, A. & García-de los Santos, G. (2009). Comportamiento fisiológico, rendimiento y calidad de semilla de frijol sometido a sequía (Physiological performance, yield, and quality of dry bean seeds under drought stress). Interciencia 34, 748–754.Google Scholar
Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P. & Pereira, J. S. (2003). Understanding plant responses to drought – from genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology 30, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condon, A. G., Richards, R. A., Rebetzke, G. J. & Farquhar, G. D. (2004). Breeding for high water use efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany 55, 2447–2460.Google Scholar
Cuellar-Ortiz, S. M., Arrieta-Montiel, M. P., Acosta-Gallegos, J. & Covarrubias, A. A. (2008). Relationship between carbohydrate partitioning and drought resistance in common bean. Plant, Cell and Environment 31, 1399–1409.Google Scholar
Devi, M. J., Sinclair, T. R., Beebe, S. E. & Rao, I. M. (2013). Comparison of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes for nitrogen fixation tolerance to soil drying. Plant and Soil 364, 29–37.Google Scholar
Habibi, G. (2011). Influence of drought on yield and yield components in white bean. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Science Index 55 – International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and Biotechnological Engineering 5(7), 380–389. Available from: http://waset.org/Publication/influence-of-drought-on-yield-and-yield-components-in-white-bean/12610 (verified 9 September 2016).Google Scholar
Klaedtke, S. M., Cajiao, C., Grajales, M., Polania, J., Borrero, G., Guerrero, A., Rivera, M., Rao, I. M., Beebe, S. & Léon, J. (2012). Photosynthate remobilization capacity from drought-adapted common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) lines can improve yield potential of interspecific populations within the secondary gene pool. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 4, 49–61.Google Scholar
Lord, J. M. & Westoby, M. (2011). Accessory costs of seed production and the evolution of angiosperms. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution 66, 200–210.Google Scholar
Mukeshimana, G., Butare, L., Kregan, P. B., Blair, M. W. & Kelly, J. D. (2014). Quantitative trait loci associated with drought tolerance in common bean. Crop Science 54, 923–928.Google Scholar
Neumann, P. M. (2008). Coping mechanisms for crop plants in drought-prone environments. Annals of Botany 101, 901–907.Google Scholar
Nuñez-Barrios, A. N., Hoogenboom, H. & Nesmith, D. S. (2005). Drought stress and the distribution of vegetative and reproductive traits of a bean cultivar. Scientia Agricola 62, 18–22.Google Scholar
Passioura, J. B. (1996). Drought and drought tolerance. Plant Growth Regulation 20, 79–83.Google Scholar
Patrick, J. W. & Colyvas, K. (2014). Crop yield components – photoassimilate supply- or utilization limited-organ development? Functional Plant Biology 41, 893–913.Google Scholar
Polania, J., Rao, I. M., Cajiao, C., Rivera, M., Raatz, B. & Beebe, S. (2016). Physiological traits associated with drought resistance in Andean and Mesoamerican genotypes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica 210, 17–29.Google Scholar
Rao, I. M. (2001). Role of physiology in improving crop adaptation to abiotic stresses in the tropics: the case of common bean and tropical forages. In Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology (Ed. Pessarakli, M.), pp. 583–613. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
Rao, I. M. (2014). Advances in improving adaptation of common bean and Brachiaria forage grasses to abiotic stresses in the tropics. In Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology, Third Edition (Ed. Pessarakli, M.), pp. 847–889. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, I. M., Beebe, S., Ricaurte, J., Cajiao, C., Polania, J. & Garcia, R. (2007). Phenotypic evaluation of drought resistance in advanced lines of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). In A Century of Integrating Crops, Soils & Environment. Proceedings of the ASA-CSSA-SSSA International Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 4–8 November 2007. Paper 260–3. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Available from: https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2007am/techprogram/P31462.HTM (verified 9 September 2016).Google Scholar
Rao, I. M., Beebe, S. E., Polanía, J., Grajales, M., Cajiao, C., García, R., Ricaurte, J. & Rivera, M. (2009). Physiological basis of improved drought resistance in common bean: the contribution of photosynthate mobilization to grain (abstract). In Interdrought-III (Shanghai 2009). Abstracts. The 3rd International Conference on Integrated Approaches to Improve Crop Production under Drought-Prone Environments, October 11–16, 2009, Shanghai, China. L6·14, p. 64. Available from: http://www.plantstress.com/Interdrought/ID3/InterDrought%20III%20Abstracts.pdf (verified 9 September 2016).Google Scholar
Rao, I., Beebe, S., Polania, J., Ricaurte, J., Cajiao, C., García, R. & Rivera, M. (2013). Can tepary bean be a model for improvement of drought resistance in common bean? African Crop Science Journal 21, 265–281.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2012). SAS/STAT 9·3 User's Guide, 2nd edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. & Purcell, L. C. (2005). Is a physiological perspective relevant in a ‘genocentric’ age? Journal of Experimental Botany 56, 2777–2782.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P. (1982). A key for identification of different growth habits of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Annual Report of Bean Improvement Cooperative 25, 92–95.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P., Hayes, R., Robison, C., Dennis, M. & Powers, E. (2001). Response of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars to drought stress. Annual Report of Bean Improvement Cooperative 44, 45–46.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, 2nd edn. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Washington, DC: USDA-NRCS.Google Scholar
Szilagyi, L. (2003). Influence of drought on seed yield components in common bean. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology, Special issue 2003, 320–330.Google Scholar
Terán, H. & Singh, S. P. (2002). Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Science 42, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urrea, C. A., Yonts, C. D., Lyon, D. J. & Koehler, A. E. (2009). Selection for drought tolerance in dry bean derived from the Mesoamerican gene pool in western Nebraska. Crop Science 49, 2005–2010.Google Scholar
Vadez, V., Hash, T., Bidinger, F. R. & Kholova, J. (2012). Phenotyping pearl millet for adaptation to drought. Frontiers in Physiology 3, 386. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2012.00386.Google Scholar
White, J. W. & Castillo, J. A. (1992). Evaluation of diverse shoot genotypes on selected root genotypes of common bean under soil water deficits. Crop Science 32, 762–765.Google Scholar
White, J. W. & Singh, S. P. (1991). Sources and inheritance of earliness in tropically adapted indeterminate common bean. Euphytica 55, 15–19.Google Scholar