Bambara groundnut: an exemplar underutilised legume for resilience under climate change

Abstract

Main conclusion

Bambara groundnut has the potential to be used to contribute more the climate change ready agriculture. The requirement for nitrogen fixing, stress tolerant legumes is clear, particularly in low input agriculture. However, ensuring that existing negative traits are tackled and demand is stimulated through the development of markets and products still represents a challenge to making greater use of this legume.

Abstract

World agriculture is currently based on very limited numbers of crops, representing a significant risk to food supplies, particularly in the face of climate change which is expected to increase the frequency of extreme events. Minor and underutilised crops can help to develop a more resilient and nutritionally dense future agriculture. Bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.[, as a drought resistant, nitrogen-fixing, legume has a role to play. However, as with most underutilised crops, there are significant gaps in knowledge and also negative traits such as ‘hard-to-cook’ and ‘photoperiod sensitivity to pod filling’ associated with the crop which future breeding programmes and processing methods need to tackle, to allow it to make a significant contribution to the well-being of future generations. The current review assesses these factors and also considers what are the next steps towards realising the potential of this crop.

Introduction

Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.; 2x = 2n = 22) is an underutilised African legume crop which is grown at low levels very extensively throughout sub-Saharan Africa (Duke 1982; Azam-Ali et al. 2001; Basu et al. 2007b; Okonkwo and Opara 2010; Bamshaiye et al. 2011). It is also grown in Southeast Asia in regions of Indonesia and Thailand. As a legume, it fixes atmospheric nitrogen and contributes to soil fertility (Sprent et al. 2010) in addition to being an agronomically and nutritionally good complement to cereal crops (FAO 1982; Halimi et al. 2019). It is a geocarpic crop, a close relative of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and morphologically fits into the same niche as groundnut (peanut; Arachis hypogaea L.), although compositionally, the seed is closer to chickpea (Cicer arietinum) (Halimi et al. 2019). Unlike soybean (Glycine max) which has received considerable scientific and financial support since its introduction, bambara groundnut has received limited support from governmental or international agencies and has largely been ignored by the research community (Heller et al. 1997; Oyeyinka et al. 2015). Groundnut was introduced in West Africa from Brazil and may have replaced bambara groundnut, because seeds of groundnut contain significant amounts of oil, so that it can be cultivated as an oil seed crop. Awareness about the potential of Bambara groundnut as a food crop in dry areas has increased in recent years; however, the crop still lacks proper seed systems and best agronomic practices have not been established and shared widely (Hillocks et al. 2012; Feldman et al. 2019).

Beyond cultural value, the main trait which bambara groundnut exhibits is drought resistance with reasonable yield and this is likely to be one of the main reason that it has still been maintained by local populations (Adzawla et al. 2016a, b; Olayide et al. 2018). It is generally grown as landraces, which are mixtures of essentially inbred lines which are likely to have been selected for the agro-ecology in which they have been grown for perhaps thousands of generations, without major directed selection beyond the environment and the farming system itself (Zeven 1998). The effects of climate change which include reduced and erratic rainfall patterns in many parts of the world, will require crops and agricultural systems with more resilience (FAO 2009;  IPCC 2014; Padulosi et al. 2011; Mayes et al. 2012). Bambara groundnut and similar crops can be an important part of more resilient and complex systems, which provide additional nutritional and food security.

This paper outlines the values and potential uses of the crop, recent research progress evaluating both beneficial and negative traits and concludes with prospects and requirements for future breeding.

Markets and product value addition

Bambara groundnut production and consumption is predominant among subsistence farmers in West African countries (Goli et al. 1991; Goli 1997). In Ghana, bambara groundnut is sometimes planted on yam mounds, protecting the mound from erosion (Doku and Karikari 1971). A recent study conducted in the driest parts of Zimbabwe (less than 800 mm annual rainfall) has shown preference for this crop over maize, peanut, or cowpea (Mubaiwa et al. 2018). The use and consumer preferences of bambara groundnut are strongly based on the seed testa colour and taste. The testa colours present in bambara groundnut landraces are highly variable with cream or white seeded commanding up to a 10% premium in some countries.

Bambara groundnut seeds are processed and eaten in many ways. They can be boiled and consumed fresh or grilled while immature. Mubaiwa et al. (2018) provide an excellent account of bambara groundnut processing into various products in the semi-arid regions of Zimbabwe. In many West African countries, the fresh pods are boiled with salt and pepper, and eaten as a snack. The seed is used to make flour, which makes it more versatile (Kaptso et al. 2007). The young fresh seeds may be boiled and eaten in a manner-like boiled peanut and are made into a pudding (or steamed-paste) called Moi–Moi or Okpa (bean porridge) in some parts of Nigeria (Okpuzor et al. 2010). It has also been tested as a way to increase protein content in Ojojo made from water Yam (Dioscorea alata; Alakali et al. 2016).

In Nigeria, especially in the East, Bambara groundnut is an important food crop and can be used in traditional preparation of various recipes. The seeds are roasted, pulverized, and used in preparing soup (Adu-Dapaah and Sangwan 2004) or roasted and chewed with palm kernel. The fresh immature green seed is produced and consumed raw as a vegetable or cooked, while dry seeds can be processed to flour to prepare diverse forms of Bambara groundnut such as Okpa and cake (Okpuzor et al. 2010). Bambara groundnut seed haulms are also used to feed livestock and poultry (Anchirinah et al. 2001).

According to Linnemann and Azam Ali (1993), bambara groundnut flour can be used to make bread. Milk produced from bambara groundnut is comparable to that produced from soybean with bambara groundnut milk containing 15–16% protein compared with 4% protein in the soy milk (Adu-Dapaah et al. 2016). Bambara groundnut milk is preferred to that from other pulses because of its flavour and colour (Goli 1997). In Indonesia, a deep-fried bambara groundnut snack made from the immature seed is highly sought after. Known as ‘Kacang Bogor’ (‘Bogor nut’), it fetches high prices in supermarkets and even in specialist food shops in Europe. In appearance, it is similar to dry roasted peanut, but is drier (less oil) and more strongly flavoured (Sri Redjeki, pers. comm.). A number of recipes substituting bambara groundnut for other ingredients have also been developed at Crops For the Future (http://www.cropsforthefuture.org; also Fig. 8.3 in Feldman et al. 2019).

Local practices and uses

The production of Bambara groundnut is Africa-wide has been recorded to be approximately 0.3 million tonnes annually (Table 1; Hillocks et al. 2012; Nedumaran et al. 2015) with Nigeria regarded as the largest producer of bambara groundnut in Africa (0.1 million tonnes; Hillocks et al. 2012). Although the yield (t ha−1) of bambara groundnut in Africa varies between landraces and locations (0.5–3 t ha−1) with yield potential of over 3 t ha−1 (Begemann 1988), the average yield of 0.85 t ha−1 was reported to be comparable to other legumes (Table 1; Stanton et al. 1966). In spite of the useful characteristics in bambara groundnut, farmers in sub-Saharan Africa obtain low yields and this requires research attention to develop improved varieties and crop management practices.

Table 1 Yield and production of legumes in Africa

A critical consideration will be acceptability and local practice, with the need for farmer groups to be closely involved in any future breeding effort to ensure that (farmer) selected lines suit the farmers’ immediate needs, with backcrossing in of the new trait into current local lines, if necessary. Hillocks et al. (2012) emphasise the importance of this approach from a socioeconomic perspective.

The diversity in use and preference can be illustrated with country specific examples. For example, phenological studies conducted in southern Ghana, where a bimodal rainfall pattern exists revealed that bambara groundnut can be grown twice in a year (Berchie et al. 2013). The study also revealed that the time of sowing affected the yield of bambara groundnut. Yields were higher in the dry minor rainfall season compared with the major rainy season (Berchie et al. 2013). Berchie et al. (2013) also found that yields were higher in the Transition agro-ecology, where temperatures are higher, and rainfall is lower compared with the forest agro-ecologies. Pod yields of up to 4 t ha−1 were obtained in some landraces in the transition agro-ecological zone in Ghana. The study also revealed that when bambara groundnut is cultivated at appropriate time in the forest agro-ecology in Ghana, relatively high yields could be attained.

Bambara groundnut farmers grow the crop for food or for cash or both. In a survey involving 200 bambara groundnut farmers, 33 marketers and 68 consumers in the Brong Ahafo and the Upper East Regions in Ghana, it was revealed that more women (63%) grow the crop compared with men (37%; Berchie et al. 2010b). In the northern part of Ghana, most farmers (78%) grow the crop for food, while in contrast, the vast majority of farmers (73%) in the mid-country (transition zone) grow the crop for cash. Berchie et al. (2010b) also found that most farmers (63–83%) farmed on family lands. In northern parts of Ghana bambara, groundnut production has gone down, while production has gone up in the middle part of the country. Constraints to Bambara groundnut production included erratic rainfall, labour shortage, and lack of credit (Berchie et al. 2010b). The study also revealed that bambara groundnut grain is in high supply in the months of October–December in most parts of the country but scarce in the months of January, July, and August. Most farmers obtain seeds from their own saved seeds and the open markets. The average acreage per farmer under cultivation was 1.1 acres and yield ranges from 0.6 to 1.0 t ha−1. With respect to marketing, most bambara groundnut sellers are women. The major challenge with marketing was the low price particularly in the northern part of Ghana (Berchie et al. 2010b). More recent studies have also addressed these questions further in Ghana (Adzawla et al. 2016a, b) and Nigeria (Olayide et al. 2018).

Evaluation of traits of importance

Bambara groundnut—a drought resilient crop

Drought provokes various above- and below-ground responses in plants. These responses allow drought resistant plants to either avoid (Liu and Stützel 2002; Liu et al. 2005), escape (Ludlow and Muchow 1990) or tolerate (Farooq et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2010; Blum 2011) drought.

  1. 1.

    Avoidance: this is most common in plants and occurs mostly in response to intermittent stress. It refers to the capability of plants to maintain fundamentally normal physiological processes under mild, moderate, and intermittent drought stress. Plants enhance soil water capture and minimise water losses through an extensive and prolific root systems (biomass, length, density, and depth as main characteristics), stomatal regulation, reduction in canopy size and duration, leaf rolling, increasing wax accumulation on the leaf surface and heliotropism among other mechanisms. Concomitant downregulation of photosynthesis through reduced radiation capture and a reduced accumulation of antioxidants also accompanies these responses.

  2. 2.

    Escape: this is related to phenological plasticity. Plants may hasten their life cycle to allow them to reproduce before water stress becomes terminal. This is commonly the case in annual crops, where flowering and maturity times are hastened. However, this mechanism has trade-offs with reduced biomass accumulation and build-up of harvest index due to reduced growth duration. Breeding for earliness per se could also be a breeding focus of bambara groundnut at agrogeographical regions, where very limited rainfall is observed during the planting cycles and irrigation is not feasible. Some early maturing genotypes of bambara groundnut have been identified, including ‘Zebra coloured’ which matures in 90 days and ‘Mottled cream’ which matures in 98–100 days with 12.5–23.6 g pods per plant recorded (Berchie et al. 2010a, c). ‘In addition, landraces ‘Red’ and ‘Brown’ from Jozini, South Africa, displayed a significantly earlier maturity date [mean: 123 days after planting (DAP)] when bambara groundnut plants were subjected to stress at 30% of crop water use (ETa) compared to 100% ETa (mean: 128 DAP; Mabhaudhi et al. 2013) demonstrating developmental plasticity.

  3. 3.

    Tolerance: this is perhaps the least common mechanism exhibited by plants under drought stress. It is the ability of plants to sustain a certain level of physiological activity under terminal drought stress through the regulation of thousands of genes and their networks. Plants improve their osmotic adjustment ability and increase the cell-wall elasticity to maintain tissue turgidity. In addition, plants alter a series of metabolic pathways to reduce or repair the resulting stress damage by augmenting osmoregulatory molecules in the cells and adjusting the activities of cell defence enzymes to reduce the accumulation of hazardous by-products.

Bambara groundnut exhibits all three drought tolerance mechanisms—avoidance, escape, and tolerance (Brough and Azam-Ali 1992; Collinson et al. 1995, 1997; Jorgensen et al. 2010; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Mabhaudhi et al. 2013; Muhammad et al. 2015; Chai et al. 2016). This makes bambara groundnut an ideal crop, as it can tolerate a range of environmental conditions and durations of stress (Feldman et al. 2019). Moreover, bambara groundnut has adapted to contrasting environments, from cold temperatures at night and high temperatures during the day in an arid environment in Botswana, through to far milder and more humid environments in Indonesia. This makes it an important crop for promotion in areas that are currently drought prone as well as an important future crop in areas, where climate change projections show an increased frequency and intensity in droughts. For example, Mabhaudhi et al. (2018) projected that yield and water productivity of bambara groundnut will increase by ~ 37.5% and 33%, respectively, in response to projected climate change in South Africa. Furthermore, Mabhaudhi et al. (2016) also demonstrated that under climate change, the areas suitable for bambara groundnut production would also expand in South Africa, confirming the resilience of the crop under climate change.

Drought-resistance mechanisms in bambara groundnut have been elucidated by several studies in the last 30 years (Collinson et al. 1997, 1999; Jorgensen et al. 2010; Vurayai et al. 2011; Laary et al. 2012; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Al Shareef et al. 2014; Chibarabada et al. 2015; Berchie et al. 2016; Nautiyal et al. 2017). Studies by Collinson et al. (1997) indicated that bambara groundnut can maintain leaf turgor pressure by osmotic adjustment, reduced leaf area, and operational stomatal regulation. The report suggested that bambara groundnut can maintain turgor at water potential of − 2.0 megapascal (MPa), which is much lower than groundnut (− 1.2 to − 1.6 MPa; Bennett et al. 1981). Others have also reported the adjustment of many growth and physiological characteristics of bambara groundnut in response to water deficit stress such as:

  • Canopy development, size, and duration (Collinson et al. 1999; Mwale et al. 2007; Jorgensen et al. 2010; Vurayai et al. 2011; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Saglam et al. 2014),

  • Biomass accumulation and partitioning (Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Mabhaudhi et al. 2013),

  • Phenological plasticity (Collinson et al. 1999; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Nautiyal et al. 2017),

  • Gas exchange (Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Chai et al. 2016; Nautiyal et al. 2017),

  • Osmoregulation and regulation of photosynthesis (Collinson et al. 1997, 1999; Mwale et al. 2007; Vurayai et al. 2011; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Chai et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2017; Nautiyal et al. 2017), and

  • leaf temperature-transpiration (leaf orientation/paraheliotropism) and epicuticular wax (Collinson et al. 1999; Nautiyal et al. 2017)

In bambara groundnut, it has also been theorised that testa colour could be related to drought tolerance traits, with dark-coloured seeds having better emergence rates compared to light-coloured seed due to the presence of tannins, which are polyphenols that acted as antioxidants under stress conditions (Mwale et al. 2007; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013), although this may not be a desirable trait for consumption.

However, the degree of drought resistance varies between landraces and their place of origin; the severity and velocity of the drought and phenological stage effected (Collinson et al. 1997, 1999; Jorgensen et al. 2010; Vurayai et al. 2011; Laary et al. 2012; Mabhaudhi and Modi 2013; Al Shareef et al. 2014; Chibarabada et al. 2015; Nautiyal et al. 2017). For example, Berchie et al. (2012) evaluated a number of landraces of bambara groundnuts for their resistance to drought and heat and reported that some landraces could withstand 120 days of drought when irrigation was stopped at 30 DAP. The most drought-resistant landrace identified, Burkina, was a landrace collected from ‘Burkina Faso’, a Sahelian country, it had the highest leaf and root biomass of the landraces recorded, and few pods were produced, while others failed to produce any pods. There are also other landraces such as ‘NAV 4’, ‘NAV Red’, and ‘Black eye’, which survived prolonged drought under high temperatures of up to 40.2 °C during the growing season (Berchie et al. 2012).

Bambara groundnut has been adapted to contrasting environments, ranging from cool temperatures at night and high temperatures during the day (approximately 10–20 °C difference between day and night, depending on month) in the arid environment of Botswana, to far milder and more humid environments in Indonesia (days around 29 °C and night 23 °C). The observed drought-resistance mechanisms exhibited in bambara groundnut could help this species cope with mild, intermittent, and terminal drought stress. Although drought stress generally decreases the yield of bambara groundnut and most other crops, bambara groundnut was still able to produce a reasonable yield of up to 1.7 t ha−1 of dried pods with a range of 1.3–2.1 t ha−1 (Mwale et al. 2007). These yields are reported to be higher than chickpea cultivars (0.3–0.5 t ha−1) and are comparable to drought resistant groundnut cultivars under similar drought stress condition (Leport et al. 1999; Collino et al. 2000). In general, high efficiency of resource capture and conversion in bambara groundnut could be key contributors for crop productivity under drought. Despite a reduced radiation conversion coefficient (εs) in bambara groundnut from 1.51 to 1.02 g MJ−1 due to drought stress, εs of bambara groundnut reported in Mwale et al. (2007) was higher than those reported in soybean (Glycine max), which ranged from 0.52 to 0.92 g MJ−1 (De Costa and Shanmugathasan 2002; Board et al. 1994) and in cowpea ranged from 0.07 ± 0.03 to 0.50 ± 0.01 g MJ−1 m−2 (Craufurd and Wheeler 1999) under minimal soil moisture conditions. The efficiency of plants converting water into dry matter (εw) is essential for high potential yield production. As reported in Mwale et al. (2007), εw of bambara groundnut (1.65 g kg−1) under drought stress was shown to be higher than most of the grain legumes grown in low rainfall Mediterranean environments, such as lentil (Lens culinaris Medik; 1.37 g kg−1) (Zhang et al. 2000) and chickpea (1.11 g kg−1) (Siddique et al. 2001).

While bambara groundnut has been shown to be comparatively drought resistant, there are still significant gaps that need to be addressed through crop improvement before this trait could be of greater benefit to farmers. A recent assessment of an F5 segregating population, derived from a cross between single genotype parents Tiga Nicuru and DipC, under progressive mild drought stress in a controlled environment has demonstrated strong genetic variation for many morpho-physiological traits within the population (Chai et al. 2016). This study revealed the potential in selecting individual lines with greater potential drought resistance yet with reasonable yielding characteristics for future breeding programmes in bambara groundnut.

The importance of root studies

Above ground drought adaptations (i.e., increasing water use efficiency) are often associated with yield penalties due to reduced biomass accumulation (Blum 2005). While below-ground adaptations have been associated with enhanced water and nutrient capture and subsequently an ability to maintain higher rates of gas exchange and biomass accumulation under stress (Blum 2011). Roots and their related traits perform an array of fundamental roles including, but not limited to, water and nutrient uptake. Reduction in root growth under drought stress reduces the nutrient acquisition capacity of the root systems, which eventually affects growth, development, yield, and yield quality traits, even if water is later restored. It is essential to have a better understanding of root traits before using these as criteria for selection in breeding programmes. Rooting depth is one of the most commonly assessed traits, because crops with deeper roots can reach water and nutrients located in deeper soil horizons. In cowpea, for example, varieties with well-distributed and deep roots tend to survive longer under drought stress compared to those with shallower roots (Singh and Matsui 2002).

The focus on shoot over root traits is understandable given the technical difficulties involved in setting up and conducting root studies and the complex root–soil interaction. Methods used for phenotyping root traits span from laboratory (paper and gel media) to field and/or greenhouse (soil media) root observation and excavation techniques. Most of these phenotyping approaches are labour intensive, require plot destruction to get to the roots, and most importantly do not mimic or give a true representation of the actual field conditions, i.e., heterogeneity of soil physical properties (Richard et al. 2015). However, emerging technologies and advances in the fields of phenomics are beginning to ease some of the technical difficulties and provide opportunities to analyse root traits. Recent advances have also allowed for high-throughput phenotyping using computational models and software for tracing the root phenotype and its relation to other traits or stresses. These include RootReader3D (Clark et al. 2011), RootScan (Burton et al. 2012), RootNav (Pound et al. 2013), WinRhizo (Himmelbauer et al. 2004; Joshi et al. 2017), X-ray micro-computed tomography (µCT) (Mairhofer et al. 2011), and ImageJ (Ryosuke and Yoichiro 2013). By applying the above tools and algorithms, bambara groundnut root phenotypic studies could be made more efficient and this would further enhance our understanding of how the plants root growth parameters change in response to drought.

Photoperiod response/requirement in bambara groundnut

Bambara groundnut originated around the equator (Begemann 1988; Pasquet and Fotso 1997; Pasquet et al. 1999), where daylength (photoperiod) is reasonably stable. However, the crop is widely grown across various latitudes in Africa with increasing day lengths at higher and lower latitudes during the planting season. The previous investigations have revealed that the crop requires around 12 h photoperiod for maximum pod-set and seed yield (Linnemann et al. 1995), while under long photoperiods more leaves are produced at the expense of pod formation (Linnemann 1993; Azam-Ali 1998; Brink 1999; Oyiga 2010). Linnemann (1993) observed that the onset of flowering, progress of flowering, onset of podding, and progress in pod growth can all be retarded by long daylengths above 14 h. The effect on podding was, however, greater than on flowering and some plants did not produce any pods under photoperiods of 14 h and 16 h. The photoperiod sensitivity of bambara groundnut has limited its cultivation sites further away from the equator. Selecting an appropriate daylength during the season for planting could be an option to allow pod-filling; however, it may not be optimal in terms of water availability.

Photoperiodic responses in plants are reflected in a diverse set of traits, including vegetative growth period extension, bud set, switch to development of flowers, fruit set and seed production, tuberisation, changes in winter hardiness, changes in chemical composition and in enzyme activity (Hamner 1944; Jackson 2009). Among these, the effects on flowering have been extensively studied (Amasino 2010; Izawa et al. 2000) and the timing of the onset of flowering is the basis for the classification of plants that normally flower either in long- or short-day conditions (Garner and Allard 1920, 1927; Summerfield et al. 1998; Craufurd et al. 1999). Arabidopsis thaliana and other temperate long-day species such as lentils, pea (Pisum sativum L.), chickpea, and barrel medic (Medicago truncatula) (Thomas and Vince-Prue 1996; Weller et al. 2012) flower earlier under long daylengths. By contrast, flowering in other species such as rice (Oryza sativa), cowpea, soybean, and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is promoted by short daylengths (Summerfield et al. 1991; Summerfield et al. 1993; Song et al. 2010). Besides the onset of flowering, several other aspects of reproductive development such as pod and seed yield, and seed filling are influenced by photoperiod, and these are perhaps the most important agronomic traits for agricultural research and policy (Guiamet and Nakayama 1984; Morandi et al. 1988; Bagnall and King 1991a; Harris and Azam-Ali 1993; Linnemann et al. 1995; Brink 1997; Brink 1998; Brink et al. 2000; Kantolic and Slafer 2007; Nico et al. 2015). Therefore, an understanding of the photoperiodic and genetic control of pod set and its relationship with seed production may become potential tools to further raise the yield of bambara groundnut.

Photoperiod regulation has been reported in most grain legumes, e.g., flowering time and seed production in soybean (Summerfield et al. 1993; Kantolic and Slafer 2005; Kantolic et al. 2007, 2013); flowering time in cowpea (Ellis et al. 1994); flowering response in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) (Ellis et al. 1990; Imrie and Lawn 1990); flowering in common bean (Wallace et al. 1993; Kornegay et al. 1993); flowering and pod set in bambara groundnut (Linnemann et al. 1995; Brink 1997); and flowering and pod number in groundnut (Flohr et al. 1990; Bell et al. 1991; Bagnall and King 1991b). It is generally assumed that both photoperiod and temperature are important in the phenological development of most annual crops, due to the difficulties in uncoupling photothermal effects in fluctuating field environments (Summerfield et al. 1991). The exposure to long photoperiods in indeterminate soybean, for example, lengthened the reproductive period from flowering to maturity leading to increased pod and seed number, and this was associated with increments in the amount of radiation accumulated during the crop cycle (Kantolic and Slafer 2005, 2007; Nico et al. 2015).

In bambara groundnut, pod formation strongly responds to photoperiodic changes even under prevailing temperatures at the time of growth in tropical countries (Linnemann and Craufurd 1994). Evidently, it is induced by short days (Linnemann 1993; Harris and Azam-Ali 1993; Linnemann et al. 1995; Brink 1997), but the behaviour under long-days is highly variable and it could be either qualitative (obligate) or quantitative (facultative). Time to flowering in bambara groundnut is considered to be photoperiod-insensitive in most genotypes, but in a few landraces, continuous light delayed flowering by 6–11 days (Nishitani et al. 1988). Combined photoperiod and temperature studies showed that photoperiod usually has a stronger effect on pod-filling than on flowering time (Linnemann and Craufurd 1994; Brink 1997; Jorgensen et al. 2009, 2010). Of all the genotypes studied to date, “Tiga Necuru” from Mali has been described as day-neutral for flowering time and photoperiod-sensitive for podding, while “Ankpa 4” genotype from Nigeria appeared to be highly photoperiod sensitive with regard to both time to flowering and pod-set (Linnemann et al. 1995). In another experiment aimed at identifying photoperiod neutral lines for pod set, a collection of 102 landraces from Tanzania (East Africa) was grown in a greenhouse under long photoperiod (16–17 h) (Jorgensen et al. 2009, 2010). This study reported three landraces, namely, Mtwara (TZA-1498), Lindi (TZA-1505), and Shinyanga (TZA-2114) that had reasonable levels of photoperiod-insensitivity, compared to the already widespread landraces such as Tiga Necuru and DipC (from Botswana) (Jorgensen et al. 2009, 2010). Berchie et al. (2013) evaluating performance of 13 bambara groundnut landraces in Ghana under 12 and 14 h photoperiods observed that canopy sizes and leaf area within landraces were greater under a 14 h photoperiod than under a 12 h photoperiod. Under a 14 h photoperiod, five landraces that produced some pods and showed less sensitivity to photoperiod were also early maturing.

Field experiments conducted in Botswana using the Uniswa Red landrace have confirmed that the onset of flowering was photoperiod-insensitive, while the rate of progress from flowering to pod-set was photoperiod sensitive (Harris and Azam-Ali 1993; Sesay et al. 2008). As such, variability in yield is believed to have become more pronounced when grown further from the equator (Linnemann 1993; Linnemann and Azam Ali 1993; Linnemann and Craufurd 1994; Karikari et al. 1996, 1997; Sesay et al. 2008). The photoperiodic control of fruit development is important as pod and/or seed are major components in pulses (Egli 1999; Egli and Bruening 2006; Slafer et al. 2006). Hence, the development of day-neutral lines, defined here as the ability to set pods and seeds at daylength more than 13 h will be highly significant.

It is also well known that pod set is more sensitive to endogenous and environmental signals at the later stages of fruit and seed development (Boyer and McLaughlin 2007) than vegetative growth (Linnemann 1993). For example, in common bean, long photoperiod inhibited the allocation of assimilates to seeds and increased the allocation to vegetative organs. Similarly, in soybean, long photoperiods have been shown to promote vegetative growth (Caffaro et al. 1988; Fleming et al. 1997) by decreasing dry matter partitioning towards pods and seeds (Raper and Thomas 1978; Ellis et al. 2000), seed growth rate were reduced (Morandi et al. 1990) and the reproductive period extended (Summerfield et al. 1998; Kantolic and Slafer 2007). A greater partitioning to peanut pods was reported under short photoperiods (Harris et al. 1988; Witzenberger et al. 1988). Lawn (1989) suggested that in tropical legumes, relative partitioning of assimilates into reproductive or vegetative organs after the start of flowering depends on the degree of determinateness (preference for partitioning to seed) and that photothermal regimes have a direct influence on the expression of determinateness. Long photoperiods, either independently or in conjunction with high temperatures, seem to promote indeterminateness even in the early flowering types through extending the flowering period, reducing synchrony of flowering and pod-set, and delaying pod ripening. In bambara groundnut landrace “Ankpa-4”, fertilisation was observed, and healthy embryos were found to have developed in ovaries up to 32 days after anthesis under a photoperiod of more than 14 h (Linnemann 1993). This evidence suggests that any embryo abortion and the lack of pod-development in bambara groundnut during long photoperiods is primarily caused by the deficiency of or competition for photoassimilates and nutrients among vegetative and reproductive sink organs (Linnemann and Craufurd 1994; Brink 1997; Brink et al. 2000). The quantitative response in terms of pod and seed number to increased duration of the critical period due to photoperiodic effects is not very well understood. A better understanding of photoperiod responses would facilitate the development of cultivars that, in addition to its drought resistance were suitably adapted for a wider geographical range and potentially this would enhance the successful exchange of germplasm between different latitudes.

Hard-to-cook (HTC)

Many pulse legumes can be described as ‘hard-to-cook—HTC’— a term which reflects the amount of energy needed to make a grain legume edible. Mubaiwa et al. (2017) provided a comprehensive review of the cookability of bambara groundnut in comparison with other legumes, and thus, only a few points are highlighted here.

There are a wide range of components involved in cookability, from initial rates of water uptake, through to effects of long-term storage of seed (particularly in humid and hot conditions) before cooking. In practical terms, this HTC phenomenon increases the effort required to prepare seed for meals and in many countries, this means a greater fuel cost. Consequently, this trait has been often identified as one of major bottleneck for the uptake of bambara groundnut (e.g., Adzawla et al. 2016b). While there is clearly both a physical component and a compositional component (and likely genetic underpinning) of this trait, it is important to bear in mind that the limitation is also a reflection of how bambara groundnut is traditionally processed and used. As an example, soybean has a 3.6-h cooking time which is almost identical to that of bambara groundnut (Mubaiwa et al. 2017). However, being an industrial crop and for large-scale production this justifies the investment in appropriate processing methods and machinery which allows the limitation to be minimised. Similar approaches would also be applicable to bambara groundnut and other HTC legumes if demand could be increased and with continuous supply throughout the year (even if from different countries). A number of ways to improve cooking times are cited in Mubaiwa et al. (2017), although some traditional approaches, such as the use of local salts such as kanwa in Zimbabwe, appear to have a negative effect on protein quality. However, fermentation to produce tempe does appear to produce a good product which was favoured over soybean tempe and also reduced the antinutritional factors present in the bean, increasing the bioavailability of the nutritional components in bambara groundnut (Ademiluyi and Oboh 2011). Hard-to-cook also develops with seed storage condition, particularly under humid and hot conditions, and a number of theories have been developed to explain components of this storage trait (Mubaiwa et al. 2017) and how treatments, such as kanwa, may be reducing HTC.

Processing of bambara groundnut into flour (although HTC can affect milling) and its use as a full or partial substitute is one approach to reduce the HTC characteristics. A range of products and lines have been developed and evaluated (Ijarotimi and Esho 2009; Atoyebi et al. 2017; Feldman et al. 2019), as well as the packaging of industrially cooked seed into cans (Zimbabwe and Ghana, now discontinued) or vacuum sealed packets (Ghana), so that seed can be incorporated into food without the limitation imposed by cooking, for middle class consumers, at least. However, for most small-scale farmers, where bambara groundnut is a nutritional food security crop, reducing the components of HTC could be a significant advantage and is associated with traditional uses (e.g., in Zimbabwe; Mubaiwa et al. 2018).

There is considerable genetic variation in bambara groundnut for seed size and also testa colour/patterns. Initial reports have suggested that there could be a relationship between dark testa colour, thicker testa and cooking time. However, most experiments to date have used a limited number of landraces obtained from markets, so that seed history is unknown and genetic variation may be present for this trait in each landrace, as well as between landraces. Analysis within structured populations is needed to investigate such questions. For example, initial data from measuring water imbibition in a controlled cross (Tiga Nicuru × DipC; 65 F6 lines) identified quantitative trait loci (QTL) on three linkage groups, none of which appear related to testa colour (LCS Licea, unpublished data).

While HTC needs to be investigated within species, there is sufficient information in the literature from other legume species to guide such investigations and the translation of information from model, major and minor crops to underutilised crops may significantly speed up progress.

Nutritional value

Bambara groundnut is largely grown for human consumption, although the remaining biomass can be fed to cattle and other domestic animals (Anchirinah et al. 2001). It is a major source of plant protein in sub-Saharan Africa and constitutes an important part of the local diet, culture and economy (Goli 1997; Adu-Dapaah and Sangwan 2004; Boateng et al. 2013). The seed is regarded as a completely balanced food, because it contains 18–24% protein with high lysine and methionine, 51–70% carbohydrate, 4–12% crude oil, 3–5% ash and 3–12% fibre (see, for example, Halimi et al. 2019). Bambara groundnut is rich in iron 4.9–48 mg/100 g compared to a range of 2.0–10.0 mg/100 g for most food legumes, potassium 11.44–19.35 mg/100 g, sodium 2.9–12.0 mg/100 g, and calcium 95.8–99 mg/100 g (Amarteifio et al. 2006; Fasoyiro et al. 2006). Bambara groundnut has approximately 367–414 kal/100 mg energy (Boateng et al. 2013). The gross energy value of bambara groundnut seed is greater than that of other legumes (Rowland 1993; Anchirinah et al. 2001; and see Table 8.3 in Feldman et al. 2019).

While comparisons appear favourable, with bambara groundnut compositional analysis showing a good combination of components and higher sufficiency of limiting amino acids than most legumes (see Mubaiwa et al. 2017 and Halimi et al. 2019), this does not consider antinutritional factors (Murevanhema and Jideani 2013; Atoyebi et al. 2018) and their effect on the bioavailability of the nutrition in bambara groundnut. Legumes have long been known to contain high levels of antinutritional factors, such as tannin, phytate, phenolics and other compounds which can bind to nutritional components making them completely or partially unavailable for digestion. Anti-herbivory factors can range from relatively simple protease inhibitors through to major toxins, such as the amino acid β-N-oxalyl-l-α,β-diaminopropionic acid (ODAP) in grasspea (Lathyrus sativus), which can lead to paralysis when consumed as the only major food source during periods of famine (Buta et al. 2019). Simple treatments such as dehulling, soaking, cooking, fermentation, germination and others can potentially reduce antinutritional factors and improve bioavailability (Barimalaa and Anoghalu 1997; Egounlety and Aworh 2003; Ijarotimi and Esho 2009; Nti 2009; Mazahib et al. 2013; Mubaiwa et al. 2017; Atoyebi et al. 2018). Fermentation improved the mineral composition but had little effect on the amino acid content and decreased the antinutritional factors; oxalate, tannic acid, phytic acid and trypsin. (Ijarotimi and Esho 2009). However, bioavailability is an important caveat for any promotion of underutilised crops and needs significant investigation to ensure that the nutritional status of people will genuinely be made better through use of nutrient dense minor crops, given the antinutritional factors present in most.

Germplasm resources of bambara groundnut for future breeding

Germplasm resources for Bambara groundnut

Bambara groundnut probably has a centre of origin in north eastern Nigeria and northern Cameroon. It exists in the wild from central Nigeria eastwards to southern Sudan and is now cultivated throughout tropical Africa. Dalziel (1937) as cited in Doku and Karikari (1971) reported that bambara groundnut was found in its wild state in 1901 in the North Yola province of Nigeria. Linnemann (1987) also found the wild plant near Garoua in northern Cameroon. The wild bambara groundnut is reported to have a distribution from the Jos Plateau and Yola in Nigeria to Garoua in Cameroon (Goli 1997). Cultivated bambara groundnut are landraces that have probably evolved after domestication directly from their wild relatives which have adapted to arid and semi-arid environments and the crop is popular among farmers for its yield stability under different environmental conditions (Doku and Karikari 1971; Hepper 1963; Basu et al. 2007a). Begemann (1988) confirmed that the centre of origin of bambara groundnut is in the region of north-eastern Nigeria and northern Cameroon and extreme spreading types of wild were identified by RS Pasquet (Pasquet and Fotso 1997; Pasquet et al. 1999 and Pasquet 2004). Spreading growth habit in a wild line, VSSP11, has been confirmed as a dominant trait compared with the domesticated bunchy types (Basu et al. 2007a). A recent study of agromorphological diversity of bambara groundnut collected in Benin showed also shows a high degree of morphological variability (Gbaguidi et al. 2018). Thus, accessions from West Africa are expected to have higher genetic variability, assuming a single region of domestication. However, Aliyu et al. (2016) suggested the possibility of the Southern/Eastern African region being a secondary centre of domestication or diversity for the crop based on a detailed analysis of the genetic population structure. This placed the West African and the Southern/Eastern African accessions into two distinct clusters.

According to FAO (2009), 4500 accessions of bambara groundnut are conserved ex-situ globally. The collections are held in 16 countries, and three regional or international genebanks. The Genetic Resources Center (GRC) of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) has 1910 accessions collected from various countries across sub-Saharan Africa (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Origin and distribution of bambara groundnut in the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) collection

Landraces preserve genetic variation which could be of help for genetic improvement of any crop. Bambara groundnut landraces have maintained a significant amount of genetic diversity under low input farming systems (Massawe 2000). Traditional bambara groundnut growing farmers have depended largely on the existing diversity within the landraces that they grow and thus has sustained on-farm genetic diversity conservation with selection on bambara groundnut landraces being agro-ecological, as well as farmer (e.g., practices in Zimbabwe; Mubaiwa et al. 2018).

Ex-situ conservation of bambara groundnut landraces and farmer’s on-farm conservation is essential for future genetic improvement programmes of the crop. However, to understand the genetic basis of traits of interest for breeding, landraces are problematic as they are a mix of multiple genotypes which could contribute to a confusion between the effects of environment and those which have a genetic cause. Developing controlled crosses and an association genetics panel could allow molecular breeding, including marker-assisted selection, even if the final “product” needed is a mix of improved lines—an artificial landrace.

A well-characterised germplasm collection with high quality genotype data will be a good resource for plant breeding and crop improvement programmes as the information could be used by scientists and breeders to select parental genotypes for breeding programmes (Ntundu et al. 2004; Aliyu et al. 2014, 2016). Accessions collected from different countries or different parts of a country may have a common ancestry or may even be the same genotypes bearing different local names (Massawe et al. 2005). Hence, a genome-wide genotyping-by-sequencing approach is being employed at IITA to characterise bambara groundnut collection with the objective of identifying duplicate accessions (M. Alberton, Pers. Comm.)

Molecular tools and resources

The use of molecular markers and the development of genetic resources will improve the understanding of the genetic control of agricultural traits, leading to quality control, marker-assisted selection, and genomics-enabled breeding for climate change (Mayes et al. 2015b; Kole et al. 2015: Abberton et al. 2015). In bambara groundnut, genetic linkage maps consisting of diversity arrays technology (DArT), simple sequence repeats (SSR) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers have been developed using four populations so far (F2 generation and above), including wild type and domesticated genotypes (Basu et al. 2007a; Ahmad 2012; Ahmad et al. 2015, 2016; Mayes et al. 2015a; Ho et al. 2017; Chai et al. 2017). The aim is to generate populations segregating for different traits, such as growth habit, drought resistance, and photoperiod sensitivity for genetic studies and development of improved varieties.

The first genome sequence of bambara groundnut has been released recently (Chang et al. 2018). Pipelines for translating genetic resources and information from other species have also been developed to assist breeding programmes with the initial assembly (based purely on high coverage Illumina sequencing) requiring further long-fragment sequencing work to convert this into pseudomolecules (e.g., through Nanopore technology; https://nanoporetech.com/). Examples of translating information and resources from major and model plant species to underutilised and resource-poor crops are reported in bambara groundnut (Mayes et al. 2009; Bonthala et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2017; Ho et al. 2017; Chai et al. 2017). Two individual intraspecific genetic linkage maps developed from two populations (F2 lines; IITA686 × Ankpa4 and F3 lines; Tiga Nicuru × DipC), respectively, were successfully mapped onto the physical maps of other well-annotated, closely related legume species in the absence of complete genome sequence in bambara groundnut (Ho et al. 2017). The identification of the conserved synteny between underutilised crops and well-characterised common bean, adzuki bean (Vigna angularis) and mung bean (Vigna radiata) allows the corresponding flanking positions of QTL defining an agronomic trait in bambara groundnut to be identified in other physical genomes. Ho et al. (2017) demonstrated the importance of a translational framework which permits the likely genes underlying the corresponding positions in the major or model species to be identified as candidate gene orthologues for the traits in the study species. Furthermore, an expression marker-based genetic map containing 218 gene expression markers (GEMs) across 13 linkage groups, spanning 982.7 cM of the bambara groundnut genome, was developed using cross hybridisation of bambara groundnut leaf ribonucleic acid (RNA) onto the Affymetrix Soybean Genome GeneChip to identify QTLs involved in agronomic and drought-related traits in bambara groundnut as well as genome regions potentially harbouring pathway activating genes for response to stress (Chai et al. 2017). The reports of Bonthala et al. (2016) and Khan et al. (2017) the studies demonstrated a technically feasible approach to translate the resources developed from major and model crops to underutilised crops and such approaches could be potentially adopted and replicated in various underutilised crops, such as amaranths (Amaranthus spp., winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus) and proso millet (Panicum miliaceum).

While understanding the breeding system of this crop is essential for a breeding improvement programme, generating within-species genetic resources has only taken place in the last decade or so due to limited resources. The African Orphan Crop Consortium (AOCC) has included bambara groundnut in their 101 traditional African food crops with nutritional potential in which genomic resources would help to improve their nutrient content. In contrast, common bean which is the most consumed legume (Schmutz et al. 2014) has had molecular-assisted breeding approaches applied for more than two decades; from as early as the 1990s, utilising random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers linked to disease-resistance traits (summarised by Kelly and Bornowski 2018). The genetic diversity of a number of bambara groundnut landraces was initially evaluated through RAPD and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers (Amadou et al. 2001; Massawe et al. 2003a, b; Rungnoi et al. 2012; Fatimah et al. 2018). Subsequently, a total of ten SSR markers for bambara groundnut were developed by Basu and colleagues from a microsatellite-enriched genomic library (Basu et al. 2007c). The development of the dominant DArT hybridisation-based array-genotyping system enabled genotyping to be achieved at higher throughput, with four major subpopulations identified among 40 accessions collected from nine countries as revealed by 554 DArT markers (Stadler 2009; Olukolu et al. 2012). While the transferability of SSR markers from closely related species is feasible, only 20 out of 178 amplifiable SSR from Vigna angularis, V. unguiculata and V. radiata were shown to be informative within 240 bambara groundnut accessions (Somta et al. 2011). With the advent of next generation sequencing, a further set of 74 SSR markers were optimised from a leaf transcriptome (Molosiwa et al. 2015; Aliyu and Massawe 2013).

Both Somta et al. (2011) and Molosiwa et al. (2015) studies suggested that individual bambara groundnut plants are highly inbred. However, the farmer landraces are still a mix of (usually related) inbred lines and this was observed to be the case even for released varieties through molecular assessment (Ho et al. 2016). Somta et al. (2011) reported an average of 1.3% heterozygosity, except for three accessions from Guinea and ten accessions from Burkina Faso which had higher heterozygosity (4.99% and 2.99%, respectively), suggesting higher levels of outcrossing in their history. Similarly, 12 SSR markers applied to 123 accessions from Molosiwa (2012) indicated that the inbreeding coefficient ranged from 0.90 to 1.00, with average observed heterozygosity of 0.01. As such, line advancement by means of single seed descent (SSD) would be the first step to develop near homozygous bambara groundnut pre-breeding materials. Given the level of inbreeding observed, seed from a single plant is likely to represent an (unselected) variety—here, we term this approach to produce pure lines ‘Single Plant Descent’ (SPD).

The DArTseq platform, based on Illumina next generation sequencing, generates both dominant silicoDArT markers and co-dominant SNP markers (SNP variation within the sequence tags of the markers; Alam et al. 2018; Barilli et al. 2018; Kilian et al. 2012). The average level of heterozygous alleles was found to range from 0.8 to 5.0% using 7894 markers after a round of single plant descent (SPD) purification from a subset of genebank accessions (n = 229), forming a good representation for a ‘pure’ genotype association genetics panel (S Mayes, unpublished data). While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in bambara groundnut have yet to be used to unravel predictive and causative variation linked to agronomic traits, genetic resources generated either within species or across species have been exploited. In a pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) heterosis hybrid breeding programme, a number of SSR have been developed not only to distinguish cytoplasmic male sterile maintainer and fertility restorer lines but also to assess the hybrid genetic purity (Bohra et al. 2011). Similarly, artificial crossing in bambara groundnut could be a promising approach to develop new varieties with desirable traits and the approach has subsequently been optimised in UK and Thailand (Massawe et al. 2003c; Suwanprasert et al. 2006; Kendabie 2014). Both cross-breeding attempts have made use of molecular markers (AFLP and then SSR) to evaluate true hybrids before beginning to advance populations to recombinant inbred lines. Bambara groundnut SSR have also been used to evaluate the heterogeneity of commercial cultivars before making selection of candidate individual plant for whole genome sequencing (Ho et al. 2016). In addition to a residual heterozygosity assessment, these SSR markers are useful for line label checking particularly at large-scale multi-locational trials evaluating different line performance within the same growing cycle, e.g., Molosiwa et al. (2015), and also their current use in F1 hybrid confirmation and in a multilocational field trials supported by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA 2016–2020), Benefit Sharing Funded project involving Nigeria, Ghana, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Towards genetic improvement of bambara groundnut

Domesticated forms of bambara groundnut were derived from their wild relatives through a combination of natural and artificial selection (Massawe et al. 2005). The existence of genetic variation with regards to all drought-resistance mechanisms is encouraging for selection and breeding with an emphasis on harvest index under drought conditions. Bambara groundnut yields range from 0.5 to 3 t ha−1 seed in sub-Saharan Africa (Azam-Ali et al. 2001). Given a yield potential of over 3 t ha−1, focus should be on the development of high yielding varieties for own consumption or as a cash crop for use by resource-poor farmers or those farmers in arid conditions. Selection for grain yield under drought conditions has not been easy for many crop species. Significant genotype × environment interactions (GEI) leading to QTL × environment interactions have often resulted in low heritability under drought conditions. Traits that are highly correlated to yield may be less susceptible to GEI and can be targeted for indirect selection (Piepho 2000; Berger et al. 2010). Reliable phenotyping protocols are important in incorporating a targeted trait into molecular breeding programmes and identifying candidate genes underlying traits of interest for forward genetics procedures (Salekdeh et al. 2009). In addition to grain yield, breeding work on bambara groundnut could also focus on traits such as seed nutrient quality, disease resistance, tolerance to heat, high foliage volume, and palatability of the foliage, so it can be utilised as a pasture crop. There is a need to understand better whether there are trade-offs in achieving drought resistance and such desirable traits.

For underutilised crops, the dissection of traits for a subsequent breeding programme is very dependent upon having strong genetic population structures. These allow the trait variation to be partitioned between genetic and other components and the subsequent localisation of the effect to specific genomic regions. Such analysis helps us understand whether a trait gene has pleiotropic effects and, indeed, whether different QTL are genetically linked or independent. To summarise, the development of segregating populations in bambara groundnut and the recent genetic mapping and QTL analyses are really the start of controlled breeding and trait dissection. The combined efforts with an association genetics panel will take this screening to a new height, with the same material being trialled in multiple environments and promising lines made available to farmers and research institutes.

Conclusions

Minor and underutilised legumes will be a critical component of a structured response to climate change. However, there are many factors which complicate their research and deployment to this end. Bambara groundnut is a drought resistant African legume which can be used in complex agricultural systems and companion planting. It is widely grown at low levels in sub-Saharan Africa, but its use is limited by unstable yields and the hard-to-cook phenomenon, which reduces demand, particularly from poor consumers. The development of marker-assisted breeding programmes is a priority, but there is also a need to develop a better understanding of the context and culture-dependent use of bambara groundnut, to ensure that breeding efforts are demand-led and that acceptance in specific agro-ecological contexts is achieved. Alongside such efforts to genetically improve the crop in farmer-defined ways, there is also a need for a parallel track which focuses on the agricultural systems, basic mechanisation and development of new and complex forms of agriculture to deliver improved food and nutritional security in future climates.

Author contribution statement

The authors all contributed to the contents and test. SM combined and edited the contributions.

References

  1. Abberton et al (2015) Global agricultural intensification during climate change: a role for genomics. Plant Biotechnol J 14(4):1095–1098

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ademiluyi AO, Oboh G (2011) Antioxidant properties of condiment produced from fermented bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc). J Food Biochem 35:1145–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4514.2010.00441.x

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adu-Dapaah H, Sangwan RS (2004) Improving bambara groundnut productivity using gamma irradiation and in vitro techniques. Afr J Biotechnol 3:5

    Google Scholar 

  4. Adu-Dapaah H, Berchie JN, Amoah S, Addo SK, Akuamoah Boateng M (2016) Progress in bambara groundnut research in Ghana: breeding, agronomy and utilization. In: Onus N, Currie A (eds) Acta Hortic 1127, ISHS 2016. XXIX IHC. Proceedings of international symposium on plant breeding in horticulture

  5. Adzawla W, Donkoh SA, Nyarko G, O’Reilly PJ, Olayide O, Mayes S, Feldman AB, Azman Halimi R (2016a) Adoption of Bambara groundnut production and its effects on farmers’ welfare in North Ghana African. J Agric Res 11(7):583–594

    Google Scholar 

  6. Adzawla W, Donkoh SA, Nyarko G, O’Reilly P, Mayes S (2016b) Use patterns and perceptions about the attributes of Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) in Northern Ghana. Ghana J Sci Technol Dev 4(2):56–71

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmad NS (2012) Genetic analysis of plant morphology in bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdic.]. Dissertation, University of Nottingham

  8. Ahmad NS, Chai HH, Basu S, Sri Redjeki E, Moreton J, Mayes K, Ho WK, Massawe F, Mayes S (2015) Exploring the domestication of bambara groundnut. Acta Hortic. https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2015.1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahmad NS, Redjeki ES, Ho WK, Aliyu S, Mayes K, Massawe F, Kilian A, Mayes S (2016) Construction of a genetic linkage map and QTL analysis in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Genome. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Al Shareef I, Sparkes D, Azam-Ali S (2014) Temperature and drought stress effects on growth and development of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L.). Exp Agric 50(1):72–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479713000379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alakali JS, Okache TA, Agomuo JK (2016) Effects of bambara groundnut supplementation on the quality of ojojo a water yam based snacks. Int J Nutr Food Sci. 5(6):422–428. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnfs.20160506.18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alam M, Neal J, O’Connor K, Kilian A, Topp B (2018) Ultra-high-throughput DArTseq-based silicoDArT and SNP markers for genomic studies in macadamia. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203465

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Aliyu S, Massawe FJ (2013) Microsatellites based marker molecular analysis of Ghanaian bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) landraces alongside morphological characterization. Genet Resour Crop Evol 60:777–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9874-y

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aliyu S, Massawe F, Mayes S (2014) Beyond landraces: developing improved germplasm resources for underutilized species—a case for bambara groundnut. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 30(2):127–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aliyu S, Massawe F, Mayes S (2016) Genetic diversity and population structure of Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.): synopsis of the past two decades of analysis and implications for crop improvement programmes. Genet Resour Crop Evol 63:925–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-016-0406-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Amadou HI, Bebeli PJ, Kaltsikes PJ (2001) Genetic diversity in Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L.) germplasm revealed by RAPD markers. Genome. https://doi.org/10.1139/g01-096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Amarteifio JO, Tibe O, Njogu RM (2006) The mineral composition of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc) grown in Southern Africa. Afr J Biotechnol 5:2408–2411. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajb.v5i23.56026

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Amasino R (2010) Seasonal and developmental timing of flowering. Plant J 61(6):1001–1013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anchirinah VM, Bennet-Lartey EK, Yiridoe SO (2001) Enhancing sustainable production and genetic resource conservation of bambara groundnut. A survey of indigenous agricultural knowledge systems. Outlook Agric 30(4):281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Atoyebi JO, Osilesi O, Adebawo O, Abberton M (2017) Evaluation of nutrient parameters of selected African accessions of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Am J Food Nutr 5:83–89. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajfn-5-3-1

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Atoyebi JO, Osilesi O, Abberton M, Adebawo O, Oyatomi O (2018) Quantification of selected anti-nutrients and bioactive compounds in African bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Am J Food Nutr 6(3):88–95. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajfn-6-3-5

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Azam-Ali SN (1998) Bambara groundnut yield/ecology. Evaluating the potential for Bambara groundnut as a food crop in semi-arid Africa. An approach for assessing the yield potential and ecological requirements of an underutilized crop. Summary report of European Commission supported STD-3 Projects. Published by CTA

  23. Azam-Ali SN, Sesay A, Karikari SK, Massawe F, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Bannayan M, Hampson KJ (2001) Assessing the potential of an underutilized crop—a case study using bambara groundnut. Exp Agric 37:433–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479701000412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bagnall DJ, King RW (1991a) response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to temperature, photoperiod and irradiance. 1. Effect on flowering. Field Crops Res 26(3–4):263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bagnall DJ, King RW (1991b) Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to temperature, photoperiod and irradiance. 2. Effect on peg and pod development. Field Crops Res 26(3–4):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bamshaiye OM, Adegbola JA, Bamishaiye EI (2011) Bambara groundnut: an under-utilized nut in Africa. Adv Agric Biotechnol 1:60–72

    Google Scholar 

  27. Barilli E, Cobos MJ, Carrillo E, Kilian A, Carling J, Rubiales D (2018) A high-density integrated DArTseq SNP-based genetic map of Pisum fulvum and identification of QTLs controlling rust resistance. Front Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Barimalaa IS, Anoghalu SC (1997) Effect of processing on certain antinutrients in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) cotyledons. J Sci Food Agric 73:186–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Basu SM, Mayes S, Davey M, Roberts JA, Azam-Ali SN, Mithen R, Pasquet RS (2007a) Inheritance of ‘domestication’ traits in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Euphytica 157:59–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Basu S, Roberts JA, Azam-Ali SN, Mayes S (2007b) Bambara groundnut. In: Kole CM (ed) Genome mapping and molecular breeding in plants—pulses, sugar and tuber. Springer, New York, pp 159–173

    Google Scholar 

  31. Basu S, Roberts JA, Azam-Ali SN, Mayes S (2007c) Development of microsatellite markers for bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.)—an underutilized African legume crop species. Mol Ecol Notes. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01870.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Begemann F (1988) Ecogeographic differentiation of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) in the collection of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Wissenschaftlicher Fachverlag Dr Fleck, Niederkleen

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bell MJ, Bagnall DJ, Harch G (1991) Effects of photoperiod on reproductive development of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in a cool subtropical environment. 2. Temperature interactions. Aust J Agric Res 42(7):1151–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bennett JM, Boote KJ, Hammond LC (1981) Alterations in the components of peanut leaf water potential during desiccation. J Exp Bot 32:1035–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Berchie JN, Sarkodie-Addo J, Adu-Dapaah H, Agyemang A, Addy S, Asare E, Donkor J (2010a) Yield evaluation of three early maturing bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean (L) Verdc.) landraces at the CSIR-Crops Research Institute, Fumesua-Kumasi. Ghana. J Agron 9(4):175–179

    Google Scholar 

  36. Berchie JN, Adu-Dapaah HA, Dankyi AA, Asare E, Plahar WA, Nelson-Quartey F, Haleegoah J, Asafu-Agyei JN, Addo JK (2010b) Practices and constraints in bambara groundnut production, marketing, and consumption in the Brong Ahafo and the Upper East Regions of Ghana. J Agron 9(3):111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Berchie JN, Adu-Dapaah H, Sarkodie-Addo J, Asare E, Agyemang A, Addy S, Donkor J (2010c) Effect of seed priming on seedling emergence and establishment of four bambara groundnut landraces. J Agron 9(4):180–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Berchie JN, Opoku M, Adu-Dapaah H, Agyemang A, Sarkodie-Addo J, Asare E, Addo J, Akuffo H (2012) Evaluation of five bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc.) landraces to heat and drought stress at Tono-Navrongo, Upper East Region of Ghana. Afr Agric Res 7(2):250–256

    Google Scholar 

  39. Berchie JN, Amelie G, McClymont S, Raizada M, Adu-Dapaah H, Sarkodie-Addo J (2013) Performance of 13 bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) landraces under 12 h and 14 h photoperiod. J Agron 12(1):20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Berchie JN, Dapaah HA, Agyemang A, Sarkodie Addo J, Addo JK, Addy S, Blankson E (2016) Performance of five bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) landraces in the Transition Agroecology of Ghana under different sowing dates. Agric and Food Sci J Ghana 9:718–729

    Google Scholar 

  41. Berger B, Parent B, Tester M (2010) High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought responses. J Exp Bot 61(13):3519–3528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Blum A (2005) Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Aust J Agric Res 56:1159–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Blum A (2011) Plant breeding for water-limited environments. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7491-4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Board JE, Wier AT, Boethel DJ (1994) Soybean yield reductions caused by artificial defoliation during mid to late seed filling. Agron J 86:1074–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Boateng MA, Addo JK, Okyere H, Berchie JN, Tetteh A (2013) Physicochemical and functional properties of proteinates of two bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc.) landraces. Afr J Food Sci Technol 4(4):64–70

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bohra A, Dubey A, Saxena RK, Penmetsa RV, Poornima KN, Kumar N et al (2011) Analysis of BAC-end sequences (BESs) and development of BES-SSR markers for genetic mapping and hybrid purity assessment in pigeonpea (Cajanus spp.). BMC Plant Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-11-56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Bonthala VS, Mayes K, Moreton J, Blythe M, Wright V, May ST et al (2016) Identification of gene modules associated with low temperatures response in bambara groundnut by network-based analysis. PLoS One 11(2):e0148771. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148771

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Boyer JS, McLaughlin JE (2007) Functional reversion to identify controlling genes in multigenic responses: analysis of floral abortion. J Exp Bot 58(2):267–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Brink M (1997) Rates of progress towards flowering and podding in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) as a function of temperature and photoperiod. Ann Bot 80(4):505–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brink M (1998) Matching crops and environments: quantifying photothermal influences on reproductive development in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). PhD thesis, Wageningen

  51. Brink M (1999) Development, growth and dry matter partitioning in bambara groundnut Vigna subterranea) as influenced by photoperiod and shading. J Agric Sci Cambridge 133:159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Brink M, Sibuga KP, Tarimo AJP, Ramolemana GM (2000) Quantifying photothermal influences on reproductive development in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea): models and their validation. Field Crops Res 66(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Brough SH, Azam-Ali SN (1992) The effect of soil moisture on the proximate composition of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc). J Sci Food Agric 60:197–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740600207

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Burton AL, Williams MS, Lynch JP, Brown KM (2012) RootScan: software for high-throughput analysis of root anatomical traits. Plant Soil 357:189–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Buta MB, Emire SA, Posten C, Andrée S, Greiner R (2019) Reduction of β-ODAP and IP6 contents in Lathyrus sativus L. seed by high hydrostatic pressure. Food Res Int 120:73–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Caffaro SV, Martignone RA, Torres R, Nakayama F (1988) Photoperiod regulation of vegetative growth and meristem behavior toward flower initiation of an indeterminate soybean. Bot Gaz 149:311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chai HH, Massawe F, Mayes S (2016) Effects of mild drought stress on the morpho-physiological characteristics of a bambara groundnut segregating population. Euphytica 208(2):225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-015-1581-2

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Chai HH, Ho WK, Graham N, May S, Massawe F, Mayes S (2017) A cross-species gene expression marker-based genetic map and QTL analysis in bambara groundnut. Genes. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes8020084

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Chang Y, Liu H, Liu M, Liao X, Sahu SK, Fu Y, Song B, Cheng S, Kariba R, Muthemba S, Hendre PS, Mayes S, Ho WK, Kendabie P, Wang S, Li L, Muchugi A, Jamnadass R, Lu H, Peng S, Van Deynze A, Simons A, Yana-Shapiro H, Xu X, Yang H, Wang J, Liu X (2018) Genomic data of the bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea). GigaScience. https://doi.org/10.5524/101055

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Chibarabada TP, Modi AT, Mabhaudhi T (2015) Water use characteristics of a bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc) landrace during seedling establishment. Water SA 41(4):472–482. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v41i4.06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Clark RT, MacCurdy RB, Jung JK et al (2011) Three-dimensional root phenotyping with a novel imaging and software platform. Plant Physiol 156:455–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Collino DJ, Dardanelli JL, Sereno R, Racca R (2000) Physiological responses of argentine peanut varieties to water stress. Water uptake and water use efficiency. Field Crops Res 68:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Collinson ST, Azam-Ali SN, Chavula KM, Hodson D (1995) Growth, development and yield of Bambara groundnut ((Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc) in response to soil moisture. J Agric Sci 48:877–884

    Google Scholar 

  64. Collinson ST, Clawson EJ, Azam-Ali SN, Black CR (1997) Effects of soil moisture deficits on the water relations of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.). J Exp Bot 48:877–884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Collinson S, Berchie J, Azam-Ali S (1999) The effect of soil moisture on light interception and the conversion coefficient for three landraces of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea). J Agric Sci 133(2):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859699006875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Craufurd PQ, Wheeler TR (1999) Effect of drought and plant density on radiation interception, radiation-use efficiency and partitioning of dry matter to seeds in cowpea. Exp Agric 35(3):309–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Craufurd PQ, Mahalakshmi V, Bidinger FR, Mukuru SZ, Chantereau J, Omanga PA, Qi A, Roberts EH, Ellis RH, Summerfield RJ, Hammer GL (1999) Adaptation of sorghum: characterisation of genotypic flowering responses to temperature and photoperiod. Theor Appl Genet 99(5):900–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Dalziel JM (1937) Voandzeia Thou. In: The useful plants of west tropical Africa. Crown Agents, London, pp 269–271

  69. De Costa WAJM, Shanmugathasan KN (2002) Physiology of yield determination of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] under different irrigation regimes in the subhumid zone of Sri Lanka. Field Crops Res 75:23–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Doku EV, Karikari SK (1971) Operational selection in wild bambara groundnut. Ghana J Sci 11:45–56

    Google Scholar 

  71. Duke JA (1982) Voandzeia subterranea (L). Thouars. In: Handbook of legumes of world economic importance. Plenum Press, Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 307–310

  72. Egli DB (1999) Variation in leaf starch and sink limitations during seed filling in soybean. Crop Sci 39(5):1361–1368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Egli DB, Bruening WP (2006) Temporal profiles of pod production and pod set in soybean. Eur J Agron 24(1):11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Egounlety M, Aworh O (2003) Effect of soaking, dehulling, cooking and fermentation with Rhizopus oligosporus on the oligosaccharides, trypsin inhibitor, phytic acid and tannins of soybean (Glycine max Merr.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) and groundbean (Macrotyloma geocarpa Harms). J Food Eng 56:249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00262-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ellis RH, Summerfield RJ, Roberts EH (1990) Flowering in Faba Bean—genotypic differences in photoperiod sensitivity, similarities in temperature sensitivity, and implications for screening germplasm. Ann Bot 65(2):129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ellis RH, Lawn RJ, Summerfield RJ, Qi A, Roberts EH, Chay PM, Brouwer JB, Rose JL, Yeates SJ (1994) Towards the reliable prediction of time to flowering in 6 annual crops. 3. Cowpea Vigna unguiculata. Exp Agric 30(1):17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ellis RH, Asumadu H, Qi A, Summerfield RJ (2000) Effects of photoperiod and maturity genes on plant growth, partitioning, radiation use efficiency, and yield in soyabean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] ‘Clark’. Ann Bot 85:335–343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. FAO (1982) Legumes in human nutrition. FAO food & nutrition paper no. 20, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

  79. FAO (2009) FAOStat. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  80. Farooq M, Wahid A, Basra NKDFSM, Fujita NKD, Plant SM (2009) Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron Sustain Dev 29(1):185–212. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Fasoyiro SB, Ajibade SR, Omole AJ, Adeniyan ON, Farinde EO (2006) Proximate, minerals and antinutritional factors of some underutilized grain legumes in south-western Nigeria. Nutr Food Sci 36:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/00346650610642151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Fatimah S, Arifin Ardiarini NR, Kuswanto (2018) Genetic diversity of Madurese bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) lines based on morphological and RAPD markers. SABRAO J Breed Genet 50:101–114

    Google Scholar 

  83. Feldman A, Ho WK, Massawe F, Mayes S (2019) Climate-resilient crop: bambara groundnut: how could a drought-tolerant and nutritious legume improve community resilience in the face of climate change? In: Sarkar A et al (eds) Sustainable solutions for food security. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  84. Fleming JE, Ellis RH, John P, Summerfield RJ, Roberts H (1997) Developmental implications of photoperiod sensitivity in soyabean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Int J Plant Sci 158:142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Flohr ML, Williams JH, Lenz F (1990) The effect of photoperiod on the reproductive development of a photoperiod sensitive groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) Cv. Nc Ac 17090. Exp Agric 26(4):397–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Garner WW, Allard HA (1920) Effect of the relative length of day and night and other factors of the environment on growth and reproduction in plants. J Agric Res 18:553–606

    Google Scholar 

  87. Garner W, Allard H (1927) Effect of short alternating periods of light and darkness on plant growth. Science 66(1697):40–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Gbaguidi AA, Dansi A, Dossou-Aminon I, Gbemavo DSJC, Orobiyi A, Sanoussi F, Yedomonhan H (2018) Agromorphological diversity of local bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) collected in Benin. Genet Resour Crop Evol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-017-0603-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Goli AE (1997) Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc.). In: Heller J, Begemann F, Mushonda J (eds) Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops, vol 9. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, p 167

    Google Scholar 

  90. Goli AE, Begemann F, Ng NQ (1991) Germplasm diversity in bambara groundnut and prospects for crop improvement. In: Ng NQ, Perrino P, Attere F, Zedan H (eds) Crop genetic resources of Africa, vol 2. IITA, IBPGR, UNEP, CNR, Rome, pp 195–202

    Google Scholar 

  91. Guiamet JJ, Nakayama F (1984) The effects of long days upon reproductive growth in soybeans (Glycine max (L) Merr) Cv Williams. Jpn J Crop Sci 53(1):35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Halimi AR, Mayes S, Barkla B, King G (2019) The potential of the underutilized pulse bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) for nutritional food security. J Food Compos Anal 77:47–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Hamner KC (1944) Photoperiodism in plants. Ann Rev Biochem 13(1):575–590

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Harris D, Azam-Ali S (1993) Implications of day length sensitivity in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) for production in Botswana. J Agric Sci 120(01):75–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Harris D, Matthews RB, Rao RCN, Williams JH (1988) The physiological-basis for yield differences between 4 genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. 3. Developmental processes. Exp Agric 24(2):215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Heller J, Begemann F, Mushonga J (1997) Bambara groundnut Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. In: Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops, vol. 9. Proceedings of the workshop on Conservation and Improvement of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.), 14–16 November 1995, Harare, Zimbabwe. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy

  97. Hepper FN (1963) Plants of the 1957–58 West African expedition: II. The bambara groundnut (Voandzeia subterranea) and Kersting’s groundnut (Kerstingiella geocarpa) Wild in West Africa. Kew Bull 16:395. https://doi.org/10.2307/4114681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Hillocks RJ, Bennett C, Mponda OM (2012) Bambara nut: a review of utilisation, market potential and crop improvement. Afr Crop Sci J 20(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  99. Himmelbauer ML, Loiskandl W, Kastanek F (2004) Estimating length, average diameter and surface area of roots using two different image analyses systems. Plant Soil 260:111–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Ho WK, Muchugi A, Muthemba S, Kariba R, Mavenkeni BO, Hendre P, Song B, Deynze AV, Massawe F, Mayes S (2016) Use of microsatellite markers for the assessment of bambara groundnut breeding system and varietal purity before genome sequencing. Genome. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2016-0029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Ho WK, Chai HH, Kendabie P, Ahmad NS, Jani J, Massawe F, Kilian A, Mayes S (2017) Integrating genetic maps in bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc.] and their syntenic relationships among closely related legumes. BMC Genom 18:192. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-3393-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Ijarotimi OS, Esho TR (2009) Comparison of nutritional composition and anti-nutrient status of fermented, germinated and roasted bambara groundnut seeds (Vigna subterranea). Br Food J 111(4):376–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910951515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Imrie BC, Lawn RJ (1990) time to flowering of mung bean (Vigna radiata) genotypes and their hybrids in response to photoperiod and temperature. Exp Agric 26(3):307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014) AR5 Climate change 2014 synthesis report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  105. Izawa T, Oikawa T, Tokutomi S, Okuno K, Shimamoto K (2000) Phytochromes confer the photoperiodic control of flowering in rice (a short-day plant). Plant J 22(5):391–399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Jackson SD (2009) Plant responses to photoperiod. New Phytol 181(3):517–531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Jorgensen ST, Aubanton M, Harmonic C, Dieryck C, Jacobsen S, Simonsen H, Ntundu W, Stadler F, Basu S, Christiansen J (2009) Identification of photoperiod neutral lines of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) from Tanzania. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 6:2023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Jorgensen ST, Liu F, Ouédraogo M, Ntundu WH, Sarrazin J, Christiansen JL (2010) Drought responses of two bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) landraces collected from a dry and a humid area of Africa. J Agron Crop Sci 196(6):412–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00435.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Joshi DC, Singh V, Hunt C, Mace E, van Oosterom E, Sulman R, Jordan D, Hammer G (2017) Development of a phenotyping platform for high throughput screening of nodal root angle in sorghum. Plant Methods 13(56):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0206-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Kantolic AG, Slafer GA (2005) Reproductive development and yield components in indeterminate soybean as affected by post-flowering photoperiod. Field Crops Res 93(2–3):212–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Kantolic AG, Slafer GA (2007) Development and seed number in indeterminate soybean as affected by timing and duration of exposure to long photoperiods after flowering. Ann Bot 99(5):925–933

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Kantolic AG, Mercau JL, Slafer GA, Sadras VO (2007) Simulated yield advantages of extending post-flowering development at the expense of a shorter pre-flowering development in soybean. Field Crops Res 101(3):321–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Kantolic AG, Peralta GE, Slafer GA (2013) Seed number responses to extended photoperiod and shading during reproductive stages in indeterminate soybean. Eur J Agron 51:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Kaptso GK, Njintang NY, Hounhouigan JD, Scher J, Mbofung CMF (2007) Production of bambara groundnut (Voandzeia subterranean) flour for use in the preparation of koki (a steamed cooked paste): effect of ph and salt concentration on the physicochemical properties of flour. Int J Food Eng. https://doi.org/10.2202/1556-3758.1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Karikari S, Sebolai B, Munthali D (1996) Field studies of Bambara groundnut in Botswana. In Proceedings of international bambara groundnut symposium, pp 71–84

  116. Karikari S, Wigglesworth D, Kwerepe B, Balole T, Sebolai B, Munthali D (1997) Country report: Botswana. In: Proceeding of a workshop on conservation and improvement of bambara groundnut, pp 11–18

  117. Kelly JD, Bornowski N (2018) Marker-assisted breeding for economic traits in common bean. In: Gosal S, Wani S (eds) Biotechnologies of crop improvement. Springer International Publishing AG, Berlin, pp 211–238

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  118. Kendabie P (2014) Unravelling photoperiod effects on pod-set and pod-filling in bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.]—a drought tolerant African legume with potential to contribute to global food security. Dissertation, University of Nottingham

  119. Khan F, Chai HH, Ajmera I, Hodgman C, Mayes S, Lu C (2017) A transcriptomic comparison of two bambara groundnut landraces under dehydration stress. Genes 8(4):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes8040121

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Kilian A, Wenzl P, Huttner E, Carling J, Xia L, Blois H et al (2012) Diversity arrays technology: a generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. In: Bonin FPAA (ed) Data production and analysis in population genomics: methods and protocol. Springer, New York, pp 67–89

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  121. Kole C, Muthamilarasan M, Henry R, Edwards D, Sharma R, Abberton M, Prasad M et al (2015) Application of genomics-assisted breeding for generation of climate resilient crops: progress and prospects. Front Plant Sci 6:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Kornegay J, White JW, Dominguez JR, Tejada G, Cajiao C (1993) Inheritance of photoperiod response in andean and Mesoamerican common bean. Crop Sci 33(5):977–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Laary JK, Ofori K, Kumaga FK (2012) The influence of soil moisture status on reproductive growth and development of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc) landraces in Ghana. APRN J Agric Biol Sci 7(10):845–851

    Google Scholar 

  124. Lawn RJ (1989) agronomic and physiological constraints to the productivity of tropical grain legumes and prospects for improvement. Exp Agric 25(4):509–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Leport L, Turner NC, French RJ, Barr MD, Duda R, Davies SL, Tennant D, Siddique KHM (1999) Physiological responses of chickpea genotypes to terminal drought in a Mediterranean-type environment. Eur J Agron 11:279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Linnemann AR (1987) Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.): a review. Abstr Trop Agric 12(7):9–25

    Google Scholar 

  127. Linnemann AR (1993) Phenological development of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc.) at constant exposure to photoperiod of 10 h and 16 h. Ann Bot 71:445–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Linnemann AR, Azam Ali S (1993) Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). In: Williams JT (ed) Underutilized crops series 2. Vegetables and pulses. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp 13–58

    Google Scholar 

  129. Linnemann AR, Craufurd PQ (1994) Effects of temperature and photoperiod on phenological development in three genotypes of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea). Ann Bot 74:675–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Linnemann AR, Westphal E, Wessel M (1995) Photoperiod regulation of development and growth in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea). Field Crops Res 40:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Liu F, Stützel H (2002) leaf expansion, stomatal conductance, and transpiration of vegetable Amaranth (Amaranthus sp.) in response to soil drying. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127(127):878–88387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Liu F, Jensen CR, Andersen MN (2005) A review of drought adaptation in crop plants: changes in vegetative and reproductive physiology induced by ABA-based chemical signals. Aust J Agric Res 56:1245–1252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Ludlow MM, Muchow RC (1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Adv Agron 43:107–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Mabhaudhi T, Modi AT (2013) Growth, phenological and yield responses of a bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) landrace to imposed water stress under field conditions. S Afr J Plant Soil 30(2):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2013.790492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Mabhaudhi T, Modi AT, Beletse YG (2013) Growth, phenological and yield responses of a bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc) landrace to imposed water stress: II. Rain shelter conditions. Water SA 39:191–198

    Google Scholar 

  136. Mabhaudhi T, Kunz RP, Schulze RE (2016) Bambara groundnut in South Africa and climate change. In: Schulze RE (ed) Handbook for farmers, officials and other stakeholders on adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector within South Africa. Section C: Crops in South Africa and climate change, Chapter C7. Minstry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of South Africa

  137. Mabhaudhi T, Chibarabada TP, Chimonyo VGP, Modi AT (2018) Modelling climate change impact: a case of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea). Phys Chem Earth 105:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Mairhofer S, Zappala S, Tracy SR, Sturrock CJ, Bennett M, Mooney SJ, Pridmore T (2011) Root Trak: automated recovery of 3D plant root architecture in soil from X-ray micro computed tomography using visual tracking. Plant Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.186221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Massawe FJ (2000) Phenotypic and genetic diversity in Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc) landraces. PhD. thesis, University of Nottingham, UK

  140. Massawe F, Dickinson M, Roberts J, Azam-Ali S (2003a) Genetic diversity in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc) landraces revealed by AFLP markers. Genome. https://doi.org/10.1139/g02-093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Massawe F, Roberts J, Azam-Ali S, Davey MR (2003b) Genetic diversity in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc) landraces assessed by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol 50:737–741. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025041301787

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Massawe F, Schenkel W, Basu S, Temba EM (2003c) Artificial hybridisation in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). In: Proceedings of the international bambara groundnut symposium, Botswana, vol 1, pp 193–209

  143. Massawe FJ, Mwale SS, Azam-Ali SN, Roberts JA (2005) Breeding in bambara groundnut (Vigna Subterranea (L.) Verdc.): strategic considerations. Afr J Biotechnol 4:463–471

    Google Scholar 

  144. Mayes S, Basu S, Murchie E, Roberts JA, Azam-Ali SN, Stadler F, Mohler V, Wenzel G, Massawe F, Kilian A, Bonin A, Beena A, Sheshshayee MS (2009) BAMLINK—a cross disciplinary programme to enhance the role of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) for food security in Africa and India. Acta Hortic. https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2009.806.15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Mayes S, Massawe FJ, Alderson PG, Roberts JA, Azam-Ali SN, Hermann M (2012) The potential for underutilized crops to improve security of food production. J Exp Bot 63(3):1075–1079

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Mayes S, Ho WK, Kendabie P, Chai HH, Aliyu S, Feldman A et al (2015a) Applying molecular genetics to underutilised species—problems and opportunities. Malays Appl Biol 44(4):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  147. Mayes S, Stadler F, Ribas-vargas G, Basu S, Massawe F (2015b) Marker-assisted breeding in crops: wheat and bambara groundnut as two contrasting examples of progress. International Society of Oil Palm Breeders, Kuala Lumpur, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  148. Mazahib AM, Nuha MO, Salawa IS, Babiker EE (2013) Some nutritional attributes of bambara groundnut as influenced by domestic processing. Int Food Res J 20:1165–1171

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Molosiwa OO (2012) Genetic diversity and population structure analysis of bambara groundnuts (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) landraces using morpho-agronomic characters and SSR markers. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham

  150. Molosiwa OO, Aliyu S, Stadler F, Mayes K, Massawe F, Kilian A, Mayes S (2015) SSR marker development, genetic diversity and population structure analysis of Bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] landraces. Genet Resour Crop Evol 62:1225–1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-015-0226-6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Morandi EN, Casano LM, Reggiardo LM (1988) Post-flowering photoperiodic effect on reproductive efficiency and seed growth in soybean. Field Crops Res 18(4):227–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Morandi EN, Schussler JR, Brenner ML (1990) Photoperiodically induced changes in seed growth rate of soybean as related to endogenous concentrations of ABA and sucrose in seed tissues. Ann Bot 66:605–611

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. Mubaiwa J, Fogliano V, Chidewe C, Linnemann AR (2017) Hard-to-cook phenomenon in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) processing: options to improve its role in providing food security. Food Rev Int 33(2):167–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. Mubaiwa J, Fogliano V, Chidewe C, Bakker EJ, Linnemann AR (2018) Utilization of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) for sustainable food and nutrition security in semi-arid regions of Zimbabwe. PLoS One 13(10):e0204817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Muhammad YY, Mayes S, Massawe F (2015) Effects of short term water deficit stress on physiological characteristics of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc.). S Afr J Plant Soil 33(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  156. Murevanhema YY, Jideani VA (2013) Potential of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc) milk as a probiotic beverage—a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53:954–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.574803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Mwale SS, Azam-Ali SN, Massawe FJ (2007) Growth and development of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) in response to soil moisture. 2. Resource capture and conversion. Eur J Agron 26(4):354–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Nautiyal PC, Kulkarni G, Singh AL, Basu MS (2017) Evaluation of water-deficit stress tolerance in Bambara groundnut landraces for cultivation in sub-tropical environments in India. Indian J Plant Physiol 22(2):190–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40502-017-0296-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Nedumaran S, Abinaya P, Jyosthnaa P, Shraavya B, Rao P, Bantilan C (2015) Grain legumes production, consumption and trade trends in developing countries. Working paper series no. 60. ICRISAT Research Program, Markets, Institutions and Policies. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Telangana, India

  160. Nico M, Miralles DJ, Kantolic AG (2015) Post-flowering photoperiod and radiation interaction in soybean yield determination: direct and indirect photoperiodic effects. Field Crop Res 176:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Nishitani T, Muraki K, Inoue J (1988) Effect of daylength on the flowering and fruiting in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdec.). Jpn J Trop Agric 32:80–84

    Google Scholar 

  162. Nti CA (2009) Effects of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) variety and processing on the quality and consumer appeal for its products. Int J Food Sci Technol 44:2234–2242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02064.x

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Ntundu WH, Bach IC, Christiansen JL, Andersen SB (2004) Analysis of genetic diversity in bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] landraces using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. Afr J Biotechnol 3(4):220–225

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  164. Okonkwo SI, Opara MF (2010) The analysis of Bambara Nut (Voandzeia subterranea (L.) Thouars) for sustainability in Africa. Res J Appl Sci 5:394–396. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjasci.2010.394.396

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Okpuzor J, Ogbunugafor HA, Okafor U, Sofidiya MO (2010) Identification of protein types in bambara nut seeds: perspectives for dietary protein supply in developing countries. EXCLI J 9:17–28

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Olayide OE, Donkoh SA, Ansah IGK, Adzawla W, O’Reilly PJ, Mayes S, Feldman A, Halimi RA, Nyarko G, Ilori CO, Alabi T (2018) Assessing the socioeconomic factors influencing bambara groundnut as an indigenous climate resilient crop in Nigeria. In: Filho WL (ed) Handbook of climate change resilience. Springer Nature, Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71025-92018 (Springer Reference)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  167. Olukolu BA, Mayes S, Stadler F, Ng NQ, Fawole I, Dominique D, Azam-Ali SN, Abbott AG, Kole C (2012) Genetic diversity in Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L) Verdc) as revealed by phenotypic descriptors and DArT marker analysis. Genet Resour Crop Evol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-011-9686-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Oyeyinka SA, Singh S, Adebola PO, Gerrano AS, Amonsou EO (2015) Physicochemical properties of starches with variable amylose contents extracted from bambara groundnut genotypes. Carbohydr Polym 133:171–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Oyiga BC (2010) Studies on aspects of reproductive biology and pod yield in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). University of Nigeria, Nsukka

    Google Scholar 

  170. Padulosi S, Heywood V, Hunter D, Jarvis A (2011) Underutilized species and climate change: current status and outlook. In: Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Hatfield JL, Lotze‐Campen H, Hall AE (eds) Crop adaptation to climate change. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 507–521

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  171. Pasquet RS (2004) Bambara groundnut and cowpea genepool organization and domestication. In: Conference proceedings of the international bambara groundnut symposium, 5–12 September 2003, Gaborone, Botswana, pp 265–274

  172. Pasquet RS, Fotso M (1997) The ORSTOM bambara groundnut collection. In: Heller J, Begemann F, Mushonga J (eds) Bambara groundnut, Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. IPGRI, Rome, pp 119–123

    Google Scholar 

  173. Pasquet RS, Schwedes S, Gepts P (1999) Isozyme diversity in bambara groundnut. Crop Sci 39:1228–1236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  174. Piepho HP (2000) A mixed-model approach to mapping quantitative trait loci in barley on the basis of multiple environment data. Genetics 156:2043–2050

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  175. Pound MP, French AP, Atkinson JA, Wells DM, Bennett MJ, Prid-more T (2013) RootNav: navigating images of complex root architectures. Plant Physiol 162:1802–1814

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  176. Raper DC Jr, Thomas JF (1978) Photoperiodic alteration of dry matter partitioning and seed yield in soybean. Crop Sci 18:654–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Richard CA, Hickey LT, Fletcher S, Jennings R, Chenu K, Christopher JT (2015) High throughput phenotyping of seminal root traits in wheat. Plant Methods 11(13):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-015-0055-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Rowland JR (1993) Dry farming in Africa. Macmillan Press Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  179. Rungnoi O, Suwanprasert J, Somta P, Srinives P (2012) Molecular genetic diversity of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) revealed by RAPD and ISSR marker analysis. SABRAO J Breed Genet 44:87–101

    Google Scholar 

  180. Ryosuke T, Yoichiro K (2013) A quick method to estimate root length in each diameter class using freeware ImageJ. Plant Prod Sci 16(1):9–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Saglam A, Terzi R, Demiralay M (2014) Effect of polyethylene glycol induced drought stress on photosynthesis in two chickpea genotypes with different drought tolerance. Acta Biol Hung 65(2):178–188. https://doi.org/10.1556/ABiol.65.2014.2.6

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Salekdeh GH, Reynolds M, Bennett J, Boyer J (2009) Conceptual framework for drought phenotyping during molecular breeding. Trends Plant Sci 14:488–496

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Schmutz J, McClean PE, Mamidi S, Cannon SB, Grimwood J, Jenkins J et al (2014) A reference genome for common bean and genome-wide analysis of dual domestications. Nat Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Sesay A, Magagula CN, Mansuetus AB (2008) Influence of sowing date and environmental factors on the development and yield of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) landraces in a sub-tropical region. Exp Agric 44(2):167–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Siddique MRB, Hamid A, Islam MS (2001) Drought stress effects on water relations of wheat. Bot Bull Acad Sin 41:35–39

    Google Scholar 

  186. Singh BB, Matsui T (2002) Breeding cowpea varieties for drought tolerance. In: Fatokun CA, Tarawali SA, Singh BB, Kormawa PM, Tamo M (eds) Challenges and opportunities for enhancing sustainable cowpea production. IITA, Ibadan, pp 287–300

    Google Scholar 

  187. Slafer GA, González FG, Kantolic AG, Whitechurch EM, Abeledo LG, Miralles DJ, Savin R (2006) Grain number determination in major grain crops. In: Basra AS (ed) Handbook of seed science and technology. The Haworth Press, New York, pp 95–123

    Google Scholar 

  188. Somta P, Chankaew S, Rungnoi O, Srinives P (2011) Genetic diversity of the bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) as assessed by SSR markers. Genome. https://doi.org/10.1139/g11-056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Song YH, Ito S, Imaizumi T (2010) Similarities in the circadian clock and photoperiodism in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 13(5):594–603

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. Sprent JI, Odee DW, Dakora FD (2010) African legumes: a vital but under-utilized resource. J Exp Bot 61(5):1257–1265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Stadler F (2009) Analysis of differential gene expression under water-deficit stress and genetic diversity in Bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] using novel high-throughput technologies. PhD thesis, Technische Universitat Munchen, Germany

  192. Stanton WR, Doughty J, Orraca-Tetteh R, Steele W (1966) Voandzeia subterranea Thouars. In: Stanton WR (ed) Grain legumes in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, pp 128–133

    Google Scholar 

  193. Summerfield RJ, Roberts EH, Ellis RH, Lawn RJ (1991) Towards the Reliable prediction of time to flowering in 6 annual crops. 1. The development of simple-models for fluctuating field environments. Exp Agric 27(1):11–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Summerfield RJ, Lawn RJ, Qi A, Ellis RH, Roberts EH, Chay PM, Brouwer JB, Rose JL, Shanmugasundaram S, Yeates SJ, Sandover S (1993) Towards the reliable prediction of time to flowering in 6 annual crops. 2. Soybean (Glycine max). Exp Agric 29(3):253–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Summerfield RJ, Asumadu H, Ellis RH, Qi A (1998) Characterization of the photoperiodic response of post-flowering development in maturity isolines of soyabean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] ‘Clark’. Ann Bot 82(6):765–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Suwanprasert J, Toojinda T, Srinives P, Chanprame S (2006) Hybridization technique for Bambara groundnut. Breed Sci. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.56.125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Thomas B, Vince-Prue D (1996) Photoperiodism in plants. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  198. Vurayai R, Emongor V, Moseki B (2011) Effect of water stress imposed at different growth and developmental stages on morphological traits and yield of Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc). Am J Plant Physiol 6(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajpp.2011.17.27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Wallace DH, Yourstone KS, Masaya PN, Zobel RW (1993) Photoperiod gene-control over partitioning between reproductive and vegetative growth. Theor Appl Genet 86(1):6–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Weller JL, Liew LC, Hecht VFG, Rajandran V, Laurie RE, Ridge S, Wenden B, Vander Schoor JK, Jaminon O, Blassiau C, Dalmais M, Rameau C, Bendahmane A, Macknight RC, Lejeune-Henaut I (2012) A conserved molecular basis for photoperiod adaptation in two temperate legumes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(51):21158–21163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Witzenberger A, Williams JH, Lenz F (1988) Influence of daylength on yield-determining processes in 6 groundnut cultivars (Arachis hypogaea). Field Crops Res 18(2–3):89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Xu Z, Zhou G, Shimizu H (2010) Plant responses to drought and rewatering. Plant Signal Behav 5(6):649–654. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.5.6.11398

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. Zeven AC (1998) Landraces: a review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica 104:127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Zhang H, Pala M, Oweis T, Harris HC (2000) Water use and water use efficiency of chickpea and lentil in a Mediterranean environment. Aust J Agric Res 51:295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Grant no. R3W26).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Mayes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayes, S., Ho, W.K., Chai, H.H. et al. Bambara groundnut: an exemplar underutilised legume for resilience under climate change. Planta 250, 803–820 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03191-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bambara groundnut
  • Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.
  • Underutilised legume
  • Marker-assisted breeding
  • Photoperiod
  • Hard-to-cook