Morphophysiological Responses of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Genotypes to Water Stress

Morphophysiological effects of water stress in common beans

  • Mebelo Mataa University of Zambia, School of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Plant Sciences
  • Philip Kalima
  • Davies Lungu
Keywords: cell membrane thermostability, chlorophyll, drought susceptibility index.

Abstract

Yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is highly constrained by water deficit especially when this occurs during the reproductive development. The purpose of the study was to determine the association of the morphophysiological traits with water stress and how this affects grain yield in common beans. A field experiment involving eight common bean genotypes and three water regimes (50 %, 75 %, and 100 % of crop evapotranspiration) was conducted at National Irrigation Research Station, Mazabuka district during the 2012 growing season. A Split plot design with four replications was used; with soil moisture regime (main plot) and the genotypes (subplot). Based on variation in water stress tolerances, 8 test genotypes - Gadra, KE 3, KE 4, ZM 4488, SER 76 SER 180, SER 89 and CAR-ZAR were used. Water stress treatments were imposed at pre-flowering stage and was discontinued after 43 days when the crop was in its late reproductive stage. Significant differences were found among genotypes for Chlorophyll a (Chl a), Chlorophyll b (Chl b), Total Chlorophyll, Relative water content, Grain yield, Number pods per, Seed weight, Seeds per pod and Days to 50 % flowering under the three water stress conditions. The grain yield in normally irrigated condition (2191.3 kg ha-1) was 60 % higher than in high water stress condition (866.2 kg ha-1), while in the low water stress condition (1078.3 kg ha-1), the reduction in grain yield was 50.8 %. There were significant genotype by environment showing that the genotypes behaved differently under the different growing conditions. Results suggested that Gadra, KE 4, ZM 4488, and SER 180 were water stress tolerant while the SER 89, CAR-ZAR, KE 3 and SER 76 were water stress sensitive genotypes. These results suggest that a selection method based on 100 SW, Chl a, Chl b, and NPP can be used in breeding for bean genotypes to water stress.

References

1. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Devi M and Polnia J. 2014. Common beans, biodiversity and multiple stresses: challenges of drought resistance in tropical soils. Crop and Pasture Science. 65: 667- 675.
2. Emam Y, Shekoofa A, Salehi F and Jalali AH. 2010. Water stress effects on two Common bean cultivars with contrasting growth habits. 9: 495- 499.
3. Broughton, WJ., G. Hernandez, M. Blair, S. Beebe, P. Gepts, and J. Vanderleyden. 2003: Beans (Phaseolus spp.) - model food legumes. Plant Soil 252: 55-128.
4. Series, Fodis Information, Food Crop, and Diversification Support. 2009. Growing Beans in Zambia. Extension Pamphlet. Field Services, Zambia.
5. Wahid, A., S. Gelani, M. Ashraf, MR. Foolad. 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: An overview. Environmental and Experimental Botany 61: 199- 223.
6. Mataa, M. and S. Tominaga. 1998. The effects of shading stage and level on fruit set and development, leaf carbohydrates and photosynthesis in ponkan (Citrus reticulata Blanco). Japanese Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 42: 103- 110.
7. Mataa M., K. Mphande and K. Munyinda. 2019. Interactive effects of phosphorus and water stress on plant development and yield resilience in common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). African Journal of Agricultural Research. 14: 949- 962.
8. Namugwanya, M., JS. Tenywa, E. Otabbong, DN. Mubiru and TA. Basamba. 2014. Development of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production under low soil phosphorus and drought in Sub- Saharan Africa: A review. Journal of Sustainable Development 5: 128- 139.
9. Jones HG. and JE. Corlett. 1992. Current topics in drought physiology. Journal of Agricultural Science 119: 291-296
10. Acosta-gallegos, JA. and M. Domingo. 2009. Adaptation traits in dry bean cultivars grown under drought stress. Características de adaptación en variedades de frijol Bajo Sequía 35: 416- 425.
11. Mukeshimana, G., AL Lasley, W. H. Loescher and JD. Kelly. 2014. Identification of shoot traits related to drought tolerance in common bean seedlings. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 139: 299- 309.
12. Suriyagoda, LDB. Ryan, MH. Renton, M and H. Lambers. 2014. Plant responses to limited moisture and phosphorus availability: A meta- analysis. Advances in Agronomy, 124: 143- 200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-7.0004-8
13. Larcher, W., 2001. Physiological Plant Ecology: Ecophysiology and Stress Physiology of Functional Groups. 4th edition. Springer, pp: 513
14. Xu, H. Liu, G. Liu, G. Yan, B. Duan, W. Wang, L and S. Li. 2014. Comparison of investigation of heat injury in grapevine (Vitis) and assessment of heat tolerance in different cultivars and species. BMC Plant Biol 14: 156. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229- 14- 156
15. Blum, A. (1988): Plant Breeding for Stress Environments, CRC Press, London.
16. El Basyoni, I., M. Saadalla, S. Baenziger, H. Bockelman and S. Morsey. 2017. Cell membrane stability and association mapping for drought and heat tolerance worldwide wheat collection. Sustainability9: 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091606
17. Nyarko, G. Alderson, P. G. Craigon, J. Murchie E. and DL. Sparkes. 2008. Comparison of thermostability and chlorophyll flourescence parametres for the determination of heat tolerance in cabbage lines. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 83: 678- 6782.
18. Kandel, H. 2010. Dry bean types and development stages. Plant Science. Issue 6.
19. Arnon D. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts: polyphenol oxidases in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24: 1–15.
20. Karlidag, H., E. Yildirin, M. Turan, Pehluvan, M, Donmez, F. 2013. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria mitigate deleterious effects of salt stress on strawberry plants (Fragaria x ananassa). HortSci. 48: 563-567.
21. Fischer, RA., and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 29: 897- 912. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR9780897
22. Kristin AS., Serna R. R., Pérez F. I., Enríquez BC., Gallegos JAA., Vallejo P .R., Wassimi N., Kelley J. D. 1997. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci. 37: 43-50.
23. SAS Institute, 1988. SAS/User's Guide, Release 6.03 ed., SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA.
24. Taiz, L. and E. Zeiger. 2002. Plant Physiology, 3rd Edition. Senauer Assoc., Sunderland. MA. 690 pp.
25. Ara, N. Yang J. Hu, Z. and M. Zhang. 2013. Determination of heat tolerance of interspecific (Cucurbita maxima x Cucurbita moschata) inbred line of squash ‘Maxchata’ and its parents through photosynthetic response. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 19: 188- 197.
26. Baroowa, B, and N. Gogoi. 2012. Effect of induced drought on different growth and biochemical attributes of black gram (Vigna mungo L.) and green gram (Vigna radiata L.)” 6 (3).
27. Masaccio, A., SM, Nabiev, L. Pietrosanti, SK Nematov, TN. Chernikova, K. Thor and J. Leipner. 2008. Response of photosynthetic apparatus of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to the onset of drought stress under field conditions studied by gas-exchange analysis and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 46: 189–195.
28. Kaiser W.M., Prachuab G., Kaiser G., Wildmann SG., and Heber U., Photosynthesis under osmotic stress. 1981Inhibition of photosynthesis of intact chloroplasts, protoplasts and leaf slices at high osmotic potentials, Planta, 153, 416-422.
29. Long S.P., Humphries S. and Falkowski P.G., 1994. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 45: 633-662.
30. Wahid, A., S. Gelani, M. Ashraf, MR. Foolad. 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: An overview. Environmental and Experimental Botany 61: 199–223.
31. Pastori, GM., Trippi, V. S. 1992. Oxidative stress induces high rate of glutathione reductase synthesis in a drought resistant maize strain. - Plant Cell Physiol. 33: 957-961.
32. Jian, Y., H. Liu, V. Cline. 2009. Correlations of leaf relative water content, canopy temperature and spectral reflectance in perennial ryegrass under water deficit conditions. HortScience, 44: 459-462.
33. Kumar A., H. Omae, Y. Egawa, K. Kashiwaba, and M. Shono. 2006. JARQ, 40: 213.
34. Molina, JC., V. Moda- Carino, N. Da S.F.Junior, RT. De Faria and D. Destro, 2001. Response of common bean cultivars and lines to water stress. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotech., 1:363-372
35. Emam, Y., 1985. Effects of N levels and moisture regimes on agronomic characteristics of four cultivars of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). M.Sc Thesis. Shiraz University, Iran. Pp: 41. (in Farsi).
36. Teran, H and S.P. Singh. 2002. Comparison of sources and selected lines for drought resistance in common beans. Crop Sci., 42: 64-70.
37. Barrios, A., Hoogenboom, and G., Nesmith, D.S. 2005. Drought stress and the distribution of vegetative and reproductive traits of a bean cultivar. Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.). 62: 18-22
38. Agili, S, B Nyende, K. Ngamau, and P Masinde. 2012. Nutrition and food selection , yield evaluation , drought tolerance indices of orange-flesh sweetpotato (Ipomoea Batatas Lam ) hybrid clone, 2: 2- 9. doi:10.4172/2155-9600.1000138.
39. Ramalho, M.A.P., Santos, J.B. and Zimmermann, M.J.O. 1993. Genetica quantittaiva en plantas autogamas: aplicacoes ao melhoramento de feijoeiro. UFG, Goiania. 271p.
Published
2021-10-27
How to Cite
1.
Mataa M, Kalima P, Lungu D. Morphophysiological Responses of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Genotypes to Water Stress. University of Zambia Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences [Internet]. 27Oct.2021 [cited 28May2022];5(1). Available from: https://journals.unza.zm/index.php/JABS/article/view/611
Section
Agriculture Sciences