Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T09:08:44.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection criteria and yield stability in a large collection of African yam bean [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex. A. Rich) Harms] accessions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2025

Oluwaseyi E. Olomitutu Open the ORCID record for Oluwaseyi E. Olomitutu [Opens in a new window] ,
Ayodeji Abe Open the ORCID record for Ayodeji Abe [Opens in a new window] ,
Rajneesh Paliwal Open the ORCID record for Rajneesh Paliwal [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael T. Abberton  and
Olaniyi A. Oyatomi Open the ORCID record for Olaniyi A. Oyatomi [Opens in a new window]
Oluwaseyi E. Olomitutu
Affiliation:
Genetic Resources Center, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Ayodeji Abe
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Horticultural Sciences, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Rajneesh Paliwal
Affiliation:
Genetic Resources Center, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Michael T. Abberton*
Affiliation:
Genetic Resources Center, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Olaniyi A. Oyatomi
Affiliation:
Genetic Resources Center, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
*
Corresponding author: Michael T. Abberton; Email: m.abberton@cgiar.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

African yam bean (AYB) is an underutilized legume with significant potential for food security in sub-Saharan Africa, yet limited research exists on optimizing its seed yield through selective breeding. In this study, the seed yield (SY) performance and relative importance of some yield-related traits on SY in AYB were assessed. One hundred and ninety-six accessions of AYB were evaluated for 2 years in three agro-ecologies of Nigeria. The experimental design was a 14 × 14 lattice design with three replicates. Data were recorded on SY and 13 SY-related traits. Positive significant genotypic correlations were found between SY and 11 of these traits. Pod length (PL) had a negative significant relationship (rg = −0.44**) with SY. Path coefficient analysis identified days to maturity (DM), pod weight (PW), shelling percentage (SP), number of seeds per pod (NSPD), 100-seed weight (HSW) and seed thickness (ST) as traits with positive direct effects on SY. The additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis revealed highly significant accession, environment, accession × environment interaction and interaction principal components effects for SY. Accessions TSs-119, TSs-101, 138A, TSs-4, TSs-157A and TSs-61 were identified as superior and stable, and should be considered for further breeding purposes. Selection criteria for improved SY in AYB should include DM, PW, SP, NSPD, HSW and ST. The identified stable, high-yielding accessions and key yield-related traits provide a framework for accelerating AYB improvement across diverse agro-ecologies.

Keywords

African yam beangenotypic correlationpath coefficient analysisseed yieldselection criteriayield stability

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , August 2025 , pp. 229 - 239
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of National Institute of Agricultural Botany

Introduction

Access to cheap energy-protein sources by people experiencing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa is limited by the much emphasis devoted to major staple food crops to the detriment of indigenous underutilized leguminous crops (Aremu et al., Reference Aremu, Ojuederie, Ayo-Vaughan, Dahunsi, Adekiya, Olayanju, Adebiyi, Sunday, Inegbedion, Asaleye and Abolusoro2019). In recent times, genetic improvement of indigenous legumes such as African yam bean (AYB) [Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex. A. Rich) Harms] is gaining popularity in Africa. The focus on AYB is not only for its nutritional values, but also for its socio-cultural significance (Ojuederie et al., Reference Ojuederie, Balogun, Akande, Korie and Omodele2015), adaptive nature to wide climatic and soil conditions (Aremu et al., Reference Aremu, Ige, Ibirinde, Raji, Abolusoro, Ajiboye, Obaniyi, Adekiya and Asaleye2020), nitrogen-fixing ability which makes it useful in land reclamation (Assefa and Kleiner, Reference Assefa and Kleiner1997; Oganale, Reference Oganale2009), medicinal properties (Potter, Reference Potter1992) and its inherent lectin which is useful against storage pests (Omitogun et al., Reference Omitogun, Jackai and Thottappilly1999). However, due to some non-appealing characteristics, lack of exchangeable planting seeds and non-availability of improved cultivars, the few available accessions are left in the hands of indigenous farmers (Klu et al., Reference Klu, Amoatey, Bansa and Kumaga2001). Although several reports have revealed considerable variation in yield and yield-associated traits among AYB accessions, no improved variety has been released. The current average yield reported for AYB range from 200 to 550 kg/ha (Aremu et al., Reference Aremu, Ige, Ibirinde, Raji, Abolusoro, Ajiboye, Obaniyi, Adekiya and Asaleye2020).

Yield is a quantitative trait with quite low heritability, and it is the product of several interacting component traits that are highly subjective to environmental influences (Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Wang, Wang, Tian, Li, Chen, Chao, Long, Xiang, Gan, Liang and Li2016). Yield improvement in crops is associated with the optimization and selection of heritable yield components (Olomitutu et al., Reference Olomitutu, Paliwal, Abe, Oluwole, Oyatomi and Abberton2022a). Selecting any heritable component trait(s) involves a complex pathway that leads to the formation of the complex (quantitative) trait (Nwofia et al., Reference Nwofia, Awaraka and Agbo2013; Kang, Reference Kang2015). Correlation coefficients help to measure the level of interrelationship existing between paired traits. It is very effective in determining yield contributing characters and in indirect selection (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Sharma, Sharma and Devi2015; Sesay et al., Reference Sesay, Ojo, Ariyo, Meseka, Fayeun, Omikunle and Oyetunde2017). However, the use of correlation coefficients alone is not always adequate, as it provides only one-dimensional information without considering the interrelationships among all yield component traits (Nwofia et al., Reference Nwofia, Awaraka and Agbo2013; Kang, Reference Kang2015). Path coefficient analysis is a standardized regression statistical technique that untangles correlation coefficients into direct and indirect effects in such a way that the contribution of each causal character to yield is known. It estimates the direct effect of a component trait on yield, and its indirect effects through another predictor component traits and helps in partitioning the traits into order of importance for selection and improvement purposes (Dewey and Lu, Reference Dewey and Lu1959; Cramer and Wehner, Reference Cramer and Wehner2000; Nwofia et al., Reference Nwofia, Awaraka and Agbo2013; Kang, Reference Kang2015; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Sharma, Sharma and Devi2015; Sesay et al., Reference Sesay, Ojo, Ariyo, Meseka, Fayeun, Omikunle and Oyetunde2017). Kumar et al. (Reference Kumar, Sharma, Sharma and Devi2015) suggested that combining correlation with path coefficient analyses provides a better appreciation of the causal relationship between pairs of characters. Previous studies in AYB by Nwofia et al. (Reference Nwofia, Awaraka and Agbo2013) and Aremu et al. (Reference Aremu, Ojuederie, Ayo-Vaughan, Dahunsi, Adekiya, Olayanju, Adebiyi, Sunday, Inegbedion, Asaleye and Abolusoro2019) have shown that yield is high corrected with and directly influenced by seeds per pod, pod filling time, pod length and pods per plant.

Though correlation and path coefficient analysis are still very useful in identifying these key yield component traits, the inconsistencies in the performance of the same genotype in many environments for specific traits make prediction of their phenotypic performance across a wide environment difficult (Perkins and Jinks, Reference Perkins and Jinks1968). Hence, there is a need to evaluate the crop varieties' stability across contrasting environments to facilitate the selection of high-yielding and consistently performing varieties (Ariyo, Reference Ariyo1990). Several stability statistics are used in partitioning genotype × environment interaction. The additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) method (Gauch, Reference Gauch1992) is one of the most frequently used. The AMMI method combines analysis of variance for genotype and environment main effects with the principal component analysis of the genotype × environment interaction into one (Zobel et al., Reference Zobel, Wright and Gauch1988). Because the AMMI model does not provide a specific stability measure, AMMI stability value (ASV) was proposed by Purchase (Reference Purchase1997) to rank genotypes according to their yield stability value. The ASV is estimated using interaction principal component axes (IPCA) 1 and 2. Genotypes with the least ASV are considered stable or adapted (Purchase, Reference Purchase1997). However, the idea that the most stable genotypes would not necessarily give the best yield performance has necessitated approaches incorporating both mean yield and stability in a single index, hence the yield stability index (YSI) (Bose et al., Reference Bose, Jambhulkar, Pande and Singh2014). The identified stable, high-yielding AYB genotypes can serve as valuable parents to develop improved varieties with enhanced yield stability. This study was conducted to (i) investigate inter-relationship and relative importance of some yield-related traits on seed yield of 196 AYB accessions and (ii) assess seed yield performance of AYB accessions evaluated in six environments.

Materials and methods

Experimental materials, research sites and experimental design

The experimental materials, research sites, experimental design, site management practices and data collection are as described by Olomitutu et al. (Reference Olomitutu, Paliwal, Abe, Oluwole, Oyatomi and Abberton2022a, Reference Olomitutu, Abe, Oyatomi, Paliwal and Abberton2022b). Briefly, the genetic materials comprised 196 accessions of AYB, obtained from the Genetic Resource Center, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (GRC-IITA), Ibadan. The field experiments were conducted over a 2-year period at Ibadan, Kano and Ubiaja. At each location, a 14 × 14 lattice design with three replicates was employed. The plots were single rows measuring 4.0 m in length and spaced 0.75 m. Seeds were sown 0.5 m apart within the rows, resulting in a plant population density of 26,666 per hectare. Staking was done 3 weeks after sowing. Weeds were controlled manually. Phosphorus fertilizer application in the form of triple superphosphate at a rate of 50 kg P/ha and staking were performed 3 weeks after planting. Fortnightly, Cypermethrin 30 g/l + Dimethoate 250 g/l EC and Macozeb 80% WP were applied at the rate of 200 ml and 200 g per 20 l of water, respectively, from the inception of flowering to harvest maturity, to control floral and pod pests, and fungal diseases. Ibadan and Kano were irrigated, while Ubiaja was rainfed. Manual weeding was carried out when necessary to keep the field clean.

Data collection

Data were collected on days to flowering, days to maturity (DM), pod filling time (PFT), number of pod/plant (NPPL), pod weight (PW, g/plant), pod length (PL, cm), number of locules/pod (NLPD), number of seeds/pod (NSPD), shelling percentage (SP), 100-seed weight (HSW, g), seed yield (SY, g/plant), seed length (SL, mm), seed width (SW, mm) and seed thickness (ST, mm) using the IITA descriptors for AYB (Adewale and Dumet, Reference Adewale and Dumet2011).

Data analyses

Trait associations

To determine the inherent relationships between paired traits, genotypic (r g) correlation coefficients were estimated using META-R (Multi Environment Trail Analysis with R for Windows) version 6.04 (Alvarado et al., Reference Alvarado, López, Vargas, Pacheco, Rodríguez, Burgueño and Crossa2015). Path coefficient analysis based on genotypic correlation was performed to determine each trait's direct and indirect effects on seed yield according to the procedure described by Kang (Reference Kang2015).

AMMI analysis

Plot mean of seed yield/plant (SYPL) in each of the six year × location environments was subjected to AMMI analysis using GEA-R (Genotype × Environment Analysis with R for Windows) Version 4.1 (Pacheco et al., Reference Pacheco, Vargas, Alvarado, Rodríguez, Crossa and Burgueño2015). The AMMI model is given as follows:

$$Y_{ij} = \mu + G_i + E_j + \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^n {\lambda _k\alpha _{ik}\gamma _{\,jk} + e_{ij}} \;$$

where; Yij = mean of yield of ith accessions in the jth environment; μ = grand mean; Gi = the ith accession mean deviation; Ej = the jth environment mean deviation; λk = square root of the eigenvalue of the PCA axis k; αik and γjk = the ith accession and jth environment PCA scores; eij = residual.

AMMI stability value (ASV)

The ASV was estimated following the formula proposed by Purchase (Reference Purchase1997) as follows:

$${\rm ASV} = \sqrt {{\left[{\displaystyle{{{\rm S}{\rm S}_{{\rm IPCA1}}} \over {{\rm S}{\rm S}_{{\rm IPCA2}}}}\;( {{\rm IPCA} 1_{{\rm score}}} ) } \right]}^2 + {( {{\rm IPCA} 2_{{\rm score}}} ) }^2} $$

where; SSIPCA1 = sum of squares of interaction principal component analysis 1; SSIPCA2 = sum of squares of interaction principal component analysis 2; IPCA1 and IPCA2 = interaction principal component analysis one and two. The smaller the ASV value (negative or positive), the more stable the accession across environments (Purchase, Reference Purchase1997).

Yield stability index (YSI)

The YSI was calculated based on the rank of the mean seed yield of accessions across the six environments and the rank of ASV.

$${\rm YSI} = {\rm RASV} + {\rm RSY}$$

where; RASV = rank of the accessions based on the AMMI stability value; RSY = rank of the accessions based on seed yield across environments. Accessions with the least YSI, i.e. high seed yield and low ASV, are considered superior (Tumuhimbise et al., Reference Tumuhimbise, Melis, Shanahan and Kawuki2014).

Results

Genotypic correlation

Except for SL and PL, all measured traits had positive significant genotypic relationships with SY (Table 1). The highest genotypic correlation coefficient with SY was recorded by PW (r g = 0.89**), followed by SP (r g = 0.76**), NPPL (r g = 0.53**) and DM (r g = 0.45**). Pod length had a significant relationship (r g = −0.44**) with SY. Significant positive genotypic correlations were also recorded between yield-related traits. Days to flowering was significantly correlated with DM, SP, PL, NLPD and NSPD. Pod filling time, PW, SP, PL and NLPD were significantly correlated with DM. The associations between NPPL on the one hand, and PW and SP on the other were significant. Also, PW was significantly correlated with SP, NLPD, 100-seed weight (HSW), seed width (SW) and seed thickness (ST). Hundred-seed weight, SL, SW and ST were also significantly associated with one another (Table 1).

Table 1.

Genotypic correlation coefficients among 14 traits of 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments

*, **, significant at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively.

DF, days to flowering; DM, days to maturity; PFT, pod filling time; NPPL, number of pods/plant; PW, pod weight; SP, shelling percentage; PL, pod length; NLPD, number of locules/pod; NSPD, number of seeds/pod; HSW, 100-seed weight; SL, seed length; SW, seed width; ST, seed thickness; SY, seed yield.

Path coefficient analysis

Path coefficient analysis revealed that DM (1.493), PW (0.839), SP (0.389) and NSPD (0.155) had positive direct effects on SY, whereas the direct effects of PFT (−1.757), DF (−1.452), NPPL (−0.290) and NLPD (−0.109) on SY were negative (Table 2). Days to flowering had positive indirect effects on SY through DM (0.523) and SP (0.112). Pod filling time had positive indirect influence on SY through DM (0.796) and PW (0.338). Number of pods/plant positively contributes indirectly to SY through PW (0.595) and SP (0.304). Pod length also indirectly influenced SY through DM (0.306). Number of locules/pod indirectly influences SY through DM (0.306), PW (0.160), NSPD (0.151) and SP (0.120). Seed length had an indirect contribution to SY through DM (0.219). Seed width had an indirect effect on SYPL through PW (0.212) and SP (0.167). The residual value of 0.30 was recorded.

Table 2.

Path analysis showing the direct (diagonal bold) and indirect effect of 13 agronomic traits on seed yield of 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments

Residual = 0.303, coefficient of determination = 0.9083.

DF, days to flowering; DM, days to maturity; PFT, pod filling time; NPPL, number of pods/plant; PW, pod weight; SP, shelling percentage; PL, pod length; NLPD, number of locules/pod; NSPD, number of seeds/pod; HSW, 100-seed weight; SL, seed length; SW, seed width; ST, seed thickness.

Yield stability index

The analysis of the AMMI model for SY revealed highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) variations among accessions, environments, accession × environment interaction and interaction principal components 1, 2 and 3 (Table 3). Accessions significantly contributed 9.2% to the total sum of squares, while environment and accessions × environment interaction contributed 53.4 and 37.3%, respectively. By partitioning the interaction term through the AMMI model, the first three multiplicative terms (PC1, PC2 and PC3) of AMMI significantly explained 51.0, 24.2 and 12.2% of the interaction sum of squares (Table 3).

Table 3.

Analysis of AMMI model for seed yield of 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments and the proportion of the total variance attributable to the sources of variation

**, *** significant at P-value <0.01 and <0.001, respectively.

DF, the degree of freedom; SS, the sum of square; MS, mean square.

The SY of the accessions ranged from 31.6 g/plant for accession TSs-421 to 6.2 g/plant for accession TSs-309 with a mean of 15.3 g/plant. Half (50.0%) of the AYB accessions in this study had a SY greater than 15.0 g/plant. The ASV of the accessions ranged from 0.018 for accession TSs-143 to 2.139 for accession TSs-195 (Table 4). Based on YSI criterion, accessions TSs-119 (12), TSs-101 (22), 138A (29), TSs-4 (39), TSs-157A (39), TSs-61 (49), TSs-63A (52), 55A (77), TSs-280 (78), TSs-56 (79) and TSs-10A (79) were the top-ranking accessions. Accessions TSs-421 (93) and TSs-195 (102) had the highest mean seed yield per plant and high ASV. Accession TSs-143 though had the lowest ASV, had a mean seed yield below the grand mean. Accessions such as TSs-104, TSs-363, TSs-29, TSs-278, TSs-19, TSs-443 and TSs-11 were low-yielding accessions with high ASV.

Table 4.

Mean seed yield, AMMI stability value, yield stability indices and their ranks for the 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments

SY, seed yield (g/plant); IPCA, interaction principal component (PC); ASV, AMMI stability value; RSY, rank of seed yield; RASV, rank based on AMMI stability value; YSI, yield stability index; YSIR, yield stability index rank.

Discussion

Genotypic correlation

Genotypic correlation coefficients were used in this study to give an indication of true associations, while excluding environmental influences associated with phenotypic correlation (Kang, Reference Kang2015). The significant negative association between SY and PL suggests that longer pods may not necessarily translate to higher seed yield in AYB. This finding is consistent with the report of Osuagwu et al. (Reference Osuagwu, Chukwurah, Ekpo, Akpakpan and Agbor2014), that longer pods may not necessarily translate to high seed yield in AYB. The finding also challenges conventional assumptions and highlights the importance of evidence-based selection criteria in breeding programmes. The positive significant genotypic association between SY and other traits is useful in indirect selection to improve seed yield. Ibirinde and Aremu (Reference Ibirinde and Aremu2013), Aremu et al. (Reference Aremu, Ojuederie, Ayo-Vaughan, Dahunsi, Adekiya, Olayanju, Adebiyi, Sunday, Inegbedion, Asaleye and Abolusoro2019) and Alake and Porbeni (Reference Alake and Porbeni2020) reported similar results for different traits in AYB. Simultaneous improvement of these yield-related traits could also be possible due to their significant positive associations. The high genotypic correlation coefficients between SY and PW, SP, NPPL and DM suggest that breeding efforts focused on these traits would be most effective for improving seed yield in AYB. However, the results also suggest potential trade-offs in selection, particularly regarding the association between DM and SY. While longer maturity showed a positive correlation with yield, practical considerations such as growing season length and growers' preferences may necessitate finding an optimal balance between DM and SY potential.

Path coefficient analysis

In the present study, the high coefficient of determination (0.9083) indicates that the analysed traits effectively explain approximately 91% of the total variation in SY, suggesting that our model captured the most significant yield-determining factors. The residual value of 0.30 suggests that 30% of the variation in SY of the AYB accessions is influenced by factors not included in this study, suggesting opportunities for further investigation of additional yield-related traits. The positive direct effects of DM, PW, SP, NSPD, HSW and ST on SY indicated the need to place special emphasis on these traits for the genetic improvement of SY in AYB. Using fewer number of AYB accessions, Nwofia et al. (Reference Nwofia, Awaraka and Agbo2013) had earlier reported a similar effect of HSW on SY in AYB, while Aremu et al. (Reference Aremu, Ojuederie, Ayo-Vaughan, Dahunsi, Adekiya, Olayanju, Adebiyi, Sunday, Inegbedion, Asaleye and Abolusoro2019) identified NSPD and DM as important first-order predictor variables of SY. Though DM exhibited the highest positive direct effect on SY, DF and PFT had a strong negative direct effect, suggesting a complex relationship between these phenological traits and yield. This indicates that early flowering combined with longer PFT might be optimal for yield improvement through indirect selection.

Apart from DF and PFT, other traits such as NPPL, NLPD and SW had a negative direct effect on SY, despite having significant positive genotypic correlations with SY. This was due to their positive indirect effects on SY through other traits. For instance, DF and PFT had a high positive indirect effect on SY via DM, suggesting that selection for these traits would be effective and hence influence SY and DM indirectly. This complex interaction emphasizes the need for careful consideration of trait relationships in breeding programmes. The negative direct effect of NPPL was unexpected given its positive correlation with yield, highlighting the importance of considering both direct and indirect effects in selection decisions.

Yield stability index

The YSI was used to identify stable accessions with good SY performance. The high contribution of environment (53.4%) to the total sum of squares indicated that environmental diversity caused most of the observed variation in SY. The higher magnitude of accession × environment interaction sums of squares compared to that of accession indicated the differential response of accessions in the environments and crossover genotype × environment interaction effects for SY. A similar result was reported by Aremu et al. (Reference Aremu, Ige, Ibirinde, Raji, Abolusoro, Ajiboye, Obaniyi, Adekiya and Asaleye2020) in AYB. The relatively smaller genotypic contribution to total variation, while still significant, suggests that genetic differences among accessions were masked by environmental effects and G × E interactions. This further buttress the need to employ selection strategies that account for both yield potential and stability. The high proportion explained by IPCA1 (51.0%) suggests that a considerable portion of the genotype response patterns can be captured by this first component, providing a reliable basis for selecting stable genotypes.

Accessions TSs-119, TSs-101, 138A, TSs-4, TSs-157A and TSs-61 were ranked most desirable, integrating stability with high mean seed yield. These accessions represent valuable germplasm for breeding programmes targeting broad environmental adaptation. A similar result had been reported by Aremu et al. (Reference Aremu, Ige, Ibirinde, Raji, Abolusoro, Ajiboye, Obaniyi, Adekiya and Asaleye2020) for TSs-61. Accessions TSs-143, TSs-280, 138A, TSs-84, TSs-69, TSs-157A, TSs-119, 151B, TSs-361 and TSs-22B with the lowest ASV were the most stable of the 196 accessions studied across the six environments. In a study involving 23 accessions of AYB, Aremu et al. (Reference Aremu, Ige, Ibirinde, Raji, Abolusoro, Ajiboye, Obaniyi, Adekiya and Asaleye2020) also reported TSs-69 as one of the most stable accessions in SY. In another study involving 30 AYB accessions, Adewale (Reference Adewale and Kehinde2016) identified accession TSs-84 as the most stable for 100-seed weight. Although accession TSs-143 was the most stable, it was not the most desirable due to its low SY, while accessions TSs-421 and TSs-195, which had the highest SY, were not the most desirable. These findings buttress the fact that stable genotypes do not necessarily give the best performance and vice versa (Bose et al., Reference Bose, Jambhulkar, Pande and Singh2014). While the stability trait of accessions like TSs-143 with low SY and high ASV could be valuable, their use in breeding programmes would need to be carefully considered to avoid compromising yield potential. Furthermore, the lower but consistent yield character of these accessions could reflect conservative resource management strategies which are particularly valuable under limited resource conditions. Also, while high-yielding accessions with low ASV may not be suitable for broad deployment, they could be valuable in breeding programmes targeting specific environments. Accessions such as TSs-104, TSs-363, TSs-29, TSs-278, TSs-19, TSs-443 and TSs-11 were low yielding and less stable, hence, they are least desirable. However, they may possess other valuable traits not captured in this study.

Conclusion

This study revealed days to maturity, pod weight, shelling percentage, number of seeds per pod, 100-seed weight and seed thickness as important traits that should be included in a selection criterion for improved seed yield in AYB. Further studies on marker–trait association for these traits should be encouraged to accelerate the genetic improvement of AYB for seed yield. Accessions TSs-119, TSs-101, 138A, TSs-4, TSs-157A and TSs-61, which combined superior seed yield with stability, should be considered in future breeding programmes for seed yield improvement. The identification of stable, high-yielding accessions and key yield-related traits provides a framework for accelerating AYB improvement across diverse agro-ecologies, while offering a valuable model for breeding programmes of other underutilized legumes in similar environmental conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors express gratitude to GRC seed bank staff members, IITA, Ibadan, the cassava breeding unit, IITA, Ubiaja, and the cowpea breeding unit, IITA, Kano for field assistance.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, M. T. A., A. A. and O. E. O.; funding acquisition, M. T. A.; investigation, O. E. O.; methodology, O. E. O., A. A., R. P. and O. A. O.; data curation, O. E. O.; formal analysis, O. E. O.; writing – original draft, O. E. O.; writing – review and editing, A. A., M. T. A., R. P. and O. A. O.

Funding statement

This study is funded by the Crop Trust through GRC-IITA.

Competing interests

None.

References

Adewale, D and Dumet, D (2011) Descriptors for African yam bean. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA series (accessible on www.iita.org).Google Scholar
Adewale, BD and Kehinde, OB (2016) Inheritance and stability of some agronomic traits of African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex. A. Rich) Harms). Ekin Journal of Crop Breeding and Genetics 2(2), 76–86.Google Scholar
Alake, CO and Porbeni, BJ (2020) Genetic variation and intraspecific diversity for agro-morphological and nutritional traits in African yam bean. Journal of Crop Improvement 34, 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2019.1677838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarado, G, López, M, Vargas, M, Pacheco, Á, Rodríguez, F, Burgueño, J and Crossa, J (2015) ‘META-R (Multi Environment Trail Analysis with R for Windows) Version 6.04’, https://hdl.handle.net/11529/10201, CIMMYT Research Data & Software Repository Network, V23.Google Scholar
Aremu, CO, Ojuederie, OB, Ayo-Vaughan, F, Dahunsi, O, Adekiya, AO, Olayanju, A, Adebiyi, OT, Sunday, I, Inegbedion, H, Asaleye, AJ and Abolusoro, S (2019) Morphometric analysis and characterization of the nutritional quality in African yam bean accessions. Plant Physiology Reports 24, 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-019-00472-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aremu, C, Ige, SA, Ibirinde, D, Raji, I, Abolusoro, S, Ajiboye, B, Obaniyi, S, Adekiya, A and Asaleye, A (2020) Assessing yield stability in African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) performance using year effect. Open Agriculture 5, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2020-0020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariyo, OJ (1990) Effectiveness and relative discriminatory abilities of techniques measuring genotype X environment interaction and stability in okra (Abelmoshus esculentus (L.) Monech). Euphytica 47, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00038823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assefa, F and Kleiner, D (1997) Nodulation of African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) by Bradyrhizobium sp. isolated from Erythrina brucei. Biology and Fertility of Soils 25, 209–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bose, LK, Jambhulkar, NN, Pande, K and Singh, ON (2014) Use of AMMI and other stability statistics in the simultaneous selection of rice genotypes for yield and stability under direct-seeded conditions. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 74, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392014000100001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, CS and Wehner, TC (2000) Path analysis of the correlation between fruit number and plant traits of cucumber populations. HortScience 35, 708–711. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.35.4.708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, DR and Lu, KH (1959) A correlation and path analysis of components of crester wheat grass seed production. Agronomy Journal 75, 153–155. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1959.00021962005100090002xGoogle Scholar
Gauch, HG Jr (1992) Statistical Analysis of Regional Yield Trials: AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ibirinde, DO and Aremu, CO (2013) Trait variability studies on African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) grown in the Guinea Savannah Zone of Southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Advance Biological Research 3, 422–427.Google Scholar
Kang, MS (2015) Efficient SAS programs for computing path coefficients and index weights for selection indices. Journal of Crop Improvement 29, 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2014.959628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klu, GYP, Amoatey, HM, Bansa, D and Kumaga, FK (2001) Cultivation and uses of African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) in the Volta Region of Ghana. The Journal of Food Technology in Africa 6, 74–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, P, Sharma, SD, Sharma, NC and Devi, M (2015) The path coefficient analysis of yield components for leaf nutrient concentrations in mango (Mangifera indica L.) under rainfed agroclimatic conditions of north-west Himalaya. Scientia Horticulturae 190, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.02.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nwofia, GE, Awaraka, RO and Agbo, CU (2013) Genetic variability and trait association studies in African Yam Bean (Sphenostylis sternocarpa) Hochst ex A. Rich. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science 13, 1547–1553.Google Scholar
Oganale, D (2009 September) Nodulation and nitrogen fixation of African yam beam (Sphenostylis stenocarpa). In Proceedings of African Crop Science Society Conference, Cape Town. Science and Technology supporting food security in Africa. September 28–October 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Ojuederie, OB, Balogun, MO, Akande, SR, Korie, S and Omodele, T (2015) Intraspecific variability in agro-morphological traits of African yam bean Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex. A. Rich) Harms. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology 18, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-014-0109-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olomitutu, OE, Paliwal, R, Abe, A, Oluwole, OO, Oyatomi, OA and Abberton, MT (2022a) Genome-wide association study revealed SNP alleles associated with seed size traits in African Yam Bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Hochst ex. A. Rich.) Harms). Genes 13, 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13122350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olomitutu, OE, Abe, A, Oyatomi, OA, Paliwal, R and Abberton, MT (2022b) Assessing intraspecific variability and diversity in African yam bean landraces using agronomic traits. Agronomy 12, 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omitogun, OG, Jackai, LEN and Thottappilly, G (1999) Isolation of insecticidal lectin-enrich extracts from African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) and other legume species. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 90, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.1999.00450.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osuagwu, AN, Chukwurah, PN, Ekpo, IA, Akpakpan, EE and Agbor, RB (2014) Variation, correlation and path coefficient analyses in seed yield and related characters in local accessions of African Yam Bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa) from Southern Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2012.6637Google Scholar
Pacheco, Á, Vargas, M, Alvarado, G, Rodríguez, F, Crossa, J and Burgueño, J (2015) ‘GEA-R (Genotype x Environment Analysis with R for Windows) Version 4.1’, https://hdl.handle.net/11529/10203, CIMMYT Research Data & Software Repository Network, V16.Google Scholar
Perkins, JM and Jinks, JL (1968) Environmental and genotype – environmental component of variability IV. Non-linear interactions for multiple inbred lines. Heredity 23, 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1968.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, D (1992) Economic botany of Sphenostylis (Leguminosae). Economic Botany 46, 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02866625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purchase, JL (1997) Parametric Analysis to Describe Genotype×Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Winter Wheat (Doctoral dissertation). University of the Free State.Google Scholar
Sesay, S, Ojo, DK, Ariyo, OJ, Meseka, SK, Fayeun, LS, Omikunle, AO and Oyetunde, AO (2017) Correlation and path coefficient analysis of top-cross and three-way cross hybrid maize populations. African Journal of Agricultural Research 12(1), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar2016.11997Google Scholar
Tumuhimbise, R, Melis, R, Shanahan, P and Kawuki, R (2014) Genotype× environment interaction effects on early fresh storage root yield and related traits in cassava. The Crop Journal 2, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2014.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, W, Wang, X, Wang, H, Tian, J, Li, B, Chen, L, Chao, H, Long, Y, Xiang, J, Gan, J, Liang, W and Li, M (2016) Genome-wide identification of QTL for seed yield and yield-related traits and construction of a high-density consensus map for QTL comparison in Brassicanapus. Frontiers in Plant Science 7, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00017Google Scholar
Zobel, RW, Wright, MJ and Gauch, HG Jr (1988) Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal 80:388–393. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Genotypic correlation coefficients among 14 traits of 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments

Figure 1

Table 2. Path analysis showing the direct (diagonal bold) and indirect effect of 13 agronomic traits on seed yield of 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments

Figure 2

Table 3. Analysis of AMMI model for seed yield of 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments and the proportion of the total variance attributable to the sources of variation

Figure 3

Table 4. Mean seed yield, AMMI stability value, yield stability indices and their ranks for the 196 accessions of African yam bean evaluated in six environments