Advertisement

Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 303–320 | Cite as

Agronomical, phenological and physiological performance of common bean lines in the Amazon region of Colombia

  • Juan Carlos Suárez Salazar
  • José A. Polanía
  • Amara Tatiana Contreras Bastidas
  • Leonardo Rodríguez Suárez
  • Steve Beebe
  • Idupulapati M. Rao
Article

Abstract

The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a major food legume cultivated by smallholder farmers in the tropics of Latin America and eastern and southern Africa. Acid soil and high temperature limit its production. Here we quantify differences in agronomical, phenological and physiological performance of common bean lines in order to identify promising lines with adaptation to acid soils and high temperatures in the Amazon region of Colombia. A field study was conducted using a 6 × 6 Alfa Lattice design with four replications consisting of 30 genotypes and one control genotype (Calima) which was repeated six times in each block (with a total of 36 plots) to cope with the spatial variability within the experimental site. During the growing period of the crop, maximum and minimum average temperatures were 32 and 23 °C, respectively while the total precipitation was 933 mm and the soil was acidic with aluminum toxicity. Differences in agronomical (grain yield, canopy biomass, number of seeds and pods per area), phenological (days to flowering and days to physiological maturity) and physiological (biomass partitioning, photosynthetic ability and pollen viability) attributes among the genotypes tested were quantified. The results obtained on the relationships between different plant attributes indicated that adaptation to acid soils and high temperatures is related to pollen viability, earliness, greater values of canopy biomass and better mobilization of plant reserves to the formation of pods and grains. Two common bean lines (BFS 10 and NCB 280) were identified as better adapted to the combined conditions of acidic soil and high temperatures in the Amazon region of Colombia.

Keywords

Acid soil Assimilate remobilization Genotypic variation Heat Pod partitioning index Grain yield 

References

  1. Araujo S, Beebe S, Crespi M, Delbreil B, González E, Gruber V, Lejeune-Henaut I, Link W, Monteros M, Prats E, Rao I, Valdez V, Vaz Patto M (2015) Abiotic stress responses in legumes: strategies used to cope with environmental challenges. Crit Rev Plant Sci 34:237–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.898450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assefa T, Sperling L, Dgne B, Argaw W, Tessema D, Rubryogo J (2013) Participatory plant breeding with traders and farmers for white pea bean in Ethiopia. J Agric Educ Ext 20:497–512.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.824385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assefa T, Wu J, Beebe S, Rao I, Marcomin D, Claude R (2015) Improving adaptation to drought stress in small red common bean: phenotypic differences and predicted genotypic effects on grain yield, yield components and harvest index. Euphytica 203:477–489.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1242-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Assefa T, Rao I, Cannon S, Wu J, Guatema Z, Blair M, Otyama P, Alemayehu F, Dagne B (2017) Improving adaptation to drought stress in white pea bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): genotypic effects on grain yield, yield components and pod harvest index. Plant Breed.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beebe S, Ramirez J, Jarvis A, Rao I, Mosquera G, Bueno M, Blair M (2011) Genetic improvement of common beans and the challenges of climate change. Crop Adapt Clim Change.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470960929.ch25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebe S, Rao I, Blair M, Acosta-Gallegos J (2013) Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Front Physiol 4:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beebe S, Rao I, Devi J, Polanía J (2014) Common beans, biodiversity, and multiple stresses: challenges of drought resistance in tropical soils. Crop Pasture Sci 65:667–675.  https://doi.org/10.1071/CP13303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bingham J (2001) Soil root canopy interactions. Ann Appl Biol 138:243–251.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00108.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair M, Lopez-Marin H, Rao I (2009) Identification of aluminium resistant Andean common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Braz J Plant Physiol 21:291–300.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202009000400005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1071/AR05069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blum A (2009) Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crop Res 112:119–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butare L, Rao I, Lepoivre P, Polania J, Cajiao C, Cuasquer J, Beebe S (2011a) New genetic sources of resistance in the genus Phaseolus to individual and combined aluminium toxicity and progressive soil drying stresses. Euphytica 181:385–404.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0468-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butare L, Rao I, Lepoivre P, Cajiao C, Polania J, Cuasquer J, Beebe S (2011b) Phenotypic evaluation of interspecific recombinant inbred lines (RILs) of Phaseolus species for aluminium resistance and root growth response to aluminium-toxic acid soil. Euphytica 186:715.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0564-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel E (1997) The temperature dependence of photoinhibition in leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris (L.) Influence of CO2 and O2 concentrations. Plant Sci 124:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(96)04574-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Rienzo A, Casanoves F, Balzarini G, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo W (2017) InfoStat versión (2017). Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. http://www.infostat.com.ar
  16. Hall E (2004) Comparative ecophysiology of cowpea, common bean, and peanut. In: Nguyen HT, Blum A (eds) Physiology and biotechnology integration for plant breeding. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, pp 271–325Google Scholar
  17. León I (2009) La antracnosis y la mancha angular del frijol común (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Temas de Ciencia y Tecnología 13:45–54Google Scholar
  18. Long S, Zhu X, Naidu S, Ort D (2006) Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields? Plant, Cell Environ 29:315–330.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01493.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Omae H, Kumar A, Kashiwaba K, Shono M (2006) Influence of high temperature on morphological characters, biomass allocation, and yield components in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Prod Sci 9:200–205.  https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.9.200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Omae H, Kumar A, Kashiwaba K, Shono M (2007) Influence of temperature shift after flowering on dry matter partitioning in two cultivars of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) that differ in heat tolerance. Plant Prod Sci 10:14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.10.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Omae H, Kumar A, Kashiwaba K, Shono M (2012) Adaptation to high temperature and water deficit in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) during the reproductive period. J Bot 1:6.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/803413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polania J, Rao I, Mejía S, Beebe S, Cajiao C (2012) Características morfo-fisiológicas de frijol común (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) relacionados con la adaptación a sequía. Acta Agron 61:197–206Google Scholar
  23. Polania J, Poschenrieder C, Rao I, Beebe S (2016a) Estimation of phenotypic variability in symbiotic nitrogen fixation ability of common bean under drought stress using 15 N natural abundance in grain. Eur J Agron 79:66–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polania J, Poschenrieder C, Rao I, Beebe S (2016b) Estimation of phenotypic variability in symbiotic nitrogen fixation ability of common bean under drought stress using 15 N natural abundance in grain. Eur J Agron 79:66–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Polania J, Poschenrieder C, Rao I, Beebe S (2017) Root traits and their potential links to plant ideotypes to improve drought resistance in common bean. Theor Exp Plant Physiol 29(3):143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Polanía J, Rao I, Cajiao C, Rivera M, Bodo R, Beebe S (2016) Physiological traits associated with drought resistance in andean and mesoamerican genotypes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica 210:17–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-016-1691-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porch G, Jahn M (2001) Effects of high-temperature stress on microsporogenesis in heat-sensitive and heat-tolerant genotypes of Phaseolus vulgaris. Plant Cell Environ 24:723–731.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00716.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rainey M, Griffiths D (2005) Identification of heat tolerant Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray plant introductions following exposure to high temperatures in a controlled environment. Genet Resour Crop Evol 52:117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rangel A, Mohammad M, Rao I, Horst W (2005) Proton toxicity interferes with the screening of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes for aluminium resistance in nutrient solution. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 168:607–616.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200520509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rangel A, Rao I, Horst W (2007) Spatial aluminium sensitivity of root apices of two common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes with contrasting aluminium resistance. J Exp Bot 58:3895–3904.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rao I (2014) Advances in improving adaptation of common bean and Brachiaria forage to abiotic stresses in the tropic. In: Pessarakli M (ed) Handbook of plant and crop physiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 847–889.  https://doi.org/10.1201/b16675-49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rao I, Beebe S, Polania J, Ricaurte J, Cajiao C, Garcia R et al (2013) Can tepary bean be a model for improvement of drought resistance in common bean? Afr Crop Sci J 21:265–281Google Scholar
  33. Rao I, Miles J, Beebe S, Horst W (2016) Root adaptations to soils with low fertility and aluminium toxicity. Ann Bot 118:593–605.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rao I, Beebe S, Polania J, Grajales M, Cajiao C, Ricaurte J, García R, Rivera M (2017) Evidence for genotypic differences among elite lines of common bean in their ability to remobilize photosynthate to increase yield under drought. J Agric Sci 155:857–875.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859616000915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suzuki K, Tsukaguchi T, Takeda H, Egawa Y (2001) Decrease of pollen stainability of green bean at high temperatures and relationship to heat tolerance. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 126:571–574Google Scholar
  36. Traub J, Kelly J, Loescher W (2017) Early metabolic and photosynthetic responses to drought stress in common and Tepary bean. Crop Sci 57:1670–1686.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.09.0746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang Z, Rao I, Horst W (2013) Interaction of aluminium and drought stress on root growth and crop yield on acid soils. Plant Soil 372:3–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1580-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brazilian Society of Plant Physiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ingeniería, Programa de Ingeniería AgroecológicaUniversidad de la AmazoniaCaquetáColombia
  2. 2.Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)CaliColombia
  3. 3.Plant Polymer Research Unit, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of AgriculturePeoriaUSA

Personalised recommendations